chapter-iii method and research...
TRANSCRIPT
CHAPTER-III METHOD AND RESEARCH TECHNNIQUES
This chapter deals with the methodological framework ssssssfor conducting
the present study. The main aim of the present study is to determine the "the
interaction effect of some personality correlates and socio economic status in on
vocational aspiration and occupational choice of professional college students" to
be more specific, this chapter describes the population, sample, methods and tools
which are used in the collection of data and also the statistical technique which has
been used in the analysis and interpretation of data. It consists of five steps which
describe:
The method of the study.
Population and sample selection procedure
The variables and their management
Tools used in the study for data collection
Statistical technique used for analysis of the data and testing for hypotheses
of the study
3.1 METHOD OF THE STUDY:
The main aim of the present study was to determine the interaction effect of
some personality correlates and socio economic status on vocational aspiration and
occupational choice of professional college students. The present study also aimed
at finding out the main effects of the independent variables upon the dependent
variable. Considering the nature and objectives of the present study as well as the
resources of the research survey method, the under the descriptive Research
Method was used for this purpose. All the norms and conditions have been strictly
followed, which are essential for survey method.
The researcher studied the main effects of gender personality, socio
economic status on student's vocational aspiration and occupational choice
individually. The researcher also studied the interaction effect among all these
variables i.e. personality, socio economic status, gender on vocational aspiration
and occupational choices of Professional College Students.
54
3.2 POPULATION AND THE SAMPLE
In the present study the population has been define as 1. All first year
students of Engineering (Information Technology, Computer Science, Electronics
& Communication, Mechanical Branch (B.Tech) Students) institute of Meerut city
affiliated with U.P.T.U Lucknow. 2. All the first year students of B.B.A
(Management) institute of Meerut city affiliated with C.C.S University Meerut. 3.
All Teacher Education (B.Ed Students) institute of Meerut City affiliated with
C.C.S University Meerut.
The researcher prepared a list of professional institutes (Engineering,
Management (B.B.A), Teacher Education (B.Ed) through the list of total
professional institutes of Meerut city. 15 Professional colleges (Engineering,
Management, Teacher Education) were selected through random sampling(Lottery
method). The total number of selected students was 480, Random sampling
(Lottery method) was used at every stage. The total sample consists of 480
students in which 240 boys and 240 girls were selected from the total students of
15 professional colleges.
The details of sampling category are given in following tables:
(a) Distribution of Engineering Students
Table 3.1
Name of Engineering colleges and number of respondents
Category of students Course from which this students are taken
Respondents Total
Boys Girls
Engineering College of Engineering & Rural Technology Partapur, Meerut 16 16 32
Engineering ABSS Institute of Technology Roorkee road, Meerut 16 16 32
Engineering Shri Nath ji Institute for technical Education 16 16 32
Engineering Panchwati Institute of Engineering & Technology Meerut 16 16 32
Engineering Radha Govind Engineering College, Garh Road, Meerut 16 16 32
55
(b) Distribution of Management Students (B.B.A)
Table 3.2
Name of Management colleges (B.B.A) and number of respondents
Category of students
Course from which this students are taken
Respondents Total
Boys Girls
Management Adharsila College of Management studies 16 16 32
Management Deewan Institute Partapur, Bi-pass, Meerut 16 16 32
Management Institute of Informatics & management studies Garh Road, Meerut
16 16 32
Management Translam Institute of Technology and Management 16 16 32
Management BDS College of Management Studies 16 16 32
(c) Distribution of Teacher Education Students (B.Ed)
Table 3.3
Name of Teacher Education colleges (B.Ed) and number of respondents
Category of students Course from which this students are taken
Respondents Total
Boys Girls
B.Ed Kishan Institute of Teacher’s Education, Meerut 16 16 32
B.Ed G.I.P.S., Hapur Bi-pass, Meerut 16 16 32
B.Ed Trident College of Education Partapur Bi-pass, Meerut 16 16 32
B.Ed Presidency College of Education Satabdi Nagar Meerut 16 16 32
B.Ed College of Professional Education (C.P.E) Garh road Meerut 16 16 32
56
(d) Distribution of Boys and Girls Respondents in all selected Professional
colleges
Table 3.4
Category of Colleges and number of Boys and Girls respondents
Category of Colleges
Boys Respondents
Girls Respondents
Total Respondents
Engineering (B.Tech) 80 80 160
Management (B.B.A) 80 80 160
Teacher Education (B.Ed) 80 80 160
3.3 VARIABLES:
The variables are those which vary or change from person to person or
from situation to situation. In proceeding to define the problem of study, the
variable are clearly identified and labelled.
In the present investigation two types of variables were used. Independent
and dependent variables. Three independent variables i.e. Personality, socio-
economic status and gender. Vocational aspiration and occupational choice are the
two dependent variables.
Independent variable:
Personality Correlates
Socio-economic status
Dependent Variable:
Vocational aspiration
Occupational choices
3.4 TOOLS USED IN THE STUDY FOR DATA COLLECTION:
The present study aimed at finding out personality factors and socio-
economic status underlying the vocation aspiration, occupation choice of college
57
students. To measure the above variables the following tools, all of which are
highly valid and reliable have been employed.
1. Socio-economic status: Socio Economic Status Scale Form A (urban) by S.P.
Kulshreshta.
2. Vocational Aspiration: Vocational Aspiration Scale developed by Dr. S.K.
Singh Pundir, Dr. S.K. Agarwal and Munendra Kumar.
3. Personality Traits: Cattel's 16 P.F. questionnaire constructed by R.B. Cattle.
4. Occupational Choice: Career Preference Record (CPR) by Vivek Bhargava &
Rajshree Bhargav
A detailed account of the tools used in this study has been presented in the
following:
1. Socio-Economic status scale, Form-A (urban) - S.P. Kulshreshta
To measure socio-economic status Form-A (urban) constructed by S.P.
Kulshreshta has been used in the present study. The socio economic status
influences values, norms of behavior, achievement motivation and social
participation. It is worth studying here whether socio economic status has got any
bearing on the vocational aspiration and occupational choice of students.
Administration and scoring
The Scale is very easy to administer and most subjects find it interesting.
There is no time limit for completing the test, yet it can be completed within half
an hour. Instructions are given in the beginning of the test and therefore it is easy
to be administered by anyone. The students are requested to record their responses
on the same sheet. The scoring of the test is very easy. Soaring is done with the
help of printed scoring key. The scores of an individual on the scale is the sum of
scores of all items.
Reliability
The Reliability of the test was calculated by the test-retest method. The
scale was administered on 100 students at two different times with an interval of l0
days. The co-efficient of correlation was found to be 0.87. This is quite satisfactory
co-efficient of reliability.
58
Validity
The opinion of live sociologists, live psychologist, live economic and five
educationists, were sought. They found the scale valid for the purpose. Thus the
scale possesses contents and construct validity.
