20153877

Personality and Teaching Success
Author(s): Tom Arthur Lamke

Source: The Journal of Experimental Education, Vol. 20, No. 2 (Dec., 1951), pp. 217-259
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20153877 .
Accessed: 07/01/2015 05:33
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of
Experimental Education.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 156.35.192.2 on Wed, 7 Jan 2015 05:33:39 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
AND
PERSONALITY
TEACHING
SUCCESS
TOM ARTHUR LAMKE *

Iowa State Teachers
College
Cedar Falls,
Iowa
THE PROBLEM
1.1
AND
A
Introduction.
ITS SIGNIFICANCE
of
problem
im
paramount
in teacher
portance
from the candidates
is that of selecting
education
for the teaching profession
those
be
who
will
later
as
successful
1. Are the personalities

of good and poor
as evaluated by Cattell's
16 Personality
teachers,
Factor Test,
different?
characteristically
2. Are
teachers.
Much effort has been expended on the problem

and its ramifications;
a recently published anno
tated bibliography
of studies of teacher compe
tence lists 1000 items published
since 1890 (42).*
One hundred and fifty-three
of these, dealing
and prediction
with the measurement
specifically
of
have
success,
teaching
been
summarized
of
reasons
teachers
why
fail.
reasons
to determine
for
In case (a) the techniques

used here may be
refined and used to help in the selection
of pros
teachers.
In case (b) further investiga
pective
tion may be desirable.
In case (c) it may be con
cluded that the definitions
and techniques
used in
Be
or
success
this
fail
are
study
of
studies
the
concerning
as
such
and
patience.,
fairness,
items
DESIGN OF THE STUDY
opinion
1.
generally
personality.
Witty
from some
replies
the most frequently
(126) in two studies

involving
found among
47,000 pupils,
mentioned
and neg
positive
ative
such
items
traits,
ic attitude,
kindliness,
and
tolerant,
unfair,
The evidence
variable
important
This
investigation
ship between
as
or
the
indicates
the
relation
the two.
1. 2 Statement of the Problem.

In view of the
relation between personality
and teach
presumed
ing success,
tions:
*
The
v/riter
derstanding,
this
study
interest
1.
this
Numbers
study
expresses
helpful
possible;
and
assistance.
in
parentheses
to answer
seeks
his
two
sincere
criticism
to
Dr.
identify
and
ques
appreciation
valuable
Chester
W.
the
section
we
shall
describe
and the
devices,
two
sections
course
were
seniors,
an un
75,
of Learn
of Education
in
the
Psychology
of Wisconsin.
to graduate
in
These
the
spring
sub
of
for their first teaching posi

1950, and eligible
tions in the fall. Of this number,
approximately
40 graduated and secured
their first teaching po
sitions
in central and sourthern Wisconsin
high
schools.
data were obtained for 32,
Complete
who constitute
the group here studied.
scores on the American
Percentiie
Council
Examination
to most
administered
Psychological
of the subjects as part of the procedure
of admis
is an
success.
teaching
with
in
ing, at the University

jects
that personality
affecting
is concerned
enrolled
dergraduate
in
and
bad-tempered
like.
this
2. The Subjects.
The group of subjects
origin
chosen
for
this
ally
study were 146 individuals
democrat
cooperative
In
Introduction.
the subjects,
the data-gathering
of the data.
proposed
analysis
pleasantness
associated
with
kindness,
ap
of
to the traits desirable

for success
pupils relative
in teaching,
found mentioned most frequently
it
ems
other
II
SECTION
sense,
of purpose,
singleness
sympathetic
and personality.
Butsch
(31) in
adaptability,
understanding,
a summary
common
initiative,
some
be taken to the problem.
On the basis of such investigations,

Barr
lists
17 common causes of failure among
(13)
The items include at least six relat
teachers.
to personality:
and
unrewarding
should
proach
ure.
ing
char
traits,
ed.
studies such as those by Bul

ginning with early
lesfield
have
(25) and Littler
(70), investigators
sought
comparison
1. 3 Significance
of the Study. As a result of this
between personality
and
study, relationships
(both as defined here) will either
teaching success
be (a) Indicated,
or (c) Not Indicat
(b) Doubtful,
by
or
succeed
of good and poor
a paired
surface
by
different?
acteristically
Barr (9).
in the field that
It is clear from the literature
a solution to the problem of predicting
teaching
success
is intimately
connected with the discov
ery
the personalities
as evaluated
teachers,
on Cattell'S'20
scale
based
Harris
reference
to
Dr.
suggestions
and
Dr.
in
the
A.
S.
Barr,
have
made
Dorothy
appended
M.
whose
the
Knoell,
bibliography.

patience,
completion
for
un
of
their
218
sion
an
to the University
of
average
72.
JOURNAL
from
ranged
OF EXPERIMENTAL
EDUCATION
29 to 100, with
13.
14.
of Wisconsin.
18.
courage
endurance,
Physical
strength,
vs.
of
avoidance
inactivity,
Physical
danger
future
in
interest
Inflecibility,
ease
ness,
limited
r?troversion
taciturn
Hypochandriacal
vs.
Eloquence,
20.
vs.
interests
wide
17. Curiousity,
interests
Devices.
Data-Gathering
con
thoughtfulness,
lack
interests,
vs.
tiveness
strue
averages
ranged from 1.13 to 2. 7 (where the pas
= 1. 00 and the
sing grade of C
highest grade of
A = 3. 00), with an average
for the group of 1. 81.
It is thought that the group is representative
of
in education at the University
recent graduates
3.
Aesthetic
grade-point
Undergraduate
XX
(Vol.
vs.
down
wandering,
of settling
Adaptable
3.1 Personality
(2) Assessed
source
16 PF-Test.
Data for CattelPs
traits were obtained by administering
personality
both forms of his 16 PF Test (Appendix 1). * The
back of the test has been given in Sec
rationale
is logical.
tion II. The validity
The split-half
of the test on a sample of 200 of the
reliability
of the general population,
to the full
corrected
number of items in the A and B forms,
is report
ed in the test manual
to be as follows for the var
ious factors: A, 0. 84; B, 0. 70; C, 0. 71; E, 0.82;
F, 0. 85; G, 0. 56; H, 0. 74; I, 0. 54; L, 0. 55; M,
0. 50; Q2, 0.61; Q3, 0. 53; Q4,
0.72;N,
O.o?jQi,
The
3.11
3.
6.
independence,
General
sensitivity
emotionality,
vs.
instability
vs..
toughness
inhibition,
Timidity,
high-strungness,
Placidity,
deliberateness,
reserve
9.
Gratefulness,
11.
Imaginative
suspicious
intuition,
vs.
lessness
vs.
idealism
friendliness,
slanderousness,
Sadism,
ness
care
curiousity,
inflexible
Thrift,
habit,
smugness
of questions,
of a series
The test consists
of "Yes,
each followed by possible
responses
and
"?",
choice
der
"
"No.
certain
the
recommends
Cattell
with
response
The
conditions.
unwas
recommendation
15.
were
to be
assessed
by
1.
Fineness
2.
non-persistence
emotional
Realism,
vs.
Reserve,
5.
references
to
of
Wisconsin.
versity
Hostility,
expres
quiescence,
Surface
trait
in Part
5,
number
Section
may
Appendices
4,
related
vs.
moral
defect,
vs.
integration
neu
adaptability
self-effacement,
Alcoholism,
ness
vs.
vs.
stubbornness
assertion,
Egotism,
19.
or superior
character
careless
rebelliousness,
Piety,
thrift
reverence,
Asceticism,
eccentricity
loving
conventionality
vs.
comfort
The traits were identified by descriptive

terms
used by Cattell.
In each group each trait was
randomly paired with every other trait, and the
rater marked
that trait of the pair which in his
A
of the subject.
judgment was most descriptive
was
required
on
each
pair.
All sub
Each subject was first interviewed.
each
jects were told the purpose of the interview,
interview being prefaced with the same introduc
tory statement
(Appendix 3).
Each interview was conducted
in an informal
manner
to establish
calculated
rapport with the
naturalness
All
propri
evasion
Modesty,
interview;
verbal
of
roticism,
rating
siveness
by a supervisor
(3) Assessed
by a friend of the subject; and certain,

certain,
or superior
The
of the subject.
by a supervisor
2
fuller
numbers
and
descrip
groups follow
(trait
tions are found in reference
32):
(1) Assessed
by interview
vs. Timidity,
7. Sociability
Glopminess
10. Liveliness,
instability,
vs.
playfulness
Amourousness,
16.
traits
persevering,
ety
back of
The rationale
3.12 The Surface Traits.
in the last
traits is described
CattelPs
surface
As also described
the traits
section.
there,
were here divided into three groups,
because
certain
vs.
disorderly
Bohemian,
pedantic
forced
of "?"
the elimination
12.
"
followed in this study.

j
The subjects were allowed to take as much
time as they needed to finish both forms of the
test.
The tests were administered
to the subjects
at their convenience
in the spring of 1950.
In each
case the same directions
were given to the sub
ject before the testing period began (Appendix 2).
2.
mel
agitation
Boldness,
8.
vs.
optimism
frankness,
ancholy,
0.76.
by friend
Balance,
be
found
to
intelligence,
in
thesis
original
was
not
on
file,
assessed
III.

Library,
for
reasons
Uni
given
Dec.
LAMKE
219
1951)
subject and to insure not only his cooperation

the interview but also in the testing program
future
visitations.
essentially
each
However,
in
standardized
that
in
and
a.
b.
c.
was
interview
certain
j memorized
questions
were asked in a given order (Appendix 4) to ob

tain a basis for assessing
desired
traits.
The
interview
sheet was marked
after the subject had
been interviewed
(Appendix 5).
At
the
dresses
time
the
of
of
of
names
the
interview
and
friend
and
or
supervisor
ad
e.
ior of the subject were obtained.

Rating blanks
were sent to them, together with an explanatory
letter, directions
(Appendix 6, 7) and a stamped
return
Does
the
Two
for
criteria
and Acceptability.
success
teaching
were
used
in
this study: expert opinion of a teaching perform

ance and acceptability
of the teacher to his prin
or
cipal
To
superintendent.
obtain
each
data,
of the
subject was visited by two staff members
of Wisconsin
in the late fall or winter
University
of 1950, when the subject had been teaching for
three
or more.
months
3.21 Expert
Each
Opinion
was
subject
of a Teaching
observed
for
one
Performance.
consider
or more
per
teacher's
supervisor
or
Adaptation
of
Wisconsin
principal,
the M-Blank.
again
on
the
These
ratings were generally

assigned
by the visiting
higher than the ratings

observers.
The correl
ation
the
with
of
the
the
average
principals'
of
M-Blank
observers'
ratings
ratings
. 61.
was
3.22 Acceptability.
A second criterion
of suc
cess was the acceptability
of the teacher to the
or superintendent.
The development
principal
of the criterion
has already been discussed
in
the last section.
After observing
the teacher in the classroom,
the visitors
spent some time talking to the em
for retain
ploying official who was responsible
the teacher.
ing or promoting
Every effort was
made to establish
rapport before the standard
ized portion of the interview was begun.
In each
case, after empathy appeared between the school
official and the visitor,
the following previously
this
above
best,
erage,
any
weak
particular
as
teacher
average,
or failing
tne
among
below
average,
av
as a teacher?
In this way the school official was led to con

sider most phases of the teacher's
relationship
to her job, the school,
the pupils,
and the com
he was
before
munity,
asked
of the Data.
4. Analysis
tested is that individuals
on
groups
the
his
for
ratings.
The hypothesis
to be
for whom a series of
can
is available
measurements
two
iods of classroom
These
teaching by two raters.
raters
of the University
of Wis
(staff members
consin judged competent
for the task) made inde
effectiveness.
pendent ratings of that teacher's
As a guide for the observations
to be made the
Wisconsin
was used
of the M-Blank
Adaptation
(Appendix 8), although only the final judgment
recorded.
provided for on the Blank was actually
Prior to the program of visitation
the raters met
and agreed upon the procedure
to be followed
in
the ratings; this was probably reflected
making
in the reliability
of the two independent ratings,
for the subjects
in this study, was . 77.
which,
A third expert opinion was obtained from the
have
strengths?
In terms of beginning
teachers with whom
in the past, and in the
you have worked
as a whole, would
light of our discussion
f.
you
Effectiveness
teacher
or
nesses
envelope.
3. 2 Teaching
asked:
How do you like this teacher?

Does she get along well with the students?
Do the parents
feel the same way as the
pupils do about the teacher?
Is the teacher happy here? Does she have
in the community,
friends on the faculty,
and the like ?
d.
super
were
questions
basis
those
of
be
classified
into
measurements.
One traditional
is to compute the signif
approach
icance of the difference
between the means
of
This
groups,
taking each character
separately.
is inefficient
method
in that it does not make pos
sible the evaluation
of the relative amount of in
for differentiation
formation
provided by the sev
eral measurements;
neither does it combine the
information
into
taking
account
the
intercorrela
between the characters

dealt
tions, if they exist,
with (61).
For this study, two methods were chosen to
the data, since they provide
analyze
independent
tests
of
plement
inant
4.1
the
and
function,
The
Discriminant
to some
and,
hypothesis,
each other:
extent,
the use of Fisher's

factor
com
discrim
analysis.
Function:
Introductory
Statement.
The discriminant
function may be
used to test the hypothesis
that a given set of ob
jects may be divided into two groups on the bas
is
a series
of
of measurements
arises
Difficulty
ical
spect
groups
to all
may
of
any
are
to be
fairly
the measurements.
be unable
one
seen
for
to classify
measurement
each
object.
the two as yet hypothet
when
similar
with
re
In such
case,
we
the objects
because
of
on the basis
the
overlap
in the distributions
of this measurement
for the
two postulated
groups.
But it still may be possible
to weight and com
bine the measurements
to produce,
for each ob
of
ject, a kind of index number the distribution
which has no overlap for the two groups.
To dis
criminate
between the groups, we would then find
a critical
value of the index number such that any
object whose index value fell below the critical

220
group;
otherwise,
The
that
to
immediate
of
function
to one
as belonging
be classified
value would
OF EXPERIMENTAL
JOURNAL
other
the
problem
EDUCATION
XX
(Vol.
group.
to discover
then,
is,
the measurements
an
providing
index number which best discriminates

between
the groups.
The problem was solved by Fisher,
and his procedures
may be used to obtain the
function.
Having obtained the function, we must still in

it supports our hypothesis
of two
quire whether
We may obtain two clearly differentiated
groups.
groups
by
using
the
index
we
numbers
have
estab
lished, and so support the original hypothesis.