Inter–item and item- total-correlations calculated for evaluating internal
constitency. The correlations are given in the following table.
Table 3.5
Inter-Item and Item-Total Correlations S.E.E.S [Form A (Urban)]
No. Item Inter-Item And Item-Total Correlation (rang)
1 Occupation 0.10 to 0.73
2 General Education 0.11 to 0.55
3 Technical Education 0.10 to 0.50
4 Income 0.15 to 0.78
5 Culture Index 0.08 to 0.63
6 Psychological Factor 0.10 to 0.57
7 Caste 0.11 to 0.43 The Validity of the Scale was also calculated by comparing the scale with
Dr. Kuppaswami's and andey's Socio-Economic-Status questionnaire. The co-
efficient of norms correlation were found equal to .57 to .89 respectively.
Norms:
The Norms of the scale are given in the following Table:
Table 3.6
Norms of S.E.S. (Urban) (N=700 Male Students)
No. Distribution of new scores
Cutting Point in sigma units
Status Category (Socio-economic status)
1. 219 above +1.5 High
2. 1.6 to 218 -0.5 to + 1.5 Average
3. Below 105 -0.5 low
59
2. Vocational Aspiration Scale
Data relating to vocational aspiration was collected using Vocational
Aspiration Scale (VAS). This tool developed by Dr. S.K. Pundir, Dr. S.K. Agarwal
and Munendra Kumar (2011) which was adopted by getting the prestige rating of
23 vocational titles. These titles were selected from the list of different types
vocations which are mainly provided in the professional courses and training
courses in the institutions of Indian Education System. The list of 120 vocations
was prepaired on the basis of five point scale and this list was presented to the 300
experts of different vocational field on behalf of this collection through the list 23
vocations are determined in this scale as following:
l. Doctor
2. Shop keeper
3. Advocate
4. Writer
5. Musician
6. Singer
7. Office Clerk
8. Typiest
9. Painter
10. Insurance Adviser
11. Reporter
12. Social Worker
13. Farmer
14. Politician
15. Industrialist
16. Business Manager
17. Distribution Managert
18. Architect
19. Civil Engineer
60
20. Mechanical Engineer
21. Electrical Engineer
22. Computer Engineer
23. Teacher
The test booklets are usable but separate answer sheet can also be provided.
Like other tests and scales, the Vocational Aspiration Scale is also favourable. All
these 23 vocational items are distributed under the six question type statements
depending on the aspirations. This limitation, however, can be overcome by giving
specific instructions to the respondents. A proper rapport with the respondents is
also necessary before the scale is administered.
Scoring Instructions
All the twenty three items are scored in the following way. There are twelve
alternatives for each question. Only one alternative may be checked. The scores for
each alternative are as follows:
S. No.
Statement-1 Statement-2 Statement Statement-6
3 4 5
Item Nos.
Score Item Nos.
Score Item Nos.
Item NoS.
Item NoS.
Score Item NoS.
Score
1. 1.1 10 2.1 12 3.1 4.1 5.1 4 6.1 4
2. 1.2 12 2.2 11 3.2 4.2 5.2 9 6.2 5
3. 1.3 6 2.3 10 3.3 4.3 5.3 7 6.3 10
4. 1.4 2 2.4 9 3.4 4.4 5.4 8 6.4 8
5. 1.5 4 2.5 2 3.5 4.5 5.5 5 6.5 11
6. 1.6 1 2.6 3 3.6 4.6 5.6 10 6.6 12
7. 1.7 7 2.7 1 3.7 4.7 5.7 1 6.7 7
8. 1.8 8 2.8 7 3.8 4.8 5.8 6 6.8 1
9. 1.9 9 2.9 8 3.9 4.9 5.9 11 6.9 6
10. 1.10 11 2.10 4 3.10 4.10 5.10 12 6.10 9
11. 1.11 3 2.11 6 3.11 4.11 5.11 3 6.11 3
12. 1.12 5 2.12 5 3.12 4.12 5.12 2 6.12 2
61
These scores are distributed on the preference in increasing order. Score 01
indicate less preference and 12 indicate higher preference of projecte. Hence, the
minimum score may be six (06) and maximum score may be seventy two (72) for
an individual.
The total score is the sum of the scores for each of the six questions. The
raw scores may be converted into standard or ‘T’ scores it depending upon the
purpose of the study.
Norms
Norms have been determined by administering the scale to 1450
professional educatonal students belonging to different sex, age, streams, and area.
Reliability
Co-efficient of stability as determined by the test-retest method was found
to be 0.76. The test was further divided into two parallel halves (A and B) for
assessing the internal consistency. The co-efficient of internal consistency between
the two halves, A and B, was found to be 0.60.
Validity
The VAS has been validated against Dr. J.S. Grewal ‘Occupational
Aspiration Scale (1973). The co-efficient of validity was found to be 0.80.
3. 16 PF by R.B. Cattel:
The sixteen personality factor question (16PF form B) is an objectively
scorable test devired by basic research in psychology to give the most complete
coverage of personality possible in a brieftime. The test was designed for use with
individuals aged 16 and above.For the purpose of the present study and to test the
hypothesis “The 16 PF” Form was chosen. The investigation selected this test due
to a number of reasons which are given below.
1. It has well established reliability and validity.
2. An easy scoring system is also provide. It has two seprate stencil keys for quick
and accurate scoring of the answer sheets.
3. The coverage of the personality factors is more than that of other tests.
62
4. It has been widely and successfully used in the Indian students.
5. It can be administrered both in individual and group situations.
Norms:
The 16 PF test taken ten units for their point scale range, each unit being
called a sten (Standard ten). Additionally, scores can be converted to centiles,
which shows what rank the examinee would have in a group of a hundred people.
The average score on the sten scale would be 5.5 (not 5, since there is no O in the
ten point range.)The average or middle range scores are actually considered as the
value 4, 5, 6 and 7. The more extreme sten scores represent a person in the lower
(1,2,3) or upper (8,9,10) ten or fifteen percent of the populaiton on the characterstic
indeed. To obtain the sten score or central rank simple take the raw score to get
from applying the scoring key and enter in the appropriate table in the Tabular
Supplement with norms.
Design and Construction of the Test
Arrangement of quesitons: There are 10-13 items for each factor given in
the 16 PF Form B. The questions are arranged in a roughly cyclic order determined
by a plan to give maximum convenience in scoring by stencil and also to ensure
variety and interest of the examinee. The construction of Form A of the 16 PF Test
is designed equivalent to form B,C,D,E and F. Forms A and B each have 187 items
requiring 45 to 55 minutes per Form for an average reader or a test subject.
Method of Answering
Three alternative answers are provided for each of the questions, since the
two alternative “forced choice” situation, forbidding any middle of the road”
compromise, tend to force a distorted distribution any may produce aversion to the
test on the part of the examinee. This particularly the case with the person of
average or higher intelligence for whom Forms A and B are designed. With
children or with less intelligent, less competent or culturally deprived adults, a
two-choice design appears better and such a design is used in the ‘low literate’
scales of the 16 PF constructed for use with such populations (Form E and F).
63
Reliability of 16 PF
While there are many ways to estimate reliability, the test-retest method
seems especially appropriate. With this method, the 16PF is administered to a
sample of people on two separate occasions; the correlations between the sets of
scores from the two administrations are the reliability estimates. It is useful to
make a further distinction in test-retest reliability, based on the time interval
between test and retest. If the interval is short, from an immediate retest to a delay
of two weeks, the dependability of the scale is being evaluated. Since personality
traits are not expected to change (i.e., assuming no intervention) in such a brief
interval, departure; from perfect reliability reflect inconsistencies in the scale as
well as in the individuals under study. Should the interval between administrations
be long, from several weeks to several years, the reliability is called the stability of
the scale. Here, the test-retest reliability not only reflects errors in measurement,
but also real changes that occur in the trait being measured. As a consequence,
there will be less agreement between test and retest.
The short-interval reliabilities are shown in Table 3.8; the long interval
reliabilities are shown in Table 3.9, another way of looking at the precision of the
16PF scales is to calculate the standard error of measurement (SEM). This provides
an indication of the error made when an actual (i.e., observed score) is substituted
for the theoretically meaningful (but unobservable) “true” score. Thus, the SEM
defines a theoretical range of scores within which the person’s “true” score lies. As
a practical matter, the higher the scale’s reliability, the narrower this range of
scores will be. Using the averaged short-interval reliability of .80 (Forms A + B),
the SEM equals .89 (the range of SEMs is from .63 to 1.34).
Table 3.7 contains the equivalence coefficients between various forms of
the 16PF. These values indicate the extent to which there is agreement between the
different forms. The forms of the 16PF should not be thought of as alternate or
parallel forms.
64
Table 3.7
Short-Interval Test-Retest Reliabilities of 16 PF
(Immediate Retest to Two-week Interval)
Form A B C D E F G I L M N O Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Aa 86 79 82 83 90 81 92 90 78 75 77 83 82 85 80 82*
Ab 81 58 78 80 79 81 83 77 75 70 61 79 73 73 62 81
Ac 78 82 79 85 88 89 87 86 74 79 78 72 78 90 92 90
Bb 75 54 74 80 81 77 89 79 77 70 60 81 70 75 62 87
Cd 64 59 78 76 61 59 68 56 52 57 67 62 66 62 60 59
CAQ Part 1e
91 - 68 80 73 76 86 82 61 84 81 77 47 61 57 76
CAQ Part 1f
64 - 73 69 67 54 68 66 60 43 66 76 56 52 62 71
A+Bb 89 65 87 88 90 88 93 89 87 82 76 89 83 85 78 91
A+Bg 82 45 76 78 80 75 86 83 69 68 60 76 66 76 76 80
C+Dh 82 76 83 77 80 83 86 83 75 68 67 79 75 68 77 82
Note: Decimal points omitted. * This value was incorrectly listed as .72 in the previous edition. A Canadian subjects: N = 243 male and female high school students (2 days) b American Subjects : N = 146; 79 employment counselors and 67
undergraduates. (1-2weeks) c Averages of 91 test-retest coefficients from 19 people taking 16PF 14
consecutive days. d American subjects : N = 141 narcotic addicts (from Kaestner & Goldstein). (7
days). e Israeli subjects N = 35 male and female adults (from Zak, 1976). The Factor B
value was not reported. (7-10days) f Israeli subjects : N = 61 male and female students (from Zak, 1976). The factor
B value was not reported.(7-10 days) g New Zeland Subjects : N = 95 male and female high school students (1 days) h American subjects : N = 150 male and female undergraduates. (immediate
retest)
65
Table 3.8
Long-Interval Test-Retest Reliabilities of 16 PF
(Two-month to Eight-year Interval)
Form A B C D E F G I L M N O Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Aa 80 43 66 65 74 49 60 85 75 67 35 70 50 57 36 66
Ab 49 28 45 47 48 54 49 63 40 43 39 57 52 46 41 56
Ac 62 23 48 52 52 46 64 53 42 49 21 52 51 50 41 51
Ad 68 43 53 52 55 38 69 62 51 48 43 60 37 44 60 63
Ae 34 15 39 55 66 62 76 73 37 68 57 56 61 63 42 36
Af 32 48 58 15 52 33 71 50 31 11 33 80 58 55 32 71
Ag 40 27 72 82 75 54 88 57 50 59 58 59 72 51 65 68
Ah 62 58 44 53 52 51 63 67 43 53 34 55 47 51 39 62
Ai 57 48 50 58 67 49 69 58 47 45 50 47 50 57 44 55
Aj 37 46 54 63 66 57 69 39 51 45 40 66 50 47 50 57
Ak 53 35 26 42 68 19 77 21 30 23 18 46 27 25 31 35
Al 77 65 55 60 37 08 70 54 60 45 60 76 73 59 57 56
Am 60 33 35 53 53 26 73 66 46 47 31 50 34 35 54 55
CAQ Part 1n 52 - 48 47 38 48 68 64 24 33 40 63 41 43 43 47
A + Bo 85 63 75 85 78 84 88 87 76 71 74 77 83 81 70 78
Note: Decimal points omitted. a N = 44, 2 ½ Month Interval (from LaaForge, 1962) b N = 432 males, 4 year interval (from Nichols, 1965) c N = 204 females, 4 year interval (from Nichols, 1965) d N = 63, 2-years interval (from Dr. William Marlow, Albright College). e N = 17, 3 to 4-year interval (from Dr. James M. Schuerger, Cleveland State
Univ.) f N = 24, 6 to 8 year interval (from Dr. James M. Schuerger, Cleveland State
Univ.) g N = 21, 8 months interval (From Dr. James M. Schuerger, Cleveland State
Univ.). h N = 84, nuclear plant operators, 2 year interval (from Chardos, et al., 1982) i N = 373 public safety officers, 20 months interval (from Chardos, et al., 1982)
66
j N = 149 female students teachers, 26 months interval (T.N. Davis & D. J. Satterly 1969). Personality profiles of student teachers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 39, 183-187).
k N = 62 females, 3 years interval (A. R. Melamed, M.S. Silverman & G. J. Lewis (1974). Three year follow up of women religious on the 16 PF. Review of Religious Research, 15, 64-70)
l N = 39 males and females, 2 ½ years interval (from Maxwell, 1978). m N = 70 security guard applicants subsequently hired,(9 month interval from
Baird, 1981). n N = 113 Israeli high school graduates, 18 months interval (from Zak, 1976).
The factor B value was not reported. o N = 132, 2 month interval.