But it may happen that even this function which
best between the as yet hypothet
discriminates
ical
does
groups
not
in reality
essen
two
provide
for the index

tially non-over lapping distributions
numbers of the objects
in each group.
We would
then conclude
that the hypothesis
of two groups
is
not
substantiated.
Func
to the Discriminant
4.11 Intuitive Approach
the concept further for those
tion. To illustrate
contact with the dis
who have had no technical
a set of ob
us
consider
let
criminant
function,
jects each of which has only two measurements
to di
if possible,
with it. We wish,
associated
of
into two groups on the basis
vide the objects
At the same time, as the discriminating

plane
of
the variations
perpendicularity,
approaches
zi within a group become
larger for
increasingly
in the
the increase
both groups.
Consequently
two
the
of
for
of
the
values
z\
groups
separation
occurs
the measurements.
intend to weight
We
ject.
For
combination
we
seek,
then,
of
the measure
and combine
index
simplicity
linear
number
restrict
for
each
ob
to a
ourselves
We
.the measurements.
a relationship
of the kind
where
zi is the desired
are
weights
for
index number
the measurements
the
expense
of
an
increase
in
the
sep
i No.
=
Zi X1xi + X2yi I
(1)
X2
an
to produce
ments
at
aration of the values of z\ within each group.

as will appear.
This is undesirable,
we
is this; ideally,
situation
the
Graphically,
some
wish the index numbers
z? to be distributed
what as follows:
Items
and X_ and
xj
and
yi.
of some
We must determine
the X's by means
criterion
that will enable the z\ to serve as an inof the two
dex for differentiating
the members
|
|
|
Figure
4.112
groups.
that equa
it will be recognized
Geometrically,
a plane in three dimensions
tion (1) represents
is
passing
through the origin; this illustration
taken from Hoel (56).
to the dis
The indices z? are then distances
criminating
plane from the x-y plane, and are
functions of (xi, y?).
t? the sets of points on the x-y plane corres
in
ponding to the values
(xi, yi) can be separated
of a plane through the or
to two groups by means
igin, it is clear that the values of zj correspond
increasingly
ing to the two groups will assume
and negative values as the dis
positive
divergent
perpendicularity
plane approaches
criminating
for
in itself,
This is desirable
to the x-y plane.
we want the index numbers
for the two groups to
be
clearly
separated.
the discriminating
By moving
plane towards
or away from perpendicularity
with the x-y plane,
the means
of the z\ for the two groups separate.
But the standard deviations
for the z? also in
we
crease.
When the plane is nearly horizontal,
of the z\ for the
may have for the distributions
two groups something
like this:
Figure
4.113

Dec.
221
LAMKE
1951)
are suffic
whether
the two distributions
so that it is unlikely
the differ
iently different
ences could have occurred
Finally,
by chance.
if this is the case, we examine
the distributions
to see how useful they are, for it may happen
that they are significantly
but yet pos
different,
It is impossible
to distinguish
between the two
groups in the area of overlap.
When the plane is nearly vertical,
the means
are
widely
but
separated,
have also increased

the zi resemble:
the
standard
studies
deviations
so that the distributions
of
sess
areas
large
ification
of
The
of
objects
| hyper space makes

difficult.
an
have
area
objectionable
What we have gained

we have lost because
of
But there
imum
the means,
by separating
in standard
of the increase
Xx...
is an intermediate
position of the
the max
plane that will provide
or minimum
discrimination,
overlap,
on
Xp
enable
us
to assign
and
X1...X2,
ating
the
location
of
the
on whom
them
common
discrimin
z =D
zj2
=X1X1j1
=
AXX_j2
+..
,+
+...
SAidi(i=
1
l...Nk;k=l,2)
+..
XiXiji
XjXy2
+...
,+XpXpjx
+
XpXpj2
Zj
the
observations
related
linearly
are
to
available
Then
zji
and
measurements
=
=
Zfc mean index number for group k (k
1,2)
= index number for the
in
person
group
jth
Zjk
=
k(j
l...Nk;k=l,2)
= ith measurement
for the jth person in group
Xijk
l...p;j
members
zXiXi
let:
drawn
(61).
Let the difference
in the means
of the meas
urements Xi for the two groups be di. Then the
differences
between the means of z for the two
specific groups is
plane.
k(i
individuals,
The index numbers are to provide the required

of the data.
within the limitations
information,
for the solution to this
The particular
statistic
(44).
problem was developed
by Fisher
on which we shall rely is that
The criterion
the ratio of
the X's must be chosen to maximize
to the
the difference
between the group means
Such
standard deviation within the two classes.
a linear function will distinguish
better than any
other linear function between the specified
groups
pos
Having obtained the most discriminating
ition of the plane, we may find the distances
to
it from the points on the x-y plane.
We then con
sider the distributions
or the zi,
of the distances,
for the two groups.
We must then ask in sampling
3. For
from
Zi =
As the discriminating
from ver
plane moves
tical to horizontal
the ratio changes
in value.
It
evident that the most discrim
may be intuitively
inating position of the plane will be that for which
the fraction above is the largest.
We are thus
led to discover
the conditions
under which the
ratio is a maximum.
Having discovered
them,
fix
of Nx
subsequently
Xi, obtain index numbers

the vari?tes
by
small.
to
group
to their unknown parent populations

correctly
to either N_
(postulated as those corresponding
or N2) with the greatest
assurance
of success.
For this purpose we shall find p quantities
with
We notice that for a good discrimination

be
tween the two groups,
the fraction must take one
of its largest possible
since ideally the
values,
numerator would be large and the denominator
able
one
of
each
in means
difference
of groups
standard deviation within groups
are
of the problem
and the same on each of another group of N2 in

We require to find some measure
dividuals.
ment depending on the ? observations
which will
con
the widest possible
of the means
separation
sistent with minimum
standard deviations.
Since we are necessarily
interested
in both
the means and standard deviations
for the two
the ratio
groups of zi, we may consider
we
visualization
4.12 Mathematical
of the Discrim
Development
inant Function.
Suppose we have g obervations
overlap.
deviations.
discriminating
class
4.114
Figure
we
makes
above
be generalized
to
may
reasoning
more
than
two measurements,
although
include
Again
which
overlap
uncertain.
footnote
continued

l....p)
222**
Let Sni (h, i = 1. .. p) be the sums

from
products
Then
the
tional
OF EXPERIMENTAL
JOURNAL
or
of squares
EDUCATION
Or
we
may
variance
notation,
SX=d
to
x_
where
= ZZ
SZ
Shi
AhXi
coefficients
a solution
for
x =
must
d =
A.
seek
Si
i-
..
S?i.
SXp
to
Sii-
. .
-Su-
Sip
.
.
Spi.
Spi-
and consequently
_ S
?S
.Spp
Then
oD
2 aX D aX
S/D is a factor common to the 2 un

Evidently
known A 's. Therefore
the coefficients
required
are proportional
to the solutions
of the equations^
S__
d;
=0
(JA S
?(^)
reduces
we
Therefore
Ai...
Ap.
eachV.
dx
(h,i=l...p)4
The particular
function which discriminates
best for the two groups will be the one for which
the ratio D2/S is greatest,
of the ?
by variation
This
in matrix
write,
means
within
groups.
specific
is propor
of z within
groups
the
XX
(Vol.
AA +
SipAp
It can be shown (61) that an estimate

of "with
in groups" variance
is provided by D with Nx +
1 degrees
An estimate
of freedom.
of
p
N2
"between
is provided by
groups" variance
dx
N. N,
p2
N1+N2
+
Spi Xx
SppXp
with
dp
of freedom.
p degrees
3 continued....
footnote
And
zx = Szji
J_
Ni
SZj2
Xi_CX_j_
J_+....+
Nx
\?SXiji
j_+...+
Nx
Ap^Xpj!
L
Nx
AxSXxj2
X|SXjj2
XpSXpj2
J_+...+
j_=
sxiji
J_
Nx
2Xxj2
using
to(zjk-zk)2
Nowzjk=
J_
+...+
N2
Xi/SXijx
J_
Axdx
+...
Xxdi
+...
J_
Nk
XxSXijk
XiSXyk
J_+...+
J_+...+
Nk
Nk
J__
+...+
S'
^p/^pj1
J_
XPJ2
N2 /
Ni
the notation of the preceding

footnote,
=
(j
i...Nk;k=l,2).
.. +
AxXxjk+.
XiXijk+...+
XpXpjk
zk =Szjk
2Xij2\
N2 /
V Ni
N2 /
=
4. For,
JL
N2
N2
N2
5i"z2 =
\f
j_+...+
Xpdp
the variance
of z within
groups
is proportional
XpSXpjk
J
Nk
footnote

4 continued.
Dec.
LAMKE
223
1951)
the F-test,
Applying
discriminant
extreme
+ Na
F=N,
N,
N2
N1+N2
to new
longing to one of two

mine to which group
The basis
assigned.
bers to new subjects
characteristics
iginally
mation
two
no
case,
known
sampling
If,
as
was
done
or falls
stands
in this
are
groups
moderate
study,
for
selected
are
the
commonly
involves
test
the
z or
the
explicit
from
departure
does
normality
not
random
samples,
test.
as
occur
would
samples
lation.
vides
not
af
in this study
can
F-test
significant
not be made.
We may,
however,
unlikely that as great a separation
say that it is
as that observed
were
chance
if the groups
random
a homogenous
normal
popu
nearly
as
The
it can be used
pro
F-test,
here,
no conclusive
about
evidence
characteris
by
from
tics of the population
from which
the groups
were
drawn.
on the
The
Comment.
4. 2 Factor Analysis:
Introductory
so far dealt with is that the two cate
hypothesis
have two distinct
gories of good and poor teachers
To
kinds of personality
provide an in
profiles.
and
"good"
the pres
analysis,
ence of an "average"
group may be implied. The
is then that the most discriminating
assumption
footnote
the
between
fect the utility of the test (63).

Since the two groups examined
subjects.
need
be
assumptions
and the procedure

of its utility.
"poor"
new
of
the
subjects
from one of tw o
sumption of random sampling
vari?tes
with
distributed
of
populations
normally
that
equal population variances
(61). It appears
or
groups,
usually
of collateral
infor
case
test:
case
In either
be
presumably
from
"average"
groups.
"poor"
variance-ratio
in order to deter
groups,
the new subject should be
for assigning
the index num
has been derived from the
by means
in the
separated
not available
In such
made
basis
of
subjects
that
The significance
of the difference
between the
two distributions
of the dis
obtained by means
of a
criminant
function may be tested by means
4.13 Assumptions
Involved in the Use of the Dis
criminant Function:
Its Interpretation.
The dis
criminant
function may be viewed simply as a
mathematical
for routinely assigning
procedure
numbers
and
"good"
It is also interesting
to note that Wald has pro
vided a practical method
a new in
for assigning
dividual to one of the two groups with the least
risk of the two kinds of error when Nx and N2
are sufficiently
large (61, 118).
index
and
be found to lie on a continuum
will
can be obtained
function
groups,
4 continued....
then
zjk'Zk=
xi(xijk'sxiikV
and
(zjk'Zk)2
=A?
'"+^i/Xijk"sxijk)+
Nk/
Nk/
I
(Xxjk
ZXxjk)2
+ A iX.
'+Xp/Xpjk
\
(X.jk
(X2jk
definition,
Shi
(Xhjk
^Xhjk)
Nk
SX2Jk)
+...
Nk
(h,i=l....p)
SXjjk)
(Xijk
-?7/
ZX.jk)
NkNk
By
sxpjk
Nk
Consequently,
(zjk
5. For
zk)2
example,
aS
and
= S2
AhXi
h i
= 1. ..
p)
Shi (h, i
for h = 1, we have S = Xx_C

\
=SAiSxi=
+.
XiS.i
..+
XpSxp
aAx
also
Sxi
for h = 1 we have D = Xxdx
and
oD
dx.
oAx
6.
Fisher
groups
of
the
illustrates
(44)
to
deal
with
first
two.
the
a
third
use
group
of
discriminant
having
quantitative
function
obtained
characteristics

from
two
between
extreme
those
224
OF EXPERIMENTAL
JOURNAL
a second method
test of the hypothesis,
dependent
was devised
for dealing with the problem. 1 Where
as witn the discriminant
function two profiles
of
or
sub-scores
involve
an
the 16 PF
test.
will
were
ratings
examination
from
ses
of
each
items,
on the test may
be thought of as defining
in a Cartesian
coordinate
of
system
two
a point
each person's
set of 343 test
By analogy,
on the 16 PF test may be thought of as
responses
If the point
defining a point in 343 dimensions.
number
vectors
is
uration.
to
connected
taken
In
vector
will
the
origin,
to
be
represent
the subsequent
the
vector
the
person's
discussion
a person
called
use
obtained
test
vector.
In the case of this study, the locations

of 18
person vectors
(for 10 good and 8 poor teachers)
will be determined
reference
by use of a metric
frame involving 343 dimensions.
It is possible
to examine
the relationship
of
these person vectors
to each other in the space
Looked at from
spanned by the group of vectors.
this
there
viewpoint,
in general
are,
of
vectors
region;
2.
Vectors
eral
for
regions;
teachers
can
there
for
poor
the
poor,
In case
the
test
one,
responses
from poor
category
sponses.
so
in space
of
of
one
category
we
above,
do
teachers
no
that
one
more
would
separate
conclude
in this study,
makes
teachers
the
three
cases
above
has
been
and that each
7.
Acknowledgement
suggesting
the
due
is
general
encountered.
to Dr.
Chester
to
find
given
or pencil of
the config
common
the
for without
as
pattern,
we
elem
similarities
use
the
term
here.
addition
plus
elements,
the
responses
response.
is the
we may
just those
in common
possessed
only
0...
ai2...aim,
coordinates
first_m_
needed
also
to locate
and
vector,
re
is
simplification
matrix
derived
need
0...
0^,
are
the
to axes
one
spect
The first step in the desired

that of obtaining the correlation
in
where
that
In case two, we would conclude

that the test
reveal several
responses
among the good
patterns
and poor teachers
in this study.
In case three, we would conclude
that the test
could not be used in this fashion to sep
responses
arate the good from the poor teachers.
one of providing
The problem
is essentially
an alternative
reference
frame by means
of which
the locations of the 18 person vectors may be spec
ified in terms simple enough to make clear which
of
The cluster
will be called
or more.
(ai!,
teachers
characteristic
to
correlation
in any
coordinates
common
those
of
two
tends
region
than
another.
good
the
We may do this geometrically

by representing
each of the person vectors by coordinates
3. Vectors
for good and poor teachers may not
be distinctly
that is, they may be
separated;
located
no
be
elements
by
to hold
in
I al elements
it may share with no other
Since the object of the investigation
amount of similarity
in test responses,
our investigation
simplify
by examining
be found
in sev
may
in several
others.
teachers
good
for
correl
one vector
relates
entries
Eacn
each
(i. e.,
when comparing
18 sets of
instance,
the intercorrelations
between a given
responses,
set of responses
and the 17 others
indicate the
of the given set in terms of what it
composition
has in common with the other 17. A given set
of responses
could conceivably
be described
in
in another.
teachers,
person
In tnis
be found in one
may
we
in the responses,
terms
for good
of
of dimensions.
so established
way,
ents
possibilities:
1. Vectors
or
a metric
another
three
terms,
vectors.
in finding yet simpler

We are interested
spec
so that we may
for the configuration,
ifications
discover
in the responses.
To put it
patterns
per
such
two vectors)
of
the lengtns
defines
the
matrix
column
between
correlation
matrix
the position
of one vec
defines
completely
tor in relation
to each of tne others without the
dimen
sions.
be
may
formance.
product
of
of
the respon
be rep
persons
may
vec
of the person
matrix
correlation
ation between
another.
responses
person's
scalar
relations
angular
in the
entry
two
any
with
the
Since
of
the correlation
tors,
two
being
each
of
responses
correlated
other.
performances
resented
by the
to De
4. 21 Use of Factor-Analytic
Techniques
termine Patterns
For a test
of Test Responses.
tne
matrix,
every
XX
(Vol.
the
approach
in
responses
and
containing
score
the
the 18 subjects
this
studied,
of item
EDUCATION
to axes
last
in a test response
it shares with
of explanation we.may
simplicity
axes
reference
with
are
mutually
reference
one
least
n coordinates,
different
from
zero,
needed
to account
for
the
value
at
0),
other
consisting
are with
the
of
re
elements
no others.
For
assume
that all
orthogonal,
although
the restriction
is not necessary.
The situation may be made clearer
if we con
sider an example
from an intuitive standpoint,
and discuss
it in general
terms.
we
have
four
tests
which are mutually
Suppose
intercorrelated
because
involve
they each actually
abilities.
The score on
just two (uncorrelated)
each test may be thought of as the result of the
combined effects of the specific
amounts of the
two abilities
exhibited
for the in
(this accounts
W. Harris
and
to Dr.
Dorothy
approach.