Table 3.9
Equivalence Coefficients of 16PF Forms
From Sample Size A B C E F G H I L M N O Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
A with B 6476 B 57 49 54 52 61 47 71 59 37 40 21 59 34 39 43 62
A with B 85a M 60 40 57 51 63 61 73 50 34 31 07 56 43 57 50 64
A with B 194a F 46 30 57 44 71 45 82 38 34 22 23 64 40 47 40 74
A with B 599b F 65 3* 51 57 71 57 81 47 34 28 29 59 51 47 56 68
A with B 549b M 61 35 56 55 71 57 78 58 35 40 23 66 42 50 58 68
A with B 1148b B 64 36 54 59 70 56 80 60 36 23 26 65 47 48 58 70
C with D 377 B 35 49 48 39 36 44 55 47 16 35 16 51 26 40 33 37
C with D 85a M 48 43 34 39 15 36 58 44 29 30 26 46 42 43 51 48
C with D 194a F 37 39 56 33 43 48 59 43 24 35 16 61 33 43 30 46
C with D 609b F 53 18 48 41 44 49 65 40 29 32 15 47 40 44 42 51
C with D 549b M 54 32 54 49 46 52 60 49 31 27 13 59 38 30 43 53
C with D 1158b B 53 26 51 46 45 51 52 50 30 30 14 55 39 38 42 51
(A + C) With 593 B 69 45 63 69 67 59 79 67 60 46 35 56 51 37 55 64
Note: Decimal points omitted. M = Males; F = Females; B = Both. a Data provided by Dr. Raymond Kulhavy, Arizona State University. b From Saville, P., & Blinkhorn, S. (1976). Undergraduate personality by
factored scales. Windsor, Berks., England: NFER Publishing Co., Ltd. Validity of 16 PF
In the case of the 16 PF, there are two important classes of evidence that
need to be considered. The first, usually described as construct validity, focuses on
the extent to which the test scores correctly measure the underlying traits they were
developed to measure. The second focuses on the extent to which test scores relate
67
to external outcomes such as success in a job, performance in school, or response
to treatment. This type of evidence is described as criterion-related test validity.
Establishing the construct validity of a test score is a complex procedure.
Relationship between the test scores and other measures of the same construct
must be examined to see whether they show the hypothesized structure. The 16PF
was developed to measure a core set of factorially independent personality traits.
These factors represented primary dimensions of the universe of words available in
the English language to describe personality. The first issue, related to the
construct validity of the 16PF, is the extent to which the test itself is faithful to the
original factor model.
Cattell and Krug (1986) provide a comprehensive review of studies that
have attempted to verify or cross validate the structure of the test. The verdict of
dozens of studies involving many thousands of people sampled across many
different demographic parameters and cultures is that the basic factorial structure
of the test is correct. Multiple, exacting empirical examinations of the 16PF land
related tests in the 16PF series show that the number and nature of the elementary
personality dimensions it taps is consistent with the original, underlying model.
In terms of criterion-related validity, it is important to note that the test has
been widely used in a variety of research applications. These results have been
reported in several thousand different publications in the professional literature.
There is not a convenient summary of this literature because of its sheer volume
and because new articles appear constantly. However, the Handbook is an
important reference that summarizes many of the findings, especially those that
appeared during the first 20 years the test was in use. The 16PF Research
Bibliography is a second important reference work that provides an index to much
of the research between 1970 and 1975. And, the bibliographies included in this
Manual guide the reader to other original sources in which the criterion-related
validities are presented for the 16PF scales.
From an information point of view, a multidimensional questionnaire, such
as the 16PF, should measure its constructs without a great deal of overlap among
its other scales. In the case of the 16PF. correlations among the primary scales are
68
explained at the second order level, where the primary scales are combined to form
broad personality traits, such as Extraversion, Anxiety, etc. However, to the extent
that each scale provides information that is no redundant with the other scales, the
questionnaire is likely to be more “efficient.”
Table 3.11 provides some evidence of the independence among the primary
scales. The first row of the table contains the average reliability coefficients for
Forms (A + B). These values represent the proportion of true score variance in
each scale. The second row contains the squared multiple correlation (SMC)
obtained from pre dieting each scale from the other 15 scales These values
represent the extent of overlap among the primary scales. The third row gives the
difference between rows 1 and 2 and represents the amount of unshared
information in each scale. Overall, the no redundant contributions of each scale are
high, averaging nearly 49% across the 16 scales.
An index of the validity of the primary scales is given in Table 3.12. Cattell
calls these concept validities. They are the correlations of the scale scores with the
“pure” factors they were designed to measure. Professor Maurice Tatsuoka has
suggested that these might also be described as “Factor-theoretic” validities since
they index how well the observed scales correlate with the unobserved theoretical
construct.
Table 3.10
Unshared Scale Score Variance of 16 PF
Factors A B C E F G H I L M N O Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Average scale Reliability a
86 55 82 83 85 82 90 86 78 75 68 83 75 81 77 86
SMCb 27 07 49 30 35 27 47 15 27 23 12 52 22 29 39 50
Differencec 59 48 33 53 50 55 43 71 51 52 56 31 53 52 38 36
Note: Decimal points have been omitted. a These are the averaged, short-interval. From (A +B) test-retest reliabilities from
Table 3.8. They represent the proportion of true score variance associated with each scale.
b These are the squared multiple correlations resulting from the prediction of each scale from the remaining 15 scales they represent the proportion of variance accounted for by the remaining 15 scales.
69
c These difference values represent the scale score variance that is unique to each scale.
Table 3.11
Factor Theoretic or Direct Concept Validities of the 16PF Scales
Factors N A B C E F G H I L M N O Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
A + B 958 86 53 77 71 88 77 94 80 67 71 64 86 68 80 80 63
C + D 794 87 91 63 82 90 54 90 45 65 85 74 71 68 82 70 80
A 958 79 35 70 63 83 67 92 70 49 44 41 71 62 70 68 57
B 958 78 44 66 64 79 69 87 75 63 73 60 81 51 70 69 59
Note: Decimal points have been omitted.
Principles and mechanics of scoring
The 16PF can be either computer scored or hand scored with a set of
scoring stencils. A more detailed discussion of computer scoring and interpretation
services for the test may be found in Section 6 of this Manual. Regardless of which
method is used, each answer sheet should be checked to make sure that there are
no odd, unscorable responses, e.g., marking two out of three alternatives, making
incomplete erasures, or entirely omitting a response to an item. If such
misunderstanding of instructions has occurred, the examinee must go back and do
the affected items correctly.
Each answer scores O, 1, or 2 points, except the Factor B (conceptual
ability) answers, which score 0 (incorrect) or 1 (correct). The score of each item
contributes to only one factor total.
Handscoring the 16PF
A complete set of scoring materials for the 16PF handscorable answer
sheet consists of a set of scoring keys, norm tables for the appropriate test form(s),
and a profile sheet for each answer sheet to be scored. In addition, use of a special
worksheet for calculating second-order factors and selected criterion scores is
strongly recommended.