M. Knoell
for
Dec.
LAMKE
225
1951)
and a third effect produced by

tercorrelations)
to the peculiar
demands of the test which
response
it does not share with any of the other three (this
explains
partially
the
why
not perfect).
From the previous
one
individual's
four
tests,
sented
by
in the interests
a more
it is clear
discussion
on
performance
four
producing
a vector
the
battery
can be
scores,
in 4-space.
we
But
of eventual
elaborate
are
intercorrelations
frame
that
e, 1, gj and
but simplifies
ing similarities
of
arities
repre
choose,
4 mutually
than
axes.
There are involved in the four

orthogonal
one or both of which are de
scores
two abilities,
manded by all four tests.
In addition each of the
four
of a particular
the
location
representing
tests)
by
senting
a demand
involves
performances
istic
test.
a person
vector
(i. e.,
a person's
performance
to six
reference
orthogonal
of
these
six
character
then represent
We may
the
vector
on
the
axes
h complicates
our
immediate
repre
items.
in the
is illustrated,
by analogy,
in
which
reader
is
to
the
figure below,
imagine
the dif
representing
plotted three person vectors
of three people on the four
ferent performances
The situation
the
of
problem
the common
elements
the
examining
in 2-space.
in 2-space,
in
of having
rise
giving
of the
projections
is a considerable
This
the
plane
to examine
in 4-spaceto
examine
vectors
person
we
of response,
of
configuration
determine
patterns
simil
by the con
instead
Consequently,
such
Any
be revealed
vectors
the
may
to patterns
by
vectors
person
simplifica
tion.
that we had no information
Suppose
four
will
in general,
of compar
matters
in responses.
(or patterns)
figuration
c-d.
to use
simplification,
reference
to the other four

and d, and then with respect
axes (only one of which latter coordinates
will be
of the axes
from 0). The introduction
different
of
"composition"
ements
giving
rise
system.
test
responses,
as
to patterns,
were
but
above,
dinate
the
led
to plot
The
patterns
the
el
the
described
in
them
about
or
a coor
such
in response
this to be our plan of attack,
Supposing
we
the
of the
vectors.
person
tests.
ev
be
ident from examining

the c-d plane, or,
same thing, from the c and d coordinates
establish
a coordinate
such
how can
from
system
any
of test responses?
matrix
It can be shown (107) that the desired
coordin
ate system may be established
from
by working
the reduced correlation
matrix
(the correlation
matrix with the omission
of the original unit diag
This specifies
the configuration
of the
onals).
vectors
person
in
the manner
from such a matrix

coordinates
of
been
common
called
to
analogous
the
the
that
desired:
person
factor
in what
vectors
c-d
plane
is,
the first m
can be obtained
or
space,
above.
has
the
space
of the vec
Obtaining,
then, the configuration
tors in common factor space, we must still seek
to simplify
the description
of the configuration,
so
we
that
relations
To
ber
Here
responses
elements
the axes
are
are
for the common
c and
e,
f,
d,
and
_g, and
the
h.
elements
axes
Each
in the
for
the unique
vector
person
is supposed
to lie in a separate
(not illustrated)
These different
have nothing
3-space.
3-spaces
in common except the plane c-d.
The projections
of the three person vectors
to plane c-d are in
dicated.
If we are interested
in the amount of
in the responses
of the three individ
similarity
to the plane
uals, we may confine our attention
c-d. We see that persons
in
2 and 3 responded
the same fashion with reference
to
substantially
ability c.
Each person vector in 6-space may be located
with respect
to ?
by giving first its coordinates
do
of
fine
the
we
among
space
this,
we
in
shall,
the reference
the
or
seek
first
axes
in common
vectors
person
as
shall
the
person
such
less
inter
a minimal
num
necessary
factor
to de
space.
ar
so established,
space
a manner
axes
in such
as
clearly
the
understand
reference
orthogonal
Then
range
indicate
more
may
easily
of the vectors.
possible
vectors
may
relations
what
the
be.
may
as
in
While
be
to
relations
3
apparent
without the last step, in space of higher dimen

sions such simplification
may be necessary.
The solution to the first problem may be found
in Thurstone's
theorem
(57) to the effect that the
smallest
number of orthogonal
axes
reference
that can be used to specify
the configuration
of n
variables
in common factor space is the minimum
rank of their correlation
matrix with the diagonal
entries
tween
treated
zero
and
as
unknown
unity.
The

positive
requisite
values
be
axes
may
be
226
EDUCATION
OF EXPERIMENTAL
JOURNAL
found by using the centroid method of factor analis ob

The solution to the second problem
y sis.
tained by rotating the axes established
to simple
I ID
XX
(Vol.
teachers
but rela
Vectors
for both good and poor
may be found in their distinctive
tively
regions.
large
structure.
In more
centroid
tne first
detail,
a reduced
from
tained
correlation
ob
factor
matrix
a ref
is
erence axis so located that it is a convenient

com
of the axis on which the
putational approximation
sum of the projections
is a max
of the 18 vectors
imum.
The location of the axis is specified
by
those projections.
The second factor extracted
is a reference
axis orthogonal
to the first; again
its location is specified
by stating the projections
on it. The process may be re
of the 18 vectors
peated
for
where
the projections
are
axis
successive
reference
zero:
all
to
axes,
this
axis
no
has
the point
on a new
of the 18 vectors
for
utility
successive
or
factors,
are
axes,
in general
discussed
at
dimensions;
In any
and
common
elements
on,
we
further
tablished
the
on
projections
axes
reference
vectors
as possible
and
es
thus
axes.
various
num
lesser
the
Having
of the Results
4. 22 Interpretation
In
Analysis.
this
instance,
to
the
in another.
There
are
teachers.
1A,
a number
In any
In case
hypoth
show two dis

esis that good and poor teachers
of response when taking the 16 PF
tinct patterns
for
test, case 1 (part 4. 21) above must: vectors
poor
teachers,
sub-cases:
poor
In case
teachers.
of the Factor
support
in gen
vectors,
of
axes
orthogonal
the
case,
would
teachers
of
the
rotated
In case
several
IB,
IB
have
reference
1C,
several
be necessary,
might
similar
8.
meaning
of
of
subsequent
"relatively
discussion.
small"
or
one
upon
projections
axes
reference
orthogonal
but vectors
for the good

upon
one
upon
another.
axes
orthogonal
the configuration.
to describe
would be required
the group of vectors
In the final rotated solution
for the good teachers would show large projections
on the rest;
on several
axes, but small projections
for the poor
for the group of vectors
projections
teachers would be large on the latter but small on
for both good and poor teachers

Vectors
and rela
may be found in their distinctive
tively small regions.
|
light
ex
hold
axes.
rotated
of 1A may occur, with the vec

The reverse
found in a relatively
tors for poor teachers
restricted
region.
The
for the poor
the vectors
would
have
projections
large
the poor,
vectors
for
axis;
a larger
of
number
In case
ID,
for good teachers may be found in

Vectors
8 restricted
but vec
one relatively
region,
tors for poor teachers may be considerably
scattered
throughout a large region.
the
1C
would
would
situation
similar
that in this instance
cept
teachers
1A
might
poor
axes
rotated
would
to locate
the term,
for the good teachers

show that the projections
and large for the same axis
would be similar
those for the poor teachers would not.
axes.
reference
of
clusters
be required.
the vectors
this we will have achieved

simple
relatively
vectors
lo
for the configuration:
specifications
cated in the same region will have similar pro
on
orthog
for the reference
be needed
are
there
as many
only
orthogonal,
Just one axis might serve

for the good teachers
(hence
restricted
region); but several
relatively
for the
to locate the vectors
be required
will
done
jections
the vec
of
projections
of the
the projections
In any case,
eral terms.
axes
established
rotated
the
vectors
upon
finally
of good
within categories
would show similarities
the descrip
To simplify
so that as many
zero
have
rotate
conceivably,
axes.
are
as
frame
we have described
18
the original
of their
in terms of projections
ber of reference
tion
axes
reference
the
case,
teachers.
poor
established
orthogonal
reason
a priori
In case 2, part 4. 21, we may expect that a

axes will be required
lesser number of reference
of vectors
than in case 3. Even if the clusters
obtained.
onal axes would

constructed
no
tors upon the rotated axes finally established

of good
to the two categories
would be unrelated
vectors.
Having
is
there
least
will be sufficiently
that the responses
to suppose
which could span as
that the vectors,
similar
much as 18-space,
might be included in two or
It is apparent
that the number of orthogonal
axes that can be obtained is dependent
reference
of
upon the space spanned by the configuration
in this fashion,
person vectors
terms.
1, Part 4. 21, we may expect that the

number of
would span a considerable
In case
18 vectors
3-space.
locat
nor can it in general be located

ing the vectors,
so that neither
in terms of the zero projections,
it nor
The number of axes established

and the pro
on them in the final solu
jections of the vectors
tion will indicate which of the cases or sub-cases
we have encountered.
The possibilities
may be
former.
Inter
the Two Solutions.
4. 3 Relation Between
of the factor analysis and
of the results
pretations
"relatively
large"
will
become

clearer
in
the
Dec.
LAMKE
227
1951)
of those from the discriminant

show similarities.
However,
are
so
numerous
solutions
that
obtained
section
when
the
the
will
function should
the possibilities
relation
between
be discussed
actual
SECTION
ANALYSIS
two
the
in the next
have
findings
ob
It will be noted that of the eight teachers
six were
ratings,
taining the highest acceptability
rat
the highest M-Blank
among those receiving
and six received
ings by the principals,
highest
Of the eight teachers
ratings by the observers.
seven
obtaining the lowest acceptability
ratings,
received
the
the lowest M-Blank
prin
ratings by
been
made.
IH
OF THE DATA
for
the
cussed
we
2.
of
choice
methods
in
shall,
data-gathering
section,
of Teacher
Comparison
teacher
were
there
the
9).
(Appendix
available
four
of
each
the
the
or
principal
two
and
supervisor,
on
made
was
rating
the
basis
five-point
ity
cipals
ing
made
observers'
the
same
by
were
ratings
two
not
always
reason
it seemed
people,
able to average
the ratings when comparing
them
or supervisor.
with those of the principal
The
correlations
between the acceptability
the
rating,
or
principal's
and
the
same
supervisor's
rating
of the observers'
average
are
instrument,
shown
Table
The
this
case
does
not
it appears
are
correlations
random
been
teachers.
of
groups
ap
teachers
if either of
used.
rated
or
average
It was
below.
necessary
particular
while
"above
only
supervisors
on
obtainable
Most
devoted
ten good
has just
are
was
rating
or
The
because
average",
them
the
gave
the M-Blank.
chos
subjects
their
acceptabil
their
prin
rat
highest
of the remainder
of this section will be
to analyzing
the data associated
with the
and eight poor teachers whose selection
been described.
The data to be treated
the M-Blank,
on the
ratings
in Table
given
3.2.
in Table
4. The Discriminant
In each case
Function.
where the discriminant
function was involved
2.1.
S-matrix
was
set
up
as
an
follows:
2.2.
difference
ard error;
extreme
on
the significance
of the largest differ
Testing
ence between the two correlations
by the method
for small samples
suggested
by Fisher
(45), we
obtain
had
criteria
the "good"
group.
en were
selected
them.
the
that
criter
to increase
the size of this group of 16 so that
would be meaningful.9
certain later computations
For that reason two more subjects were added to
scale from 5 (the lowest) to 1 (the highest).

An indication of the reliability
of the observ
ers' ratings is the correlation
of . 77 between
Since
of good and poor
it appears
other
were
observers.
of
the
Eight teachers were rated as highly acceptable

or supervisors,
and eight
by their principals
tea
or acceptability.
One was an
ching efficiency
or sup
acceptability
rating made by the principal
three were ratings on the Wisconsin
Ad
ervisor;
made independently
aptation of the M-Blank,
by
Each
as
chosen
proximately
eight good and eight poor
would have had a similar
composition
were
ratings
were
ratings
However,
For
the
the study deals with personality
ion for the selection
data.
Data
Ratings.
for 32 subjects
obtained
rated
group
true.
also
acceptability
the data obtained,
analyze
is
Because
dis
and
devices,
of analyzing
this
the reasons
described
Having
the
among
lowest by observers.
No teacher rated poor in
one case received
a good rating in another; the
reverse
1. Introduction.
were
seven
and
cipals,
not
exceed
twice
the
that the differences

than
greater
the
from
sampling
we
conclude
same
that
the
could
stand
Su...
Sxi....
Sin
S_i-
Su-...
Sin
Sni...
.Sni....
Snn
in the
occur
population.
evidence
is
not
by
In
suf
ficient to show that acceptability

ratings are es
different
from either of the M-Blank
sentially
ratings.
3. The Selection
of the Good and Poor Teachers
to be Studied.
dif
Jt was felt that characteristic
ferences
between good and poor teachers
could
most easily be isolated by examining
the extremes:
the best teachers
and the poorest ob
observed,
served.
on the
The best and poorest
teachers
basis of each of the three ratings are shown i n
Table
9.
3.1.
Using
subscores
the
F-Test
for
are
involved.
the
discriminant
function
requires
at
least
17

subjects
if
15
228
OF EXPERIMENTAL
JOURNAL
2. 1
TABLE
INTERCORRELATION
1.
Acceptability
2.
Principal's
M-Blank
3.
(Vol. XX
EDUCATION
AMONG CRITERION
RATINGS
on
rating
+.80
two
Average,
observers'
+.61
+.69
M-Blank
ratings,
2.2
TABLE
SIGNIFICANCEOF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN

OF RATINGS
CORRELATIONS
n-3
.80
1.10
.61
.71
Reciprocal
26*
.038
26
.038
. 39 + . 28
Difference
*For three subjects
there was no principal's
These
three are
rating on the M-Blank.
omitted from this table, and from the cor
relations
computed.
TABLE
BEST AND POOREST
3.1
TEACHERS
ON BASIS OF RATINGS
of Two
Average
Criterion
Principal's
M-Blank
Acceptability
Good
Category
Ratings
Used
Poor
Good
3,4,5
Teacher
Identifi
cation
Poor
3,4,5
101
102
104
106
106
110
107
109
110
111
118
115
111
113
117
117
119
123
126
116
118
120
124
129
115
119
123
125
126
127
Rat
Observers'
ings,
107
109
120
129
130
Number
Rating
M-Blank
Good
2 or less
101*
103*
107*
109*
112*
113
114*
118
120*
122*
124*
127*
128*
130
*
Average
**Average
rating
rating
of 2
of 3

Poor
3 or more
102
105
106
108
110**
111**
115**
116**
117
121
123
125**
126**
131**
r>
CJ3
_o
24 23 16 18 14
_Q4_
18 12 22
34 10 40
10 24 16
18 26 26 30 30 30 32 28 12 30
30 24 34 16 32 24 24 32
-S_-_. 8
14 16 18 10 18 28 14
22 23
20 26 12 16
18
8
12
28
211020262218222010 1424143218202020
_?__
O 32 17
12 16
16
22 23 22 20 22 22 24 20 16 22
M 40 24 10 12 20 10 18 20 26 18
30
22
18 12 22 10 14 12 22
22 10 42
0 4
16 18
22 28 16 10 24 24 28 20
8
24 22 34 16 16 12 18
16 24 16 22 10 12 16 16
Raw
16
PF
Scores,Test
RAW
DATA
GOOD
POOR
FOR
AND
TEACHERS
3.2
TABLE
bJ3 d
.2
K^S w
cd
CQ
>i
<D
20 20 14 22 16 16 18 18
46 48 48 46 38 46 40 50 34 40
16 22 48
26 30 20 26 26 30 32 24 14 22
30 32 26 16 24 26 24 36
36 46 36 34 32 36 26 40 44 32
24 28 28 24 32 36 46 22
26 23 30 26 20 20 16 30 24 20
24 24 22 12 24 30 24
30 28 34 44 32 38 28 40 32 44
42 28 32 32 40 40 40 36
22 20 24 34 32 24 28 24 22 14
20 24 20 10 30 24 28 22
48 48 48 20
wx>O
>i 5 rAW O
Cl
C '*->
dK
20 20 10 10 20 22 14 20 18 14
O.CQ
?_1
as
?l
b? d
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
oo<u
t?
V^
S.
?K
'S
S
-J5a
10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
111
118120
129130
113
124
115117
102
126
119123
106 HO
SD
d
rA
3
"
?_
^
HS
101107
109
Good
Poor

toCO
o
O cpa
>r o
w?
WX
o> H O
5?5?33~
263546
Superior's
Friend's
Rating
Interview
Rating
Teacher
43021
624440
1 65613402
13
4614402
34111
605134220
5624301
4136250
3012
4 24
4562103
3460224
33112
29
5623104
6442410
43120
30
6412503
4146311
34102 24315602
10
5624301
6354201
43012
15
2562204
455120419
43102
5614302
5261430
43102
23
5235510
4615302
43120
73614205
33022
5631204
956
14302
6354201
43012
11
4532601
4236510
43102
34201
5126340
TABLE
3.2
(Continued)
No.
12345
1234567
26*
3406521
43012
5531502
Good
43012
4312605
18
5634102
Poor
17
52012
5623401
5452401

Dec.
231
LAMKE
1951)
Here
is the within groups
Sij
for the two groups.
products
sum of squares
10
or
has shown
that
R2 =
Nj
If
N2
N,+N2
di
1+N^Jk
N_+N2
A =
and d =
X..
where R2 is the square

tion of the dichotomous
measurements
it may
hence
where A i are the coefficients

of the discriminant
between the
function and di are the differences
means
measures
in the two
of the respective
it has been shown that (part 4.12, Sec
groups,
tion II)
be made
a random
from
+ Xidi
+
+Apdp.
sums of squares
is D,
The "within groups"
with Nr + N2 - p - 1 degrees
where
of freedom,
of group 1; N2, of
Nx is the number of members
group 2, and p is the number of subscores.
sums
groups"
with p degrees
Nx N2 D2,
of
ence
The
other
if
Xijk
^5XiQ4>
is the raw score
then
*
Stl =/SXi"
i2=fsxill
11.
and
so
As
in
omitted.
on.
the
case
See
PXin)|2
+ /LXi?
nx a
the
5.
source
can
is
be
upon
observed
separation
also
an
infer
should
an
population.
so
given
on
not
observed,
that,
study of this kind be made,

easily
interview
the
compared.
were
rated
by
a paired-comparison
case
In each
used,
each
trait being
i_ in test j_ for group
that
paired with
scale
every
was
other
k,
(SXil2)\2
(sxj2i))
fexil2
"?t-/a
traits,
the
the data to another
descriptive
evaluated
for individual
-(sxujj/sxjax
of
Fart
sam
random
means.
popula
4.1 Analysis
of the Ratings on Surface Traits
Function.
Using the Discriminant
Ratings were
obtained for 19 of CattelPs
traits. H
20 surface
Five of the traits thought to be known best to a
superior of the subject were rated by the super
ior; seven thought best known to a friend were
rated by a friend; and seven thought most easily
by means
index number for person

where z\ is the desired
i on factor j
i, and Xij is the score of person
=
(j A... Q4) of the 16 PF test.
function is closely
related
The discriminant
to the theory of multiple
correlation.
Fisher
(44)
is,
of
separation
F-test
findings
of freedom.
AiXij
of
from
is
squares
are calculated
Zi=A1XiA+--
is not
studied
a measure
amount
N1+N2
The index numbers

of the function
that
in the case of a
of the groups studied.
Here,
we
may
say that the groups
significant
F-test,
are so widely separated
that if they were random
it is unlikely
that they would come from
samples
our attention
is fixed on the
the same population,
where
"between
here
group
provides
of D is needed,
the value
D = Axdx +
of
sample
here applied is used as a de

ple, and the F-test
It
instead of an inferential
statistic.
scriptive
S""1di.
the F-test,
cor
a multiple
than
larger
on the entire distribution.

is ordinarily
used so that general
can
the character
of a population
The
To apply
be much
relation based
The F-test
izations about
tion.
=
Ai
10. That
Xp.
correlation
is of some interest,
The multiple
but it should be remembered
that here it is based
on groups at the extremes
of the distribution,
LXP
The
Xx...
of the multiple
correla
classification
with the
the
surface
(sxil2)|/z.xi22
-(SXi22)^
trait
to
n2 ;\
related
n2 I

intelligence
was
232
OF EXPERIMENTAL
JOURNAL
in its group.
In every pair the item most descrip
tive of the subject was indicated.
The ratings
were scored by recording
the number of times
each trait was shown as the most descriptive
of
the pair.
The result was three sets of items for
each set containing
every subject,
descriptions
ranked in the order that they were thought to ap
ply to the subject being rated.
An S matrix was obtained from each of the
three sets of rankings for the ten good and eight
teachers.
poor
method
of
the
Because
was
ranking
used
linear
trix.
function,
when
the
the
row
a row
was
omitted
were
inverses
the
the ma
in
others
from
was
as
Inasmuch
computed.
matrix
each
was
not
Since
lost.
inde
row
each
was linearly dependent on all the others

it made
no difference
for conven
which row was deleted;
ience the last row was chosen.
A discriminant
the same separation
function producing
between
the groups would be obtained no matter
which
row
was
dropped;
the
however,
set
of
A's
asso
ciated with the raw data employed

in the discrim
inant function would change,
as the data changed.
4.11 Analysis
of the Ratings by a Superior.
The
raw data are found in Table 3.2.
The S matrix
is given in Table 4. 111. TheS"1
matrix
is given in Table 4. 112; and the d matrix
in Table 4.113.
The A's originally
obtained are
found
venient
in Table
to work
4.114.
with
To
make
when
computing
them
more
con
index
num
bers,
they have been divided by (- Aj and the re
sult multiplied
by 100, as found in the same table.
The F-test
is applied in Table 4. 115. The
difference
the groups
is significant
between
at the
The implication
5% level but not at the 1% level.
is here that the A's will provide a function which
discriminates
well between the two groups
(of ten
and eight) from which it was developed.
The mul
is given in the same table.
tiple correlation
are giv
The index numbers
for the 32 subjects
en in Table 4.116.
Those for the good and poor
groups are plotted in Figure 4. 111. The distri
bution of index numbers
for the good, poor, and
average groups is shown in Table 4.117.
4. Ill Interpretation
of the Results*.
With only
five items to be compared,
some of which were
almost
ranked last, rankings of the
invariably
same
For
pattern
occurred
for
different
the traits of
example,
good subjects were ranked
way, so that there could be
tween them on the basis of
on
pears
that
age
teachers
and
istic
that
poor
these
for
responses
teachers.
aver
for the good
those
is not
situation
the
of
patterns
and
good
It ap
for
numbers
lie between
may
but
poor,
We
conclude
in
substantially
index
the whole
num
index
of
range
teachers
for both good and poor.
the range
cludes
clear.
character
ratings,
are
not
established
The
4.12 Analysis
of the Ratings by a Friend.
raw data are found in Table 3.2.
The S matrix
is given
is given in Table 4. 121. The S~* matrix
in Table 4.123.
in Table 4. 122; and the d matrix,
obtained are found in Table
The A's originally
subjects.
two poor and three

in exactly
the same
no discrimination
be
the rankings.
In spite
make
To
4.124.
matrix
each
for
was
for the discriminant
S"1 needed
from
dropped
no information
pendent,
of
combination
To obtain
func
the discriminant
the good
for separating
The
teachers.
poor
the average
the
from
bers
XX
(Vol.
of the significant
F-tests,
tion is of doubtful utility
for
paired-comparison
a set
of ranks
not independent;
for example,
if seven items are
to be ranked,
the location of six fixes the location
the rows of the S ma
of the last. Consequently,
each row
trices obtained were not independent;
was
EDUCATION
them
more
to work
convenient
they have
by ten, as
with when computing

index numbers,
been divided by (- AJ and multiplied
in
found
same
the
table.

The F-test
at
difference
between the groups is significant
is here that the
the 1% level.
The implication
X 's will provide a function which discriminates
well between the two groups
(of ten and eight)
cor
The multiple
from which it was developed.
relation
are
The index numbers
for the 32 subjects
Those for the good and
given in Table 4.126.
The
4.121.
poor groups are plotted in Figure
of index numbers
for the good, poor
distribution
and
is
groups
average
in Table
shown
4.127.
In spite of
of the Results.
4.121 Interpretation
there is a considerable
the significant
F-test,
area of overlap.
that
it appears
On the whole,
the
index
numbers
for
the
teachers
average
tend
The
to lie between those for the good and poor.
is
teachers
for average
range of the distribution
so
however,
large,
him
We
with
tical,
assurance
for
to any
that while
conclude
ratings
in this
it would
good
case,
as
they
they
stand.
be difficult
one
of
distinctive
and
poor
are
too
index
the
given
that,
for a new subject,
teachers
amorphous
the
number
to assign
three
patterns
are
groups.
of
suggested
to be prac
4.13 Analysis
of the Ratings Obtained by Inter
view.
The raw data are found in Table 3.2. The
S matrix
is given in Table 4.131.
The S"1 matrix
in Table
i is given in Table 4.132; and the d matrix,
The A 's originally
obtained are found in
! 4.133.
! Table 4.134.
To make them more convenient
.to
work with when computing
index numbers,
they
have been divided by A_ and multiplied
by ten, as
found in the same table.
is applied in Table 4. 135. The dif
The F-test
ference between the groups fails to be significant
is here that the
at the 5% level.
The implication
IA *s do not provide a function which discriminates

Dec.
233
LAMKE
1951)
O
O
+
++
++
++
+,+00
?
+ = Good
0 = Poor
O
+ 00
200
300
400
500
Teachers
Teachers
Figure
Plot
of Index Numbers
for Good and Poor Groups,
+++
Y?
Superiors'
Ratings
OO+O+H-
++f
So
+ = Good
o = Poor
4. Ill
?5
+ l?o
Figure
4. 121
OO
_3o
???
Teachers
Teachers
Plot
of Index Numbers
for Good and Poor
Friends'
Ratings
Teachers,
o o
O
+ + + +0++-0,
++
100
150
+ = Good
o = Poor
Teachers
Teachers
Figure
Plot
._+
.+_+
4.131
for Good and Poor

of Index Numbers
Interview Ratings
+0+
+
_oo
0+_+
50 -500
+ = Good
o = Poor
+0
250
200
Teachers
100
o_o_o_
200150
Teachers
Teachers
Figure
Plot
of Index Numbers
4.211
for Good and Poor Groups,
16 PF Test

234
JOURNAL
OF EXPERIMENTAL
TABLE
+ 10.100
+ 2.000
-
6.100
EDUCATION
4.111
S MATRIX
FOR SUPERIORS'
+8. 000
0.000
+7.975
3.600
-6.
000
-0.775
2.400
-4.
000
-1.100
TABLE
RATINGS
+ 12.475
-
FOR SUPERIORS'
(Row 5 of S Omitted)
TABLE
2.
RATINGS
19869580
10349771
28514970
+.00140797
+.19621332
+. 08487304
+.09542041
+.08003162
+.15551823
TABLE
4. 114
4.113
dMATRIX
THE A's
SUPERIORS' RATINGS
SUPERIORS'
100
-(-AJx
+100.00000
28.66988
+ 69.56522
+ 2.17391
Original A's
-.13180517
+.03778838
-.09169056
-.00286533
D =
D2
+9.600
100
4.112
S"1 MATRIX
+.24898728
(Vol. XX
-0.
RATINGS
700
0.000
+0. 075
+0.325
+0. 300
.08445559
00713275
TABLE
4. 115
THE F-TEST
SUPERIORS' RATINGS
Source
of
Variation
D.F.
S.S.
M.S.
12 D. F.
Within
Groups
13
08445559
.00649658
00317011
.00079253
14 D.F.
Between
Groups
Multiple
R with
the dichotomous
classification
for these
subjects:
8.197
. 52

1%=14. 37
5%= 5.91
1%=14.24
5%= 5.87
o
? CD
>
en
toCO
Teachers
of
Interval
Teachers
Teachers
Average
Poor
Good
Boundary
300_3_4_5
4.
117
TABLE
RATINGS
SUPERIORS'
DISTRIBUTION
OF
NUMBERS
INDEX
BASED
ON
Lower
1100 125 150 2175 200

2 225
275_1_
1 350
325
375
312
400
1 425
1 450
250_2_3
217
1 2218 3316 4383
7316 8285 9387 10

254
318
11 324
12 13
316
316
383 17
16
387 18
116 22
19
254 344
20 21
318 23
412 24
254
187 30
187 32
27
254 28
316 29
316 31
318
INDEX
NUMBERS
ON
BASED
SUPERIORS'
RATINGS
Teacher
Index
4.
TABLE
116
No.
383
14
Poor
No.
6Teachers
316
Teachers
15
444
Good
5257