Detailed instructions for obtaining raw scores for the 16PF are provided on
the scoring keys. Each of two stencil keys scores half the 1.6 primary scales.
Depending on which form is used, the availability of distortion scales will be
70
discussed on one of the keys. Scoring begins by fitting and aligning the first stencil
key over the answer sheet and counting the marks visible through the holes for
Factor A, allowing either 2 or 1, as indicated by the number adjacent to the hole.
Sum these scores, and enter the total in the space indicated by the arrow on the
stencil for Factor A (raw score); but note that Factor B (intelligence) is peculiar in
that each correct mark visible in a hole gives a score of 1 only. Continue scoring
each factor on 1 each scoring key until all raw scores have been entered in the
column on the extreme right-hand side of the answer sheet.
The raw scores are now ready to be converted to standard scores (sten
scores) and the results profiled for easier review and interpretation.
Careful selection of the most appropriate norm reference group (general
population, undergraduate college students, or high school students) is required For
a full discussion of the norm tables.
Design of the Norm Tables
General. The meaning of raw scores from any form or combination of
forms of the 16PF depends, of course, upon the particular forms used.
Consequently, before these raw scores can be evaluated and interpreted, they must
be converted into a system that places the examinee’s score in relation to scores
obtained by other people in some defined population (normal adults, college
students, adult males only, etc.). The standardization tables convert raw scores to
what are called stens, a practice consistent with best modern usage, aiming at a
good’, but not unrealistically refined degree of accuracy in expression of results.
Standard Scores: Sten scores (the term comes from “standard ten”) are
distributed, over 10 equal-interval standard score points (assuming normal
distribution), from 1 through 10. The population average (oh mean) for a sten
distribution is fixed at 5.5 and the standard deviation is 2.0 sten scores. The exact
limits of stens 5 and 6 (4.5 - 6.5) extend, respectively, a half standard deviation
below and above the; mean, constituting the solid center the population, while the
outer limits for stens 1 and 10 are 2/2 standard deviations below ; and above the
mean. One would normally; consider sten scores of 4 through 7 to be average,
71
since they fall within one standard deviation of the population mean and therefore
represent approximately two-thirds of all the obtained scores. Sten scores of 1, 2, 3,
and 8, 9, 10 are generally considered to be of greater importance for profile
interpretation since they are more extreme and occur far less frequently in a normal
population.
Interpretation of the Primary Factors
Predictions of scores on various criteria, and assignment of individuals to
various diagnostic clinical groups, can be carried out actuarially, using methods
discussed in detail in the Handbook and elsewhere. Where no correlations with
criteria are known, knowledge of the psychological nature of the factors must
guide initial prediction until empirical studies can be done in a particular situation.
Moreover, even where correlation, actuarial evidence about a certain criterion is
available. it is desirable to add psychological judgment to immediate statistical
computations to allow for changes of personality with learning, maturation, etc., or
for anticipated changes in life situation.
Each of the primary factors measured by the 16PF has an alphabetic
designation (A through Q.,) and a brief title, which the practitioner will most
commonly use. The definitions and interpretations of the factors,’ as given below,
are short, non-technical, and, of course, less exact than the more intensive
discussions available in the Handbook and other IBPF sourcebooks. Furthermore,
the large number of profiles given in the Handbook for well defined occupational
and clinical groups provides the psychologist with additional insights into the
meaning and operation of the factors.
72
Table 3.12
Capsule Descriptions of the 16 Primary Personality Factors
Factor A
Low Score Direction Cool, Reserved, Impersonal, Detached,
Formal, Aloof
High Score Direction Warm, outgoing, Kindly, Easygoing,
Participating, Like People
People who score low (sten of 1 to 3) on Factor A tend to be stiff, cool, skeptical, and aloof. They like things rather than people, working alone, and avoiding compromises of viewpoints. They are likely to be precise and "rigid" in their way of doing things and in their personal standards. In many occupations these are desirable trails. They may tend at times, to be critical Obstructive, or hard.
People who score high (sten of 8 to 10) on Factor A tend to be good natured, easygoing, emotionally expressive, ready to co-operate, attentive to people, softhearted, kindly, adaptable. They like occupations dealing with people and socially impressive situations, and they readily form active groups. They are generous in personal relations, less afraid of criticism and better able to remember names of people.
Factor B Concrete-thinking, Less
Intelligent Abstract-thinking, More Intelligent, Bright
The person scoring low on Factor B tends to be slow to learn and grasp, dull, and given to concrete and literal interpretation. This dullness may be simply a reflection of blow intelligence, or it may represent poor functioning due to psychopathology.
The person who scores high on Factor B tends to be quick to grasp ideas, a fast, and intelligent. There is some correlate with level of culture, and some with alertness. High scores contraindicate deterioration of mental functions in pathological conditions.
Factor C
Affected by Feelings, Emotionally
Less Stable, Easily Annoyed
Emotionally Stable, Mature, Faces Reality, Calm
The person who scores low on Factor C tends to be low in frustration tolerance for unsatisfactory conditions, changeable and plastic, evading necessary reality demands, neurotically fatigued, fretful, easily annoyed and emotional, active in dissatisfaction, having neurotic symptoms (phobias, sleep disturbances, psychosomatic complaints, etc.). Low Factor C score is
The person who scores high on Factor C tend to be emotionally mature. stable, about life, unruffled, possessing ego strength, better able to maintain solid group morale. This person may be making a resigned adjustment* to unsolved emotional problems. *Shrewd clinical observers have pointed out that a good C level sometimes enables a person to achieve
73
common to almost all forms of neurotic and some psychotic disorders.
effective adjustment despite an underlying psychotic potential.
Factor E
Submissive, Humble, Mild, Easily Led, Accommodating
Dominant, Assertive, Aggressive,
Stubborn, Competitive, Bossy
Individuals scoring low on Factor E tend to give way to others, to be docile, and to conform. They are often dependent, confessing and anxious for obsessional correctness. This passivity is part of many neurotic syndromes.
Individuals scoring high on Factor E are assertive, self-assured, and independent minded. They tend to be austere, a law unto themselves, hostile or extrapunitive, authoritarian (managing others), and disregarding of authority
Factor F
Sober, Restrained, Prudent Taciturn, Serious
Enthusiastic, Spontaneous, Heedless,
Expressive, cheerful
Low scores on Factor F tend to be restrained, reticent, and introspective. They are sometimes dour, pessimistic, unduly deliberate, and considered smug and primly correct by observers. They tend to be sober, dependable people.
High Scorers of this trait tend to be cheerful, active, talkative, frank, expressive, effervescent, and carefree. They are frequently chosen as elected leaders. They may be impulsive and mercurial.
Factor G
Expedient, Disregards Rules, Self-indulgent
Conscientious, Conforming, Moralistic,
Staid, Rule-bound
People who score low on Factor G tend to be unsteady in purpose. They are often casual and lacking in effort for group undertakings and cultural demands. Their freedom from group influence may lead to antisocial acts, but at times makes them more effective, while their refusal to be bound by rules causes them to have less somatic upset from stress.
People who have score on Factor G tend to be exacting in character, dominated by to be exacting in character, dominated by sense of duty, preserving, responsible, planful, “fill the unforgiving minute.” They are usually conscientious and moralistic, and they prefer hard-working people to witty companions. The inner “categorical imperative” of this essential superego (in the psychoanalytic sense) should be distinguished from the superficially similar “social ideal self” of Q3 +.
74
Factor H
Shy, Threat-sensitive, Timid Hesitant, Intimidated
Bold, Venturesome, Uninhibited.
Can take Stress
Individuals who score low on this trait tend to be shy, withdrawing, cautious, retiring, “wallflowers”. They usually have inferiority feelings and tend to be slow and impeded in speech and in expressing themselves. They dislike occupations with personal contacts, prefer one or two close friends to large groups, and are not given to keeping in contact with all that is going on around them.
Individuals who score high on Factor H are sociable, bold, ready to try new things, spontaneous, and abundant in emotional response, and abundant in emotional response. Their “ thick-skinnedness” enables them to face wear and tear in dealing with people and grueling emotional situations, without fatigue. However, they can be careless of detail, ignore danger signals, and consume much time talking. They tend to be “pushy” and actively interested in the opposite sex.
Factor I
Tough-minded, self-reliant, No-nonsense, Rough, Realistic
Tender-minded, Sensitive, Over-protected, Intuitive, Refined
People who score low on Factor I tend to be tough, realistic, “down to earth,” independent, responsible, but skeptical of subjective, cultural elaborations. They are sometimes unmoved, hard, cynical, and smug. They tend to keep a group operating on a practical and realistic “no-nonsense” basis.
People who score high on Factor I tend to be emotionally sensitive, day-dreaming, artistically fastidious, and fanciful. They are sometimes demanding of attention and help, impatient, dependent, temperamental, and not very realistic. They dislike crude people and rough occupations. In a group, they often tend to slow up group performance and to upset group morale by undue fussiness.
Factor L
Trusting, Accepting conditions, Easy to Get on with
Suspicious, Hard to Fool, Distrustful skeptical
People who score low on Factor L tend to be free of jealous tendencies, adaptable, cheerful, uncompetitive, and concerned about others, a good team worker. They are open and tolerant and usually willing to take a chance with people.
People who have score on Factor L tend to be mistrusting and doubtful. They are often involed in their own egos and are self-opinionated and interested in internal, mental life. Usually they are deliberate in their actions, unconcerned about other people, and poor team members.
75
Factor M
Practical, concerned with “Down to Earth” Issue, Steady
Imaginative, absent-minded, absorbed in Thought, Impractical
Low scorers on Factor M tend to be anxious to do the right things, Attentive to practical matters, and subjects to the dictation of what is obviously possible. They are concerned over detail, able to keep their heads in emergencies, but are sometimes unimaginative, In short, they are responsive to the outer, rather than the inner, world.
People who have score on Factor M tend to be unconventional, unconcerned over every day matters, self-motivated, imaginatively creative, concerned with “essentials, often absorbed in thought, and oblivious of particular people and physical realities. Their inner-directed interests sometimes lead to unrealistic situations accompanied by expressive outbursts. Their individuality can cause them to be rejected in group activities.
Factor N
Forthright, Unpretentious, Open, Genuine, Artless
Shrewd, Polished, socially aware,
Diplomatic, Calculating
People who score low on Factor N have a lot of natural warmth and a genuine liking for people. They are uncomplicated, sentimental, and unvarnished in their approach to people.
Individuals who score high on Factor N tend to be polished, experienced, and shrewd. Their approach to people and problems is usually perceptive, hard-headed, and efficient-an unsentimental approach to situations, and approach akin to cynicism.
Factor O
Self-assured, secure, Feels Free of Guilt,
Untroubled, Self-satisfied
Apprehensive, Self-blaming, Guilt-prone, Insecure, Worrying
Person with low scores on Factor O tend to be unruffled and to have unshakable nerve. They have a mature, unanxious confidence in themselves and their capacity to deal with things. They can, however, be secure to the point of being insensitive to the feedback of others.
Person with high scores on Factor O have a strong sense of obligation and high expectations of themselves. They tend to worry and feel anxious and guilt-stricken over difficulties. Often they do not feel accepted in groups or free to participate. High Factor O score is very common in clinical groups of all types .
76
Factor Q1
Conservative, Respecting Traditional Ideas
Experimenting, Liberal, Critical, Open to change
Low scorers on Factors Q1 are confident in what they have been taught to believe, and accept the “tried and true,” even when something else might be better. They are cautious and compromising in regard to new ideas. Thus, they tend to oppose and postpone change, are inclined to go along with tradition, are more conservative in religion and politics, and tend not to be interested in analytical “intellectual” thought.
High Scorers on Factor Q1 tend to be interested in intellectual matters and to have doubt on fundamental issues. They are skeptical and inquiring regarding ideas, either old or new. Usually they are more well informed, less inclined to moralize, more inclined to experiment in life generally, and more tolerant of inconvenience and change.
Factor Q2
Ground-oriented, A “Joiner” and Sound follower, Listens to
others
Self-sufficient, Resourceful, Prefers Own Decisions
Individuals who score low on Factors Q2 prefer to work and make decisions with other people and like and depend on social approval and admiration. They tend to go along with the group and may be lacking in individual resolution. They are not necessarily gregarious by choice; rather they might need group support.
Individual who scores high on Factor Q2 are temperamentally independent, accustomed to going their own way, making decisions and taking action on their own. They discount public opinion, but are not necessarily dominant in their relations with others (see Factor E); In fact, they could be hesitant to ask others for help. They do not dislike people, but simple do not need their agreement or support.
Factor Q3
Undisciplined self-conflict, Lax, Careless of social Rules
Following self-image, Socially Precise, Compulsive
People who score low on Factor Q3 will not be bothered with will control and have little regard for social demands. They are impetuous and not overly considerate, careful, or painstaking. They may feel maladjusted, and much maladjustment (especially the affective, but not the paranoid) show Q3-.
People who score high on Factor Q3 tend to have strong control of their emotions and general behavior, are inclined to be socially aware and careful, and evidence what is commonly termed “self-respect” and high regard for social reputation. They sometimes tend, however, to be perfectionist and obstinate. Effective leaders, and some paranoids, are high
77
on Q3.
Factor Q4
Relaxed, Tranquil, Composed, Has low drive, Unfrustrated
Tense, Frustrated, Overwrought, Has high Drive
Individuals who score low on Factor Q4 tend to be sedate, relaxed, composed, and satisfied (not frustrated). In some situations, their over satisfaction can lead to laziness and low performance, in the sense that low motivation produces little trial and error.