Teachers
26
316
Average
25
383
236
JOURNAL
OF EXPERIMENTAL
TABLE
S MATRIX
+15.900
+ 1.700
+ 0.400
+ 4.200
-
(Vol. XX
4. 121
FOR FRIENDS'
RATINGS
+27.100
-10.600
EDUCATION
+60.400
-20. 600
1.800
1.800
-20.
400
4.250
0.550
1.750
9.850
+20.900
+ 5.200
+ 5.000
-28.800
3.000
+ 4.400
TABLE
9.100
FOR FRIENDS'
(Row 7 of S Omitted)
+.01041116
+.09779689
-10.800
+3.875
+28.775
-2.875
4. 122
MATRIX
.08060572
+47.600
+ 3.000
+.00912752
+.01795797
+.05410865
+.12250256
+.02358451
+.04351385
+.06398439
TABLE
RATINGS
+.00756903
+.06059773
+.04937846
+.03371219
+.07194254
4. 123
d MATRIX
FRIENDS' RATINGS
+0.150
+0. 450
+0. 400
-1.100
-0. 800
-0.375
+1.275

+.04844292
+.07556512
-.00013386
-.11845907
+.00891173
+.50866721
Dec.
237
LAMKE
1951)
the two groups

(of ten and eight)
cor
The multiple
developed.
very well between

from which it was
is given
relation
in
same
the
of
average
index
numbers
is
groups
for
shown
the
in Table
acceptability
ratings.
between
test
indicates,
As
of the Results.
the
are
groups
well
not
the F
suggested
the concept
no
have
to
relation
appreciable
accept
teaching
reasons
For
that
in section
appear
on factor B of the test was

were analyzed factorially.
strictly
comparable
5,
score
the
omitted when the data

to provide
Therefore
the
results,
on
scores
B were omitted when the data were

of the discriminant
function.
4. 21 Analysis.
The raw data are found
3. 2. The S matrix
is given in Table 4.
is given in Table 4. 212; and
S"* matrix
trix, in Table 4. 213. The A's originally
ed are found in Table 4. 214. To make
We
the
same
when
in Table
211. The
the d ma
obtain
them
computing
table.
The F-test
difference
between the groups is significant
at
the 1% level.
The implication
is here that the
A 's will provide a function which will discrimin
ate well between the two groups (of eight and ten)
from which it was developed.
cor
The multiple
relation
The
index
numbers
en in Table 4. 216.
groups are plotted
of
bution
average
will
be
lap,
The
the
index
average
and
group,
the
32
are
subjects
giv
Those for the good and poor

in Figure 4. 211. The distri
numbers
groups,
seen
that
good
for
is
for
shown
save
poor
the good,
poor,
in Table
4. 217.
for
groups
however,
and
It
area
of
are
well
separated.
has
a wide
small
including both the good and poor groups,

tending beyond them.
over
range,
and ex
of the Results.
If the discrim
inant function is to be useful to us the index num
bers obtained should be regularly
associated with
12.
to be only
she
makeup
be
may
poor.
that
characteristic
response
pat
function.
The
of the 16 PF Test.
5. The Factor Analysis
data for the factor analysis were the 18 sets of
to both forms of the 16 PF tests, with
responses
the
omission
the
of
tor B.
These
contrast
to
items
the
giving
items were
other
of one of
for the choice
answers.
possible
were
the
used
for
all
for
Fac
in
because
responses
called
on
score
omitted
"yes-no"
these
questions,
tions
with
conclude
discriminant
three
to work
is' likely
the teacher
way
"bal
this
Lacking
terns to the 16 PF test have been suggested,

(the
new hypothesis)
but not established,
by means of
in
convenient
frame
may
in a certain
superior.
a certain
aban
some
lie
that personal
"balanced"
to be
with
If we
It is possible
to be
perhaps
but another
obtained.
in
The distribution
observed might be explained
this manner,
but the data do not permit the new
to be adequately
tested.
hypothesis
dex numbers,
they have been divided by (- A_)
and the result multiplied
by ten, as found in the
more
and
teachers,
factor
by use
treated
"good"
teacher
average;
4. 2 Analysis
of the 16 PF test Using the Discrim
inant Function.
The data supplied by the 16 PF
test was to be analyzed by two different methods.
poor
av
the
a continu
on
lie
should
"average"
we
and
"poor",
that
need
the
ance",
ability.
results
hypothesis.
traits
ity
for
and
good
the study
for
to
is not supported,
the
by
between
another
It is also apparent from the plot, Figure 4.131,

that the traits as assessed
by the interviewer
the
numbers
found
be
of
range
when
them.
place
separated.
index
that
for
whole
the
entertained
would
That hypothesis
is
don
was
designed
teachers
erage
um with
those
and
poor,
137.
good,
4.
for
ratings
A hypothesis
was
table.
The index numbers

for the 32 subjects are giv
en in Table 4. 131. Those for the good and poor
groups are plotted in Figure 4. 131. The distri
bution
the
Tetrachoric
correla
"yes-no"
they
items;
could not be used for items with one of three pos

sible answers.
The B factor is termed by Cat
tell
a measure
of
and
intelligence,
stud
previous
ies have shown little relationship

between
intel
in teaching. 12 Therefore
it
ligence and success
was judged that the omission
of these items would
not
the
affect
greatly
over-all
response
and the factor analysis was made

with the omission
of those giving
B
factor.
The
343
tetrachoric
18x18 matrix
the
shown
were
variables
sponses
normality
correlations
were
responses
correlations
in
patterns,
of the 343 items,

a score on the
in only
obtained,
in Table
appropriate
correlated
two
in
this
5.1.
was
Tetrachoric
in
the
the
data
of
form
re
Underlying
in the distribution
case
of
a symmetric
because
categories.
is assumed
categorized;
of the 18 sets
giving
such
an
thus
assumption
seems
in accord with Cattell's
theories.
The communalities
were estimated
as the
largest
entry
in each
row,
and
five
factors
were
removed
from the matrix by Thurstone's
method
of centroid factor analysis
(107). The residual
a person
who
has
a teacher-training
from
Frobably
graduated
as
to
a teacher;
succeed
enough
intelligence
teaching
to
mean
score
other
the
Here
characteristics.
for
the
B was
for
the
19.5.
19.4;
eight
poor
teachers,
success
ten
curriculum
is
then
teachers
good

possesses
attributable
on
factor
?H
O cp
<_o
Index
No.
> r
o *j w x
81.3
103.9
89.980.8
81.3
102.9
102.1
89.989.597.7
w?
o as
o > H ??I
< c
119.8
93.1
94.199.497.7
113.4 103.9
121.4
88.3
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
70.8100.3
103.1 103.2
104.7
103.0
90.0
97.7
93.1
86.697.6
102.1
105.4
4.
TABLE
126
INDEX
NUMBERS
ON
BASED
FRIENDS'
RATINGS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Teacher
10
No.
Average
Teachers
Poor
Teachers
Good
Teachers
1%
07
5. =
812
5%
09
8.
3.=
+ (AJ
10
x
M.S. .0983108248
.8662720082
+ 32.73436
+
+ 62.41925
+
+ 41.72061
+107.06371
10.00000
61.87801
THE
F-TEST
FOR
RATINGS
FRIENDS'
4.125
TABLE
A's
THE
FOR
FRIENDS'
RATINGS
4.
TABLE
124
Multiple
the
dichotomous
R
with
these
for
91
classification
subjects:
.
1.0814190725
5.1976320489
S.S.
D=1.0814190725
D2
=I.1694672114
A's
-.
04982362
02635741
-.
-.
00805191
-.03359306
-.05025942
Original
D.F.
08620674
-.
Groups
6
Groups
11
WithinBetween
Variation
Source
of

? (DO
CD
CO
CO
CD
+55.275
+.01477903
+.08358426
+.03694079
+.04082896
+.03063347
+.07095024
000
+48.
7.750
+
+
.03180388
+.04615483
-.00094346
-.00636700
-.00281504
+25.775
2.250
-26.525
+.03891010
+.04076914
+.04204410
+.02689108
150
400
+74. 000-30.
S
MATRIX
FOR
INTERVIEW
RATINGS
4.
131
TABLE
4.150
10.
+ +
133
TABLE4.
025 +0.250
-0.350
VIEW400
-0. 400 +0.350
INTE?
d RATINGS
FOR
+0.
+0.
-0.275
MATRIX
(RowOmitted)
S
7of
4.
132
TABLE
S"1
MATRIX
INTERVIEW
FOR
RATINGS
+.03105909
+.07439673
+.04747678
400
+34.
3.850
+
1.850
4.000
- -29.400
+.08122152
+.04391269
00018.600
+
400
+70.
-3.400 -8.600
-44.
-26.600
+.10936108
7.600
2.400
H12.400
0.400
h
3.600
6.400
-
0.000
RATINGS
4.
127
TABLE
DISTRIBUTION
OF
NUMBERS
INDEX
BASED
ON
FRIENDS'
Teachers
of
Interval
Teachers
Teachers
Boundary
Average
Good
Poor
70
1
Lower
1
1 23
3
72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92
96_1_1_2 102_3_1_4
1161 1
2
1081101112
114
118120122
100_1 104 106
94_1_
98_1_

240
JOURNAL
OF EXPERIMENTAL
TABLE
EDUCATION
4. 134
THE A's FOR INTERVIEW
RATINGS
+ Xxx
A's
Original
(Vol. XX
10
-10.00000
+23.30177
+17.91512
+ 8.23843
+12.44009
+24.56944
-.01564453
+.03645453
+.02802736
+.01288863
+.01946193
+.03843774
D = .0362341628
D2 = . 0013129146
TABLE
THE F-TEST
Source
FOR INTERVIEW
RATINGS
of
Groups
Between
Groups
Multiple
R with
M.S.
S.S.
D.F.
Variation
Within
4.135
11
.0362341628
0032940148
.0058351760
0009725293
the dichotomous
classification
for these
subjects:
1% = 7. 79
3.387
. 37

5% = 4. 03
to
137
4.
TABLE ON
RATINGS
INTERVIEW
DISTRIBUTION
NUMBERS
INDEX
OF
BASED
Teachers
of
Interval
Teachers
Teachers
Boundary
Average
Poor
Good
Lower
190
100 1110 1201130
1140
1
1150
160_1
_2_4_2
210
1
200_1_
12 230
220
112
1 250
240
170_2_3
180_2_1
4
2 218
3 197
223
1 177
10
9 184
6 234
7 245
8 196
189
141
11 194
12 157
13
199
15 236
17 120
18
16 196
134
19 174
21 22 230
20 161
24
226 23 240
26 27 191
28 181
174 149
32
29 170
30 31
194
213
INDEX
NUMBERS
ON
BASED
INTERVIEW
RATINGS
4.
136
TABLE
Index
Teacher
No.
No.
Teachers
Good
5173
199
14
Teachers
Poor

Average
Teachers
235
25
O d to > F O
CO
t w? ciO>
a:
h-1
O 55
10_11_12
13
14
15
-206.8
-567.0
-184.5
+102.6
-223.0
4.211
TABLE
-809.2
+146.4
THE
S-MATRIX
16
THE
FOR
PF
TEST
+903.4
-143.1
+606.1
-101.0
-371.4
-133.6
517.6
779.0
14
+176.0
370.8
-293.4
-346.2
+221.2
+352.0
-260.4
-+133.4
-+619.6
+
13
-178.4
-41.3
-465.6
--179.0
+107.8
+96.5
7.0
+384.2
+234.3
+219.2
+427.5
+236.3
+604.9
-7.3
-215.5
12
-135.0
-96.1
+238.4
+521.9
+299.1
+547.6
+862.0
+18.6
-353.7
-24.5
11
-322.5
-334.5
-1158.5
-103.0
-507.0
-687.5
-196.5
+1311.5
+833.5
+296.0
+2250.0
-360.7
8
-43.8
-471.5
-166.5
-320.0
10
-242.4
-75.1
+223.8
-22.4
+306.1
+34.0
+354.2
+139.4
+160.5
+208.0
446.3
35.6
-
-19.5
-89.4
-512.7
-114.0
-194.5
+213.6
+106.4
7-107.2
-100.0
-84.0 46.4
+32.0
+ - 276.8 +225.6
26.5
516+521.
+259.5
+2345.9
+749.
+768.8
+
5 +170.5
-
+165.5
63.5
-198.0
462.0
+99.2
+755.6
+411.0
+ -182.5
+513.5
+746.0
+146.5
2+517.5
1
+83.5
+561.9

+540.4
+606.1
+117
Dec.
LAMKE
243
1951)
matrix
is found in Table
the
that
ged that the residuals

warrant
further
In view of the fact
5,1.
were
correlations
it was
tetrachoric
were
not large
jud
to
enough
Extended vector plots were made of the five

factors.
Harris
(52) has shown that an n-space
11,
a plane
the
inclosed
ed to indicate that five factors

account for the correlations.
is
in Table
shown
for
four
and
2,
connecting
tor
seem
for
and
cases,
were adequate to
The factor pattern
direct
rotation
(51, 53) was
by Harris
to primary
written
to
a matrix.
form
structure.
the
Normalized,
became
the T-matrix.
The product of T'T
and the inverse of (J)was ob
gave the ())-matrix,
The multiplication
tained.
T?))"1 was performed
the
resultant
matrix
tel's
or
here
trices
to
Thurstone's
V matrix.
referred
several
ma
in Tables
5. 3
The
to are given
Upon
their
3-spaces
interrelations
of
the
Response
are
similar
conclusion
ters
13.
for
that
there
as
Cattell's
used
are
no
clearly
small
teachers;
only
separate
in
the
in
anxious,
these
their
sex.
age
in these
the poor
respects.
by being
to be
to have
gregar
abundant
or
artistic
strong
and to be interested
lack
are
teachers
poor
emotional
sentimental
aver
cautious,
response,
and
interests,
senti
in the op
below
they are shy,
respects;
are
teachers
good
frivolous,
The
unusually
uncommunicative,
the
H,
tendencies
trait
in
cheer
talkative,
and
a
have
one
in the opposite
a negative
teacher,
and
loading.
the good
the 16 PF sub-scores
By comparing
on this factor with the sub
teachers
of
the
peor
teacher
on
teachers
poor
serve
that the good teachers
erage
on
source
below,
are
below
traits
Factor
B,
we
of
ob
av
tend to be above
and
on source
H,
and
trait N.
on
average
with
all
three.
or
average
The poor
tea
These
the differences
between the
loadings strengthen
on source traits F and H,
good and poor teachers
and suggest
in addition that, in
just discussed,
Cattell's
terminology,
teachers
good
are
approx
in their tendencies
to be polish
imately average
and cool, while poor teachers are
ed, fastidious
below average
in these respects.
That
definitely
e a s i ly
tend to be clumsy,
is, poor teachers
but more attentive
to people than good
pleased,
teachers.
It is on the basis of these differing
to the
clus
subsequent
of
the
usually
average
interests,
slightly
it is not suffic
here
and
standardization
below
average
posite
chers
ambiguous.
so far points
for good or poor

Average
ed
by
remains
configuration
The evidence
are
scores
teachers
4 and 17; for
5, 7 and 10; for teachers
teachers
2 and 16.
6, 11 and 13; and for teachers
In three of these cases the patterns
established
include both good and poor teachers.
However,
for eight other teachers
are not
person vectors
with the groups just listed, or
closely associated
with each other, and any underlying
in
pattern
the whole
than
and quick; whereas
sex.
comparatively
slight
On factor D are found four good teachers,
one
good teacher with a negative
loading, one poor
3-spaces,
somewhat
more
frank,
Cat
the good
trait F,
interest
clusters.
patterns
some
are
B,
they are characterized
is,
conscientious,
or
artistic
it is clear that case 1 (part 4. 21, Section II) does

not hold; that is, person vectors
for neither the
occur in distinct or
good nor the poor teachers
well-defined
are
mental
become
different
for source
ious,
adventurous,
emotional
responses,
5.12).
examination
factor
are
teachers
above
good
two source
whereas
traits,
are
below
average.
Using
silent,
depressed,
and
languid.
For
the source
of the Factor Analysis.

The
5.1 Interpretation
have been discussed
in
theoretical
possibilities
part 4. 21 of Section II. To make the rotated fac
so as to tell which case has
tor pattern clearer
we may simplify
been encountered,
the pattern
criterion
for a zero (0 +
by using Thurstone's
.199) and by rounding the other loadings to two
We then obtain Table 5.11.
places.
If we consider
the configuration
of the vectors
(Table
groups.
that those responses

to have loadings on
on
poor
teachers
teachers
That
above
in several
the
terminology
ful, placid,
5. 8.
clearer
two
the
and H.
The
13 on those
teachers
which is the matrix

of direction
the Amatrix,
axes to
cosines needed to rotate the orthogonal
values for the f actor pat
give simple structure
tern,
average
the poor
to produce
normalized
and
A,
traits
matrix
and
between
association
of
what characteristic
of the two groups.
If the 16 PF sub-scores
of the good teachers
with loadings on factor A are compared with those
on factor B we find a marked dif
of poor teachers
on the 16 PF source
in patterns
of response
ference
The direction
numbers of the variables
(2, 11, 12,
15 and 17) judged to be on or near the intersec
tion of hyperplanes
the other variables
containing
were
looser
responses
The facts suggest

the good teachers
causing
factor
outlined
some
out
one
for poor,
for good
loadings
teachers,
a negative
a poor
for
teacher.
Fac
loading
one
for poor
B has
four
loadings
teachers,
a good,
for a good
tea
and a negative
loading
cher.
5. 2.
The procedure
used
lines
in most
plots
a config
as
variables
Taking
15, and 17 as vertices,
12,
them
on
projects
n vertices.
to rule
respective
it is in
the factor pattern further,
Examining
to note that the loadings on factors A
teresting
better than the other loadings,
and B distinguish,
between good and poor teachers.
Factor A has
factoring.
hypertetrahedron
uration
having
ient
the
16PF
discussion
test.
means
the
average

establish
O cpa
>
?Z5
o *i w X
M?
ci o >
15+00964431
-00931402
+03783767
+00659192
-00955982
+01207944
+00101263
-01928192
+00504177
-00193460
-01263164
-00899620
+01490713
-02345042
+02074437
14 -01490762
-00517916
-01499540
-00456144
-00004258
+01521988
-03172440
+02278392
-00625177
+00645882
+01549986
+00647586
+00795297
+02977076
13 -00391561
-01116622
-01356861
+00514398
-01079276
+00682543
+00582488
+00159848
+01755207
-00988909
-00192409
+00527731
+01191490
+0017?545
+03352717
-00530005
+00758246
-01900527
-00294197
-08192582
+02108280
-01904045
-00428260
+06446370
12 -02948671
+00655898
-00128644
-00626616
-00061636
+00874132
-00066547
-00663938
-00394627
+01667579
-00126692
11 -00105229
10
-00054772
+00706604
-00459776
-00676598
-01549592
-00494620
-01343096
-02924284
-00023536
+02493998
-00119269
+00858625
+00550148
+00735555
-00075768
-00551216
-00827191
+01192256
9 +00701420
-00316700
+00319071
-00759996
+00036474
-00522133
-00860912
+00536370
+01397171
4.212
TABLE
THE
S"A
FOR
16
MATRIX
THE
PF
TEST
i
-1
+00386750
-05192956
+03182155
+02706473
-00734518
+03684608
+11963289
-00581450
+01038264
-01053822
+01800809
+00426975
-02197024
+02119233
+00050134
+00539504
+00637954
+00690076
+03385699
-01346756
+00879310
-01235066
+00152044
-00521333
+01360506
+01250097
+00674842
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15

Dec.
245
LAMKE
1951)
TABLE
TABLE
4.213
d-MATRIX FOR
PF TEST
THE A's
16
Original
+ 2. 15
-
+ 3.25
+ 6.20
-
1.75
+ 11.35
-
d =
1.20
0. 80
+ 1.05
-
0.20
1.75
0.55
+ 2.10
-
FOR THE
0.80
2.30
16 PF TEST
+ by - K i and multiplied
/Vs
-.0280787170
-.0196559150
-.0152029420
+.0296638360
-.0290537544
-.0016129530
-.0847108765
+.0147400615
-.0141739325
+.0236340250
+.0056855155
+.0555844510
+.0300784400
+.0399528425
-.0232823835
1.25
4.214
by 10
+10.00000000
+ 7.00028957
+ 5.41440051
-10.56452685
+10.34725139
+ 0.53882554
+30.16906947
5.24954950
+ 5.04792740
8.41706014
2.02484875
-19.79593687
-10.71218459
-14.22887037
+ 8.29182596
D =+.246861327900
D2 =+.0609405152
TABLE
THE F-TEST
Source
Between
FOR THE
16 PF TEST
of
D.F.
Variation
Within
4.215
Groups
Groups
S.S.
M.S.
.2468613279
.1234306640
15
.270846734
.0180564489
1% = 6. 36
6. 836

5% = 3. 68
JOURNAL
OF EXPERIMENTAL
TABLE
INDEX NUMBERS
EDUCATION
(Vol. XX
4.216
OBTAINED WITH DISCRIMINANT

FUNCTION
1 +32.8
2
21.2
3 +40.4
+6.5
21.9
5
6 +15.6
7 +76.4
8 +72.8
4
Good Teachers
12.3
10 + 28.4
Poor
11 +174.9
12 +118.2
13 + 30.2
+155.1
14
15 +107.5
16 + 40.1
17 +105.6
18 +131.7
Teachers
Average
Teachers
25
19
20
21
22
23
24
+137.4
+161.7
+383.1
-136.4
+256.4
- 39.4
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
-423.8
+214.5
+555.8
+336.1
+ 58.4
-341.4
+ 46. 8
-521.1

Dec.
247
LAMKE
1951)
characteristics
that the different
response
pat
terns for source trait N may be explained.
of the
The differences
between the responses
on
A
and
D
teachers
with
factors
loadings
good
appear chiefly in source traits E, F, M, Q2 and
Q4. The scores of good teachers with loadings
on
are
factor
below
on
average
source
trait
E,
slightly above on F, slightly below on M, and con

In contrast,
below average on Q4.
good
siderably
teachers
with
on
erage
on
loadings
trait
source
are
factor
considerably
E,
above
av
above
on
F, above on M and Q2, and slightly below aver

that
age on Q4. The response
suggest
patterns
the good teachers with loadings on A are, in com
with
parison
with
those
talkative,
inant,
unconventional,
nervous
and
to more
subject
Three
teachers
have
good
while
E,
one
only
dom
self-sufficient,
tension.
on
loadings
has
teacher
poor
more
on D,
loadings
factor
a
such
load
two of the three good teachers

ing. However,
also appear on factor A so that not much addition
al information
is provided by factor E.
We conclude
that we can partially
identify case
2 previously
in part 4. 21, Section II.
discussed
That is, vectors
in this study
for good teachers
are found in several
the situation with
regions:
to vectors
respect
for
or
several
the latter
At
regions.
large
is ambiguous.
teachers
poor
It is not clear whether
one
fall within
the
level
of
response
this means
that the good teachers
have
patterns
exhibited
several patterns,
the most prominent
elements
of which have been discussed.
There
is at least one pattern exhibited by poor teachers;
are
there
others
probably
but
are
they
not
ident
ifiable.
The
of information
interpretation
in terms
sponse
patterns
is reasonable,
and
about
the re
source
traits
of Cattell's
in accord
with
conclude
that
certain
elements
some
of
a high
and
but complete
sponse patterns have been identified,
A given subject
patterns have not been identified.
not
could
be
as
categorized
a good
er on the basis
of his responses
on
the
the
basis
of
or
teach
poor
to the 16 PF
so
information
far
test
available.
lute
provides
general
by means
information,
of
the A's, about which of the source traits play the

between the two
largest part in discriminating
The function
groups of good and poor teachers.
is most
useful
eous groups,
are
only
found
the
traits
requires
in
the
the
characteristics
It may
the
just
happen
vary
A's
there
provide
of the
between
the two
that
accurate
importance
from
sub-group
class
of
account
taken
or
one
in abso
large
on
sub-scores
high
requires
source
several
A's
with negative
traits
other
arithmetic
scores
low
grounds,
traits
in certain
for by high scores

may be compensated
is very large,
the range of possibilities
certain
combinations
the
for
index
index
produce
The same
ing in the good range.
for
numbers
in others:
yet only
fall
numbers
holds
situation
teachers.
poor
This means
that from the standpoint of factor
it would not be expected
that person vec
analysis
tors for good or poor teachers would be found in
small clusters
; this indeed was the finding.
We conclude
the discriminant
not
that from the data provided

function it seems probable
but several
one,
characteristic
are
others,
of poor
tinctive
patterns
the teacher
combinations
of good
factor
the
analysis
of
patterns
the probability
of
good
In terms
implications
binations
of
good
others,
not
teachers,
of
information
and
teachers.
of
patterns
suggests
several
that
in some
responses
exhibited,
of several
teachers,
function
elements
the
dis
relatively
average
characterize
may
poor
it provides
information
patterns
addition
responses
and
several
not
no
provides
response
for good
response
does
the discriminant
ize
are
by
that
to be average.
of
with
If these
response
is likely
of
teachers;
teachers.
of
It strengthens
then,
homogen
importance
that the relative

composite
two
each dichotomy
sub-groups,
estimates
of
groups.
ification
are
there
several
average
distinguishing
major
when
for if within
not
any
the
with large positive
associated
A's; otherwise
index number will not be in the range established
is
The implication
by the other good teachers.
are
of
of
that several
response
typical
patterns
To put it another way on purely
good teachers.
terns
study
on
sub-score
value
dominant
6. Comparison
of the Application
of the Discrim
inant Function and of Factor Analysis
to the 16
PF Test.
The discriminant
function used in this
are
exist
ef
general
in the two groups:
may
associated
traits
The
re
the
used here
The technique of factor analysis
of complete
the comparison
makes
pro
possible
of
the presence
and indicates
files as entities,
if they exist.
sub-groups
for good tea
In this study the index numbers
restricted
chers are found in a relatively
range,
about
We
which
sub-groups
of as such.
are
obtained
on
based
constructs
of the sub-scores
fects
exper
ordinary
ience.
but the A 's actually
to sub-group,
mathematical
as
other
teachers.
about
the
particularly
teachers.
In
certain
pre
response
pat
as contrasted
poor
of Cattell's
the
personality
theory,
are that various
(but certain) com
certain
teachers;
teachers.
poor
because
personality
and various
they
traits
Teachers
are
cast
character
combinations
in
of
are
successful
the
same
mold,
but because
there is a kind of "balance"
among
their personality
traits.
Another kind of "bal
ance" means
they will probably be poor teachers.
Lacking either,
they will likely be average.
Neither
technique employed provides
enough
so that the complete patterns
information
the
techniques
suggest
may
be

recognized.
248
JOURNAL
OF EXPERIMENTAL
TABLE
EDUCATION
(Vol. XX
4.217
DISTRIBUTION
OF INDEX NUMBERS BASED ON THE 16 PF
TEST FOR GOOD, POOR, AND AVERAGE TEACHERS
Lower
Boundary
of Interval
Good
Poor
Teachers
Teachers
Average
Teachers
-550
-525
-500
-475
-450
-425
-400
-375
-350
-325
-300
-275
-250
-225
-200
-175
-150
-125
-100
75
50
25
25
50
75
+ 100
+ 125
+ 150
+ 175
+200
+225
+250
+300
+325
+350
+375
+400
+425
+450
+475
+500
+ 525
+550
+575

+008
+22
CD
en
totl
_12
345678910
12
11
14
13
15
16
17
18
9+39
+31
+32
+28
+20
+31
+29
+30
-082
-040
+011
-013
+031
+026
+069
+028
-114
-079
-008
10
+020
+058
+003
+001
+050
+043
+40
+22
+71
+60
+55
+64
+51
+50
+65
7+001
+015
+43
+22
+62
+006
+028
+66
+64
+67
+018
-041
-030
-039
-006
-010
-014
+30
+47
-086
8-056
+053
+002
+013
+061
+025
-010
+016
+46
+008
+48
+60
+55
+70
5
+24
+48
-006
+36
-020-087
+62
+52
+001+014
+010
-005
+032+010
+021-023
+007
+045
6+31
+50
+70
+66
+60
-025
+012
-018
+028
+076
-025
+039
+010-037
-008
+017
+031
-Oil
-033
+002
+017
-034
4+28
+42
+66
+059
-026
-052
-010
-008+028
000
+018
+015
-021
+021
-025
+020
-063
+001
+020
2+53
+001
+004
000
-041
+003
+081
-018
-001
+035
-026
+011
-074
-048
-052
+046
+031
+065
-016 +015
-044
-Oil
-010 +079 +051 -045 -010 -024 +014 -008
+26
+40
+45
+40
+69
+46
+065
+62
+13
+55
-053
-018
+030
-046
+012-06-015
14
+35
+08
-19
-11
-06
12
-031
+023
-033
+022
+31
+22
+43
+35
+055
+20
+29
+12
+25
+28
-016
-07
0-032
+05
+25
+19
-03
-10
-009
-020
+051
-010 11+06
+036 +004
+067
-003 -022
FACTOR
OF
ANALYSIS
16
THE
PF
TEST
5.
1TABLE
13+28
+50
+54
+55
+53
+72
+60
+29+30
+43
+66
+54 -004
-018
-008
-012
-043
15
+14
+55
+76
+67
+68
+71
+77
+62
+17
+67
-20
+71
+17
+64
+026
+030
+044
16
-018
+63
+30
+73
-11
+70
+66
+46
+64
+061
+69
+22
+25
+60
+55
17
+41
-02
+53
+74
+63
+40
+64
+37
+30
+62
+50
+67
+084
+64
+5518
+43
+09
+20
+37
+46
+45
+06
+49
+21
+50
+29
+30
+49
+15
+40
+49
Left:
Correlation
The
Lower
Matrix
Right:
Upper
The
Residual
Matrix