Individuals who scores high on Factor Q4 tend to be tense, restless, fretful, impatient, and hard driving. They are often fatigued, but unable to remain inactive. Their frustration represents an excess of stimulated, but undischarged, drive. Extremely high tension level may disrupt school and work performance.
4. Career Preference Record (CPR) By Mahesh Bhargav & Rajshree Bhargav
The main purpose of develop CPR was to help the students/youth to make a
wise choice in his career preferences or vocations. CPR covers 10 main areas of
vocational interest, they are
a. Mass Media & Journalism (MMJ)
b. Artistic & Designing (AD)
c. Science & Technology (ScT)
d. Agriculture (AG)
e. Commerce & Management (CM)
f. Medical (M)
g. Defence (D)
h. Tourism & Hospitality Industry(TH)
i. Law & Order (LO)
j. Education (E)
Instructions
After obtaining the necessary information from the subjects. Following
instructions are to be given to the respondent in English and Hindi also.
The aim of Record is to know which career you would like to undertake
when you finish you studies. It would help you know your preference so that you
prepare yourself for the career.
78
Each cell of this inventory has two careers. You can indicate your choice of
the career. The following example will make it simple and easy.
a. If you prefer the first career (Doctor), please put a tick mark
( ) in square No. 1.
b. If you prefer the second career (Judge), please put a tick
mark ( ) in square No. 2.
c. If you prefer both the careers (No. 1 as well as No. 2), please
put tick marks ( ) in both the squares No.1 and No. 2
d. If you do not prefer any of the two careers, please put cross
marks (X) in both the squares No.1 and No. 2
Please express your preference or dislike for the careers given in each cell.
Do not leave it blank, If any doubt, please ask me. There is no time limit for this
form. However, it will take about 20 minutes.
Scoring Procedure
Scoring procedure of CPR is quite simple and convenient. There are ten
major areas of career preference and each contains 20 vocations or jobs in
ascending to descending order and left to right on the record chart, thus each one
contains 20 vocations. One (1) mark has to be assigned to each preference of
vocation and total in each area is known as raw score of that particular area.
Therefore, maximum marks in each area is 20 and minimum is to be zero (0).
Classification of career preference Area through profile
On the basis of raw scores of all the 10 areas of career preference, a profile
may be prepared as mentioned below so that psychologist must understand the
career choices and preferences of his subject and may provide educational and
vocational guidance accordingly to the person who may achieve job satisfaction in
life.
79
Table 3.13
Raw Scores of Different Areas of Career Preference
Career Areas
MMJ1 +
MMJ2
AD1 +
ScT2
ScT1 +
ScT2
AG1 +
AG2
CM1 +
CM2
M1 +
M2
D1 + D2
TH1 +
TH2
LO1 +
LO2
E1 + E2
Raw Scores 14 6 10 8 12 5 7 15 8 16
PROFILE OF CPR
General Report
1. Main Career Preference Area – Education
2. Second Career Preference Area – Tourism & Hospitality
3. Third Career Preference Area – Mass-media
4. Least Career Preference Area – Medical
80
Interpretation and Recommendations
The subject showed his interest in the main three areas- Education, Tourism
and Mass Media more or less the same degree, therefore he has to opt the job as
per his suitability and availability of the jobs limiting to these three areas.
Reliability
The reliability of CPR is determined by the following methods:
The coefficient of stability of CPR has been computed by employing test-
retest method with an interval of one month and three months on a sample of 100
male and 100 female students of 10 + 2 and all the obtained coefficient of
correlations was found significant in all the cases as shown in Table 3.15 & 3.16
and they ensure the high reliability.
The test-retest reliability coefficients were obtained as below on a sample
of 100 male students of 10 + 2.
Table 3.14
Showing test-retest reliability coefficients (Males) for CPR
Areas MMJ AD ScT AG CM M D TH LO E With an
interval of one month
.74 .73 .68 .82 .58 .63 .78 .54 .66 .87
With an interval of
three months
.68 .69 .70 .74 .60 .58 .72 .52 .60 .82
The test-retest reliability coefficients were obtained as below on a sample
of 100 female students of 10 + 2.
Table 3.15
Showing test-retest reliability coefficients (Female) for CPR
Areas MMJ AD ScT AG CM M D TH LO E With an
interval of one month
.70 .77 .69 .58 .67 .62 .78 .82 .67 .50
With an interval of
three months
.64 .72 .62 .60 .62 .60 .69 .71 .61 .45
81
All the 'r’s are significant at .01 level in both tables 3.15 & 3.16 Thus this test
ensures adequate
Reliability which is required for a good test.
The CPR has also shown satisfactory reliability by using method of rational
equivalence where inter-relationship of various career preferences or choices have
determined in (10 X 10 – 1 inter-correlation matrix). It is also known as internal
consistency. It is assumed that all the items or sub areas in a measuring instrument
should be psychologically homogeneous (Bhargava, 2001) Table 3.17 shows inter-
correlation between the various careers.
Table 3.16
Inter-item Correlations of all the ten areas of CPR
Areas MMJ AD ScT AG CM M D TH LO E
MMJ 1.00 – – – – – – – – –
AD .53 1.00 – – – – – – – –
ScT .48 .25 1.00 – – – – – – –
AG .57 .26 .52 1.00 – – – – – –
CM .61 .53 .45 .59 1.00 – – – – –
M .54 .42 .55 .62 .55 1.00 – – – –
D .49 .30 .57 .53 .52 .57 1.00 – – –
TH .60 .58 .48 .57 .72 .61 .62 1.00 – –
LO .56 .44 .57 .52 .60 .63 .69 .67 1.00 –
E .53 .51 .45 .48 .59 .62 .60 .66 .74 1.00
Based on a sample of 300 males and females students of 10 + 2 and almost
all the values of coefficient of correlation are significant. Thus, it yields the
homogeneity of the various careers, hence ensure high reliability.
Validity
Psychological tests are relative, validity of the test is not considered as the
whole test but even each of the test item ensures the ‘specificity’ criterion of the
psychological test. The validity of an objective test less with the fact that not only
82
the whole test but each item of the test must measure what it parports to measure
and this specificity dimension of validity of a psychological test which enhances its
dependability and applicability (Bhargava and Raina, 2004).
In order to establish the validity, the present measure is correlated with
some related areas of the various measure of interest and career and allied concepts
as external validation criteria.