-006
-022 +044
-063
250
JOURNAL
OF EXPERIMENTAL
TABLE
II
+437
+648
+781
+777
+690
+863
+781
+703
+432
+816
+617
+420
+758
+040
+826
+785
+773
+540
-560
-277
+193
+198
+194
+181
+083
+144
-403
+060
+286
-310
+090
-544
+385
+124
+034
+127
TABLE
DIRECTION
(Vol.
5. 2
THE FACTOR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
EDUCATION
PATTERN
IH
IV
+221
+257
+109
+139
-104
+054
-197
+307
+030
-138
-279
-244
+060
-261
+038
+252
+233
-400
+052
-224
+154
+250
+128
-149
+106
-105
+055
-192
-353
+130
-140
+043
-093
-155
+345
+147
+158
-145
-236
+082
-153
+101
-170
+214
-023
-170
+290
-156
+107
+212
-116
-049
+158
+170
+826
+385
+038
-093
-116
+773
+034
+233
+345
+158
5. 3
NUMBERS
_2_11_12_15_17_
I
II
IH
IV
V
+648
-277
+257
-224
-145
+617
+286
-279
-353
+290
TABLE
+420
-310
-244
+130
-156
5. 4
THE T-MATRK
2
+8?39
11
+7?29
12
+6874
15
+8938
17
+8659
II
IH
IV
V
-3479
+3228
-2813
-1821
+3305
-3224
-4079
+3351
-5074
-3994
+2128
-2553
+4166
+0411
-1006
-1255
+0381
+2610
+3865
+1770

XX
Dec.
251
LAMKE
1951)
5. 5
TABLE
THE 0"1 MATRIX

-
+ .289645
+2.593485
+2.334400
.840114
.212155
+1.657801
.333900
.658548
.550156
-2.099272
+2.749390
+
-
<|)
.5937
.2788
1.0000
.4149
1.0000
1.0000
5. 6
TABLE
T'T
-1.149851
-2.562639
+ .453146
+5.065196
TABLE
.6469
.7606
.3972
1.0000
.6348
.4474
.5087
.7394
1.0000
5. 7
Tdr1
+
-
+2121
-7819
+8613
-9699
-0284
+ 2582
+1.3534
0657
+
1442
+2332
-4512
-9899
+4174
-4956
2186
1784
5914
6722
+ 1.3087
TABLE
+
-
3239
1568
+ 5310
+ 9821
+1.1720
-1.7723
5. 8
THE A MATRIX
+ 1388
-5118
+5638
-6329
-0186
+ 1357
-1108
-3672
-4174
+8126
+1811
+3504
-7688
+3242
-3849
+1147
+6014
-0292
+0641
-7875
+1953
-0946
+3202
+5923
+7068

252
JOURNAL
TABLE
OF EXPERIMENTAL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
+502
+521
-022
-075
-140
+150
-108
+260
+249
+130
000
000
+180
+106
000
+287
+147
000
-211
-004
-068
+222
-013
+185
+051
+097
+538
000
+216
+316
000
+025
000
-312
000
+283
TABLE
THE SIMPLIFIED
+061
-414
000
+093
+383
+050
+152
+024
+311
+148
-125
TABLE
VECTORS
3-Space
8
9
+50
+52
-21
+26
+25
11
12
13
14
PATTERN
D
-41
+35
+40
5 +24
+33
7 +36
-28
+22
10 +24
+29
+31
+26
+54
+47
+22
+32
+33
15
16
+29
18
-31
-48
+41
17
+28
5. 12
IN VARIOUS
Vectors
FACTOR
6 +22
000
+151
+151
000
+096
+538
+172
000
+046
-479
+411
+186
000
+025
5. 11
4 +38
000
000
+474
-027
+331
000
-126
000
+343
1
2
3
000
+398
+156
+328
+117
+286
-017
-172
+256
000
+352
000
+ 131
+014
+237
-036
+364
-276
+223
+236
BCD
ACE
ABC
XX
(Vol.
5. 9
= V
EDUCATION
Found
3-SPACES
in the 3-Space
3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,

2, 4, 8, 9, 12, 16, 17
2, 6, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16, 18
15

+34
+54
Dec.
LAMKE
253
1951)
test as an entity,
16 PF
IV
SECTION
distinctive
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
sections.
6.
The
ferences
between
ifically,
the questions
1. Are
and
good
teachers.
poor
Spec
are:
to be answered
between
there characteristic
differences
surface
traits for good and
ratings on Cattell's
poor teachers?
for this study

The subjects
3.- The Subjects.
were 32 individuals who had graduated
from a
in their
engaged
first year
were
who
and
program
teacher-training
four-year
teach
of high school
and
good
For
of Teaching
Success.
6.1 The Criterion
the three
the correlation
between
32 subjects
of
have
could
success
teaching
alike
ficiently
occurred
from
sampling
were
by
same
the
chance
suf
observed
random
through
normal
the
and
high,
so that the differences
Ac
population.
is
it was concluded
that the evidence
cordingly,
to show that teaching acceptability
not sufficient
and
efficiency
measures
of
are,
success
6. 2 The Relation
2. Are there characteristic
response
patterns
for Cattell's
16 PF test for good and poor tea
chers?
whether
for
exist
Findings.
measures
2. The Problem.
This study seeks to determine
dif
whether
there are characteristic
personality
to determine
patterns
teachers.
poor
1. Introduction.
In this section we shall briefly
review and summarize
and the data,
the problem,
and findings reported
in the preceding
technique,
response
distinctive
operationally,
in teaching.
Between
and Teach
Personality
Success.
ing
Traits.
teachers
4. 21 The Surface
for good and poor
traits
assessed
No distinctive
were evident
interview.
by
were
Patterns
in
by a supervisor
but the indications
dicated for the traits assessed

or superior,
and by a friend,
were
patterns
for those
general.
ing.
4.
The
4. 22 The 16 PF Test.
Use of the discriminant
function for the 16 PF test indicated that the good
char
and poor groups had, within broad limits,
Data.
4.1 The Criteria

teria of teaching
expert
of
opinion
Success.
Two cri
of Teaching
success were used in this study:
ac
and
performance,
teaching
of the teacher
ceptability
or sup
to his principal
ervisor.
Two methods
16
Cattell's
4. 2 The Evaluation
of Personality.
were used to evaluate personality:
test
and
The
former
three
was
scales.
rating
Cattell's
paired-comparison
meant
to evaluate
source
traits.
It was
the surface
traits; the latter,
traits would be best
thought that certain surface
known
to a friend
or
ervisor
be
assessed
ific groups
each
of
the
and
superior,
by interview.
of surface
subject,
one
subject,
still
from
sup
best
could
on
Ratings
traits were
group
to a
others
others
three
obtained
spec
for
source.
each
acteristic
response
teachers
differ
Fisher's
discriminant
function
was
used.
function, which is a linear function of the

better than any other
observations,
distinguishes
linear function between the specified
groups on
This
whom
common
measurements
are
available.
In addition a method of factor analysis

adopted to study each profile of responses
was
to the
some
with
that
average
teachers
poor
source
Cattell's
F, H and N. Using Cattell's

pears that good teachers are
the
traits
it ap
than
terminology,
likely, more
gregarious,
adventurous,
abundant
emotional
responses,
to have
or sentimental
strong artistic
interested
in the opposite
sex,
fastidious
in
to be
teachers,
frivolous,
ferent,
from
associated
responses
poor
5. The Methodology.
It was judged that charac
teristic differences
between good and poor teach
ers would be most prominent
of
if the extremes
the group were examined:
the ten best and the
teachers.
To determine
if the re
eight poorest
sponses and ratings of the two groups were dif
and
patterns,
as well as
had these same patterns
that there were
The outcome suggested
for the
of response
probably several patterns
for the poor.
and several,
good teachers;
A factor analysis
of the data indicated With
more certainty
than the discriminant
function
that the responses
of good and poor teachers did
not fall into two well-defined
and characteristic
but that several patterns
existed for
patterns,
the good teachers;
and probably,
several
for the
The analysis
that some good
poor.
suggested
teachers
others.
and
Poor
cool.
to be
interests,
to be polished,
are
teachers
more
to be shy, cautious,
likely than good teachers
to lack emotional
and
response
conscientious,
artistic
paratively
be
clumsy,
or
sentimental
interests,
slight
interest
easily
pleased,
to
have
in the opposite
and
more
a com
sex,
to
attentive
to people.
6. Implications
of the Study.
The results of the
study imply that good teachers are good for dif
and that poor teachers
ferent reasons,
fail for

254
reasons.
varying
This
JOURNAL
is
hardly
OF EXPERIMENTAL
revolutionary
of
idea, yet it does help point up the difficulty
and suggest a line
predicting
teaching success,
of attack on the problem.
It appears
that
success
be
may
a "balance",
and that to predict

it one must understand what
is required
for the balance.
If this is true, the
of
prediction
success
teaching
one
and
characteristics,
it also
requires
by
examination
an
more
required
than a study of the association
of various
with
one,
of
traits
success;
in the
patterns
sense.
It may be that on some such basis
Gestalt
the accuracy
of prediction may be improved.
It is interesting
to note that while the analyses
were
here
undertaken
no means
by
extensive
enough to provide a test for Cattell's

theory of
the findings are intelligible
in terms
personality,
of common experience.
the
Obviously,
theory
has not proved unsuited for the use made of it.
6. Suggestions
for Further Research.
Specific
it appears
that both the 16 PF test and the
ally,
factor analytic
technique employed are sufficient
EDUCATION
XX
(Vol.
to be worth further investigation.

ly promising
It would be instructive
to use them for another
of
and
how
to discover
group
poor teachers
good
the results would compare with those obtained in
this study.
At the same time, friends'
ratings
on surface personality
traits might also be check
ed for the new subjects.
In this way,
the findings
made
in this study might be verified
and extend
ed.
It would also be possible

to use, for a new
study, those items shown as having the most dis
indicated by the
power (as generally
criminating
absolute value of the coefficient
in the discrimin
ant function),
to see whether an improved separ
ation of the good, poor, and average
groups could
be obtained.
In general,
it is clear that the problem
of as
success
is a
and
sociating
personality
teaching
one. Research
should be continued
challenging
and indi
by any and all means until the promises
cations of this and other studies
in the field can
as concise and objective
be presented
findings in
terms.
operational
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1.
2.
of Teacher
H. R. "An Analysis
Albert,
in
San
Texas,"
Antonio,
Rating by Pupils
and Supervis
Administration
Educational
ion, XXVII (1941), pp. 267-274.
A Psychol
G. W. Personality:
Allport,
ogical Interpretation
(New York: Henry
Holt and Co.,
1937).
203-208.
8.
A.
Barr,
9.
W.
G.
Allport,
and
H.
S.
"Trait
171.
4.
W.
G.
and
of Personality,
XXVII (1930),
Almy,
H.
C.
and
P.
Vernon,
"
pp.
E.
Psychological
677-730.
Sorenson,
Rating Scale "of Determined

Educational
liability and Validity,
ministration
and Supervision,
XVI
pp. 179-186.
6.
Barr,
A.
S.
"The
Measurement
diction of Teaching
Efficiency,
of Educational
XHI
Research,
218-223.
7.
Barr,
A.
S.
"The
Measurement
diction of Teaching
Efficiency,
XVI
of Educational
Research,
"
and
A.
Barr,
11.
"
S.
Predic
Review
(1949),
Measurement
and
Pre
A Summary
Efficiency:
"
XVI
of
pp.
Journal
of
Experiment
(1948),
pp.
203-283.
"Measurement
of Teaching
Review of Educational
pp. 182-184.
Research,
12.
S.
for
"Recruitment
Barr,
S.
A.
Teacher
"
"Teaching
Competencies,
in Encylopedia
of Educational
edited by Walter
S. Monroe,
(New York: Macmillan
Co.,
Pre
13.
A.
Barr,
L.
S.,
J.
Burton,
W.
Supervision:
Research,
Revised
1950).
and
H.,
Democratic
Brueck
Lead
of Learning
ership in the Improvement
(New York: Appleton-Century
Co.,
1947).
Pre
Review
(1946), pp.
A.
of Teaching
Suc
and Prediction
Training
"
Research,
cess,
X (1940), pp. 185-190.
Re
Ad
(1930),
Barr,
ner,
and
"
Bul
Review
(1943), pp.
"
"The
Investigations,
Ability,
X (1940),
"The
"A
Herbert.
Teacher
and
"Measurement
of Teaching
al Education,
10.
Allport,
Field
letin,
5.
of
Odbert,
"
A Psychological
Psychol
Names,
Study,
XLVII (1936), pp. 1
ogical Monographs,
S.
A.
Barr,
diction
3.
S.
tion of Teaching Efficiency,

Educational
XIX
Research,
185-190.
14.
Barr,
A.
S.,
and
Emans,

L.
M.
"What
Dec.
LAMKE
255
1951)
Qualities
Success,
are Prerequisites
"
Nations Schools,
to Teaching
VI (1930), pp.
tration
I (1915),
and Supervision,
pp. 439
452.
60-64.
26.
15.
Barr,
A.
S.,
and
others.
"The
of Certain
Instruments
in the
Employed
"
Measurement
of Teaching
Efficiency,
in the The Measurement
of Teaching Ef
Helen M. Walker,
Editor (New
ficiency,
York: Macmillan
1935).
Co.,
16.
17.
of
Beecher,
Dwight E. The Evaluation
and Concepts
Teaching,
Backgrounds
New York: Syracuse University
(Syracuse,
Press,
1949).
Beecher,
Dwight E. The Intensive Teach
er Training Program,
An Evaluation
of
Results
(Albany, New York: State Educa
tion Department,
Division
of Research,
27.
19.
20.
21.
22.
Oliver H. "Do 'Good' Teachers

Bimson,
North Central
Produce Good Results?"
Association
XH (1937), pp.
Quarterly,
271-276.
Tests
Charles W. Professional
Boardman,
as Measures
in
of Teaching Efficiency
High Schools
College,
(New York: Teachers
Columbia University,
1928).
25.
Psychol
B?ros,
K.
Oscar
Educational,
Psychol
Oscar K. The Nineteen

Thirty
B?ros,
Yearbook
Eight Mental Measurements
Press,
Rutgers University
(New Brunswick:
1938).
29.
Oscar K. The Nineteen

Forty Men
B?ros,
Yearbook
tal Measurements
(New Bruns
wick: Rutgers University
1940).
Press,
30.
Oscar K. The Third Mental Meas

B?ros,
Rut
urements Yearbook
(New Brunswick:
31.
gers
University
Butsch,
R.
L.
Press,
C.
1949).
"Teacher
view of Educational
Research,
149-152.
pp. 99-107,
Rating,
"Re
I (1931),
32.
Earl C. "Pupil Ratings of Stu