Table 3.17
Coefficient of correlations between CPR and some common areas of other
existing tests
MMJ AD ScT AG CM M D TH LO E
Chatterjee CNPR (N= 50) – .72 .82 .76 – .68 – – – –
Chadha Indian Classification System of Vocational Exp. (N= 50)
– .69 .74 – – .72 – – – .34
Kapoor & Singh Multi factor Interest questionnaire (MFIQ) (N = 50)
– .63 .66 .81 .77 – – .68 – –
Sodhi and Bhatnagar Interest Inventory (SBII) (N=50)
– .62 .72 – – – – .73 – .68
S.P. Kulshrestha Vocational Interst Record (N = 50)
– – .82 .72 .85 – – – – .72
Crites Career Attitude (N = 50) .62 .68 .72 .42 .53 .30 .62 .70 .50 .82
Crites Career Choice competencies (N = 50)
.73 .65 .82 .38 .37 .72 .54 .43 .39 .72
Norms
This CPR was initially administered on 300 male and female students of 10
+ 2 and Mean, Md, Mode, SD, Ku, Sk were obtained in Table 5. Which may give
an idea of the user of the test about its nature of qualification. It is advisable for the
83
researcher who is using this record on a large sample more than 200, to obtain the
descriptive statics on the basis of his particular sample and may use them as
reference point or norms.
Table 3.18
Showing Descriptive Statistical Values of All the Areas of Career Preference
(N = 300)
Areas MMJ AD ScT AG CM M D TH LO E
Mean Md. Mode S.D.
7.44 8.00 8.00 4.28
10.25 10.50 13.00 5.10
8.84 9.00 7.00 4.62
4.97 4.00 6.00 4.01
6.90 7.00 9.00 4.08
7.24 7.00 7.00 4.24
8.44 9.00
11.00 4.31
6.62 6.00 6.00 4.14
9.75 10.00 10.00 4.52
9.77 11.00 12.00 4.66
Ku SK
-.54 .12
.22 -.09
-.72 .05
.35
.89 .70 .18
-.40 .24
-.59 00
-.19 .38
-.46 -.38
-.64 -.32
Conversion of raw scores into stanine and interpretation of results as given
in table
Table 3.19
CPR Stanine Interpretation Raw Scores (of any area)
Stanine Interpretation
17 – 20 16 – 17 14 – 15 12 – 13 9 – 11 7 – 8 6 – 6 4 – 5 0 – 3
IX High Career Choice VIII Moderate Career Preference VII (Accepted with Competency) VI Average Career Preference V IV Negligible Career Preference III (May be neglected) II I Low Career Choice
3.5 STATISTICAL TECHNIQUE USED FOR ANALYSIS OF THE DATA
AND TESTING FOR HYPOTHESES OF THE STUDY:
The following techniques were used for analyzing the data as per the
objectives of the study stated earlier.
84
1. Measure of Central Tendency.
i. Mean – Mean is a relatively stable measure of central tendency. It has
importance in the further statical analysis and guide amendable to algebraic
treatment.
Mean provides an accurate description of the sample and indirectly of the
population. It is the sum of the measurements divided by their numbers.
Mean = X N
Where
M= Arithmetic mean
X= The sum of scores
N=Number of scores
ii. Median – The median in the point that divides a ranked distribution of
measurements into two legal parts.
Mid term N 12
FHG IKJth
2. Measure of variability:-
Standard deviation is most widely used and popular measure of variability.
It is understood as a very satisfactory measure of depressions.
( ) . . S. D. FHG IKJ
fxN
fxN
C i2 2
Where
N = Total Number of frequencies
fx = Sum of the product of frequencies and deviation
fx2 = Summation of the product of frequencies and deviation square.
c.i. = Length of class interval
3. t-Test
't' test is a statistical technique that allows the researcher to compare two
means to determine the probability that the difference between the means is a real
difference rather than a chance difference.
85
For using 't' test the following formula has been used:
t Difference between the meanStandard Error of Difference
t M M
1 2
12
22
~
N N Here,
M1 = Mean of the first group
M2 = Mean of the second group
1 = SD of the first group
2 = SD of the second group
N1 = Total Number of cases in first group
N2 = Total Number of cases in second group
4. ANNOVA
First the collected data was processed to obtain following values:
Correction Term = CT
Total Sum of Squares = TSS
Sum of Squares Among Means = SSB
Sum of Squares within Conditions = SSW
and then Analysis of Variance table have been prepared in the following manner:
Analysis of Variance
Source of Variance df Sum of Square (SS)
Mean Square (Variance) MS
F-value Level of Significance
Among the Mean of Conditions
(K-1) SSB MSB
— — Within Condition (N-K) SSW MSW
Total (N-1) — —
In the above table the variables shown were calculated using the following
86
formulae:
MSB SSBdf MSB SSB
K -1
MSW SSWdf
MSW SSWN - K
Here, K Means the conditions given and
N means the total No. of cases
F-value has been then calculated as:
F MSBMSW
The so obtained F-value and its level of significance provide guidelines for
further analysis using 't' test for more precision regarding the difference between
two means.
Multiple classification of analysis of variance is a good technique to
ascertain whether two or more than two groups differ significantly in their means
on the simplest manner. Whereas the multiple classification of Analysis of
variance the righticante, of combined effect of two or more variable on the
depended. Multiple classifications ANOVA helps the researcher to determine the
relationship one dependent variable and two or more independent variables. The
researcher can test relationship between the dependent variable and various
interactions of undependent variables.
5. Statistical treatment by factorial design method
The Research design is the detailed plan of the investigation. Some
hypotheses have been tested by using 2×2×2 factorial design.
There are three independent variables Socio economics status (A),
Personality (B) and Gender (C). These levels of each variable have been expressed
as A1, A2, B1, B2 and C1, C2. Thus in all there are 8 groups.
2×2×2 factorial design is used for finding out the effects of A, B, C and
interaction effects on vocational aspiration and occupational choice. In the factorial
design, the term factors refer to independent variable and the levels to their
variations. The first factor is Socio-economic status which is varied in two ways,
87
high and low. The second factor is personality trait in two way high and low
personality trait. The third factor is gender in two way Girls and Boys. Accordingly
the present factorial design has been termed as 2×2×2 factorial design. In the
2×2×2 factorial design of the study. SES has been designated as ‘A’ and two levels
of it as A1 and A2. Personality the second factor has been designated as 'B' and two
levels of it as B1 and B2. Gender as the third factor has been designated as C and its
two levels as C1 are corresponding to its boys and C2 corresponding to its girls. The
layout of factorial design has been schematically presented in table.
Table 3.20
Schematic Presentation of three factors for factorial designs
Socio-economic Status (A)
A1 A2
Personality (B)
B1 B2 B1 B2
Gender (C)
C1 C 2 C 1 C2 C1 C2 C1 C2
(a1b1c1) (a1b1c2) (a1b2c1) (a1b2c2) (a2b1c1) (a2b1c2) (a2b2c1) (a2b2c2)
The total number of treatment combinations is 2×2×2 = 8.
In this chapter the researcher has described method of the study,
population, sampling and sampling techniques, variables, data gathering tools,
statistical technique for analysis the data. This chapter signifies the methodological
framework of the study. The analysis and interpretation of the data will be
described in a manner in coming next chapter.