Bowman,
"
dent Teachers,
Administra
Educational
tion and Supervision,
XX (1934), pp. 141
146.
and Meas
Cattell,
Raymond B. Description
urement of Personality
(Yonkers-on-Hud
son, New York: World Book Co.,
1946).
33.
Boyce, A. C. "Methods" of Measuring

of
14th Yearbook
Teachers'
Efficiency,
the National Society for the Study of Edu
Illinois:
cation, Part H (Bioomington,
Public School Publishing
1915).
Co.,
of
Raymond B. "The Description
Cattell,
2. Basic Traits Resolved
in
Personality:
"
to Clusters,
Journal of Abnormal
and
Social Psychology,
XXXVIII (1943), pp.
476-507.
34.
in Sec
A. C. "Qualities
of Merit
Boyce,
"
Journal of Ed
ondary School Teachers,
HI (1912), pp. 144
ucational Psychology,
A Sys
Raymond B. Personality:
Cattell,
and Factual Study
tematic Theoretical
Book Co.,
(New York: McGraw-Hill
1950).
35.
Character
Tenth Yearbook
of
Education,
the Department
of Superintendence,
Na
tional Education Association
(Washington,
D.C.: National Education Association,
19
32).
36.
Character
Education.
Report of Commit
tee on Character
Education
of the National
Education Association
(Washington, D. C:
Government
Printing Office,
1926).
37.
E. S. "The Definition
of Intro
Conklin,
Extroversion
and Allied Concepts,"
version,
Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psycholo
g?, XVII (1923), pp. 367-382.
Brookover,
Wilbur
B.
"Per
son-Per
son
Interaction Between Teachers

and Pupils
"
and Teaching
Journal of
Effectiveness,
Educational
XXXIV (1940), pp.
Research,
pp. 272-287.
24.
Educational,
28.
157.
23.
K.
Oscar
Tests of 1936
and Personality
ogical,
Press,
Rutgers University
(New Brunswick:
1937).
1950).
18.
B?ros,
Tests of 1933,
and Personality
ogical,
1934, and 1935 (New Brunswick:
Rutgers
1936).
Press,
University
Validity
Bryan, Roy C. "Pupil Ratings of Secon

"
School Review,
dary School Teachers,
XLVI (1938), pp. 357-367.
of Failure
Bullesfield,
Henry. " "Causes
Educational
Adminis
Among Teachers,

256
38.
E.
Conklin,
JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL
S. "The Determination
Normal
Extrovert-Introvert
Journal
of Genetic
pp. 37-38.
(1927),
51.
of
State of
Stephen M. "The Present
Corey,
Teach
Ignorance About Factors Affecting
"
Educational
Administration
ing Success,
and Supervision,
XVHI (1932), pp. 481
490.
40.
Daldy, Dorothy M. "A Study of Adaptabil

"
British
Jour
ity in a Group of Teachers,
nal of Educational
VII (1937),
Psychology,
41.
1-22.
Dar
ley,
J.
and
G.
plications
"
Measurement,
search,
42.
XIV
Domas,
and
Simeon,
"Ap
David
Tiedman,
43.
V.
"
45.
46.
Freeman,
pp.
47.
"
F.
N.
55.
of Mental
G. H. Bibliography
Hildreth,
Tests and Rating Scales
(New York: Psy
1933).
chological
Corporation,
56.
Hoel, Paul G.
ical Statistics
Sons,
E.
R.
48.
Greene,
XXXIH
""Personality
Journal
(1945),
and
James,
(1936),
Journal
(1939),
for
58.
50.
Guilford,
J.
P.
Guilford,
troversion
J.
ical Bulletin,
P.
and
T.
F.
Chicago
Press,
Horsch,
A.
1948).
and
C.
Davis,
R.
A.
"Mental
"
Ameri
Tests,
XL (1935), pp.
60.
Charles Louis.
of
The Relation
Jacobs,
the Teacher's
to Her Effective
Education
ness (New York: Teachers
Col
College,
umbia University,
1928).
61.
Palmer O. Statistical
Methods
Johnson,
in Research
(New York: Prentice-Hall,
"Pre
"
Research,
Braiy,
Introversion,
XXVII
Harry
Hunt,
Teachers,
XXXH
XXXI
Bulletin,
and
Harman,
59.
(1930),
Ap
96-107.
Jones,
1949).
Ronald
D.
"The
Prediction
of Tea
from Objective Measures,"

ching Efficiency
Journal of Experimental
XV
Education,
(1945), pp. 85-89.
(19
R. W.
"Ex
"
Psycholog
pp.
Thelma.
"Measuring
Teaching
"
Educational
and
Administration
titude,
XV (1929), pp. 334-342.
Supervision,
Inc.,
"Introversion-Extrover
"
Psychological
sion,
34), pp. 331-354.
and
Hygiene and Personality

can Journal of Sociology,
646-650.
62.
49.
J.
Karl
Holzinger,
Teach
Tests of Emo
in a Guidance
Prospective
of Educational
pp. 653-659.
and
of Experimental
pp. 157-165.
Staton,
Value of Various
tionality and Adjustment
dictive
Program
1947).
of Personality
"Tests
School Review,
ing Efficiency,
XIV
Education,
Introduction
to Mathemat
(New York: John Wiley and
A Synthesis
H. Factor Analysis:
of Fac
of
torial Methods
(Chicago: University
95-106.
Gotham,
pp. 449
of
A. G. "A Factor Analysis
Hellfritzch,
"
Journal of Experi
Teaching Abilities,
mental Education,
XIV (1945), pp. 166
199.
to Mathe
R. A. Contributions
Fisher,
Statistics
matical
(New York: John Wiley
and Sons, Inc.,
1950).
Traits,
(1948),
to
Educa
54.
of Personal
"The Validity
Albert.
Ellis,
"
Bulle
Psychological
ity Questionnaires,
tin, XLIII (1946), pp. 385-440.
R. A. Statistical Methods
for Re
Fisher,
search Workers,
6th Edition
(Edinburgh,
Scotland: Oliver and Boyd,
1936).
XXXIX
of
John Jr.
Chester W. and Schmid,
Harris,
of
"Further Application
of the Principle
"
in Factor Analysis,
Direct Rotation
XVIII
Education,
(1950), pp. 175-193.
57.
44.
Structure,
Journal
53.
67-80.
of Teacher Competence,
"Bibliography
XIX
Education,
(1950), pp. 101-218.
Rotation
"Direct
"
Chester W. "Projections
of Three
Harris,
"
Journal of Ex
Types of Factor Pattern,
XVII (1949), pp.
perimental
Education,
345-355.
Re
of Educational
pp.
W.
Chester
52.
and Character
Review
(1944),
V.
G.
Anderson,
of Personality
XX
(Vol.
tional Psychology,
468.
XXXIV
39.
pp.
Harris,
Primary
Differences,"
Psychology,
EDUCATION
63.
Kendall, Maurice
ory of Statistics,
(London: Charles
G. The Advanced The

Two Vols.,
2nd Ed.,
Griffin and Co.,
1948).

Dec.
64.
65.
257
LAMKE
1951)
"StandardKnight, F. B., and others.

"
for Elementary
ized Tests
Teachers,
XXI
Public Personnel
Studies,
(1926), pp.
279-298.
lished
sin,
78.
Charles W. Evaluation
and the
Knudsen,
of Teaching
Improvement
(Garden City,
New York: Doubleday,
Doran and Co.,
79.
V.
The
La
V.
C.
Duke,
"The
80.
1928).
Co.,
69.
of
Measurement
Littler,
Fail,"
Sherman,
"Why Teachers
Home and School Education,
XXXIH (19
14), pp. 255.
71.
in
William A. How to Measure
McCall,
Education
(New York: Macmillan
Co.,
1922).
72.
McCoard,
Mailer,
W.
J.
B.
B.
ity Tests,
(1934), pp.
74.
Mailer,
J.
ity Tests,
(1935), pp.
75.
76.
77.
82.
and
others.
"
"
"Speech
Psychological
501-520.
B.
"Character
Psychological
500-523.
as
Factors
Efficiency,
(1944), pp.
"Character
XXIV
"Personality
"
Psychological
pp. 427-443.
"
Re
Personal
Bulletin,
and
and
"Personality
Bulletin,
Character
XXVII
School Ed
Normal
Junius L.
Meriam,
Con
in Teaching,
ucation and Efficiency
No. 1 (New York:
to Education,
tributions
Columbia University,
Teachers
College,
Morris,
E.
H.
Personal
Traits
and
Suc
84.
for
Tests
Lois B. "Personality
Murphy,
"
and
Journal of Abnormal
Clinical Use,
XXVII (1932), pp. 168
Social Psychology,
171.
85.
H. A. in Journal
Murray,
III (1936), pp. 27-42.
86.
A. H. Modern Clinical Psychia

Noyes,
try (Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders,
1947).
87.
Predict
Arthur Leonard.
Odenweller,
Contributions
ing the Quality of Teaching,
to Education,
No. 676 (New York: Teach
ers College,
Columbia University).
88.
of Cer
S. An Analysis
Wendeil
Phillips,
tain Characteristics
of Active and Pros
to Edu
Contributions
pective Teachers.
Tennessee:
cation, No. 161 (Nashville,
for Teachers,
George Peabody College
1935).
89.
and Halo
H. H. "Reliability
Remmers,
Students'
Effect of High School and College
"
Journal
of Their Teachers,
Judgments
XVIII (1934), pp.
of Applied Psychology,
619-630.
XXXI
XXXII
"
in
J. B. "Personality
Tests,
Mailer,
and
the Behavior Disorders,
Personality
edited by J. M. Hunt (New York: Ronald
1944).
Press,
Asso
Unpub-
A.
Psychological
pp. 485-494.
in
of Merit
R. L. "Qualities
Morton,
"
Admin
Educational
Secondary Teachers,
V (1919), pp.
istration and Supervision,
225-238.
1937).
Lee Howard.
Qualities
Mathews,
ciated with Teaching Efficiency,
"
83.
Personal
Bulletin,
M.
to Educa
Contribution
in Teaching,
Col
Teachers
York:
No.
342
(New
tion,
1929).
lege, Columbia University,
Speech
53-64.
and
May,
cess
J. B. Descriptive
Bibliography
Mailer,
Tests
and Personality
of Character
(New
Columbia Uni
York: Teachers
College,
versity,
A.
Character
Bulletin,
1906).
"The Prediction
of
Lins, Leo Joseph.
"
Journal of Exper
Teaching Efficiency,
imental Education,
XV (1946), pp. 2-60.
70.
73.
81.
Use
J. A. "A Study of Factors
Lawton,
for the Teach
ful in Choosing Candidates
"
British
Journal of Edu
ing Profession,
cational Psychology,
IX (1939), pp. 131
144.
lated to Teaching
XI
Monographs,
and
"Personality
Psychological
pp. 418-435.
M.
Tests,
(1930),
Study Number Three,"

Teaching Ability,
XIV
Education,
(1945), pp. 75-100.
68.
A.
of Wiscon
in Educa
Questionnaire
tion (New York: Macmillan

67.
May,
"
University
and Character
Tests,
XXV (1928),
Bulletin,
L.
Koos,
M.
Tests,
(1927),
1932).
66.
May,
PhD Thesis,
1939.

of Psychology,
258
90.
OF EXPERIMENTAL
in Higher Education,
Research
U. S. Of
fice of Education Bulletin
1931, No. 12
D. C:
(Washington,
Printing
91.
JOURNAL
Office,
U.S.
102.
Government
1932).
Roback, A. A. Bibliography
and Personality
(Cambridge:
Ushers,
1927).
of Character
Sci-Art Pub-
103.
EDUCATION
Snyder, W. U. "A Survey of Recent Stud

ies in the Measurement
of Personality
"
and Interests
of Adolescents,
Attitudes
Journal of General Psychology,
XXV (19
41), pp. 403-420.
Somers,
Rolfe,
J.
F.
"The
Measurement
Study Number
2,
XIV
Education,
ing Ability,
Experimental
"
Journal
of
pp.
52-74.
93.
94.
95.
96.
Rostker,
E.
L.
"The
Ruediger,
W.
C.
and
Strayer,
G.
D.
Schwartz,
Anthony N. "A Study of the
of Certain Tests
Discriminating
Efficiency
of Primary
Source Personality
Traits of
"
Ed
Teachers,
ucation, XIX (1950), pp. 63-94.
of In-Service
Seagoe, May V. "Prediction
"
Success
in Teaching,
Journal of Educa
tional Research,
XXXIX (1946), pp. 658
667.
97.
Seagoe,
98.
Seagoe,
May
"
Journal of Education
Teaching
Success,
al Research,
XXXVIH (1946), pp. 685-690.
99.
100.
101.
"Permanence
V.
"Prognostic
of
Interest
Tests
and
in
Tests
Seagoe, May V. "Standardized
the Pre-Training
Selection
of Teachers,"
Journal of Educational
XXXVI
Research,
(1943), pp. 678-693.
on the Education
Selected Bibliography
of
National
Teachers,
Survey of the Educa
tion of Teachers,
Vol. I, U. S. Office of
Education Bulletin,
No. 10 (Washington,
D. C: Government
Printing Office,
1932).
N.
T.
and
Remmers,
H.
No.
to Education,
College,
Col
Stump, Noah F. "A Comparative

"Study
of Two Teaching Aptitude Tests,
Journal
of Educational
XXVIII (1937),
Psychology,
pp. 595-600.
105.
P. M. Psychological
Diagnosis
Symonds,
in Social Adjustment
(New York: Ameri
can Book Co.,
1934).
106.
P. M. Diagnosing
Personality
Symonds,
and Conduct
(New York: D. Appleton-Cen
tury, 1931).
107.
L. L. Multiple
Factor Anal
Thurstone,
of Chicago Press,
ysis (Chicago: University
1949).
108.
Ernest W. An Evaluation
of Some
Tiegs,
of Teacher
Selection
Techniques
(Bloom
ington, Illinois: Public School Publishing
Co.,
1928).
109.
Torgerson,
T.
L.
"The
Measurement
110.
Torgerson,
T.
L.
"The
Measurement
May
"
in Teaching,
Re
Journal of Educational
search, XXXVHI (1945), pp. 678-684.
Smalzried,
Contributions
Prognos
of Prospective
"The
"
in Teachers,
of Merit
Journal
Qualities
of Educational
I (1910), pp.
Psychology,
272-278.
V.
Pedagogical
104.
of
Measurement
"
Teaching Ability,
Study Number One,
XIV
Education,
(1945), pp. 6-51.
T.
the Success
140 (New York: Teachers

umbia University,
1923).
of Teach
(1945),
Grover
is: Predicting
Teachers,
92.
XX
(Vol.
H.
"A Factor Analysis

of the Purdue Rating
"
Scale for Instructors,
Journal of Educa
tional Psychology,
XXXIV (1943), pp. 363
367.
" Re
of Teaching Ability,
and Prediction
view of Educational
IV
Research,
(1934),
pp. 329-330.
of Teaching Ability,
and Prediction
VII
view of Educational
Research,
pp. 242-246.
" Re
(1937),
111.
A. E. "Current Construction
Traxler,
and Char
of Personality
and Evaluation
" Review of Educational
Re
acter Tests,
XI (1941), pp. 57-59.
search,
112.
A. E. "Current Construction
Traxler,
"
of Personality
and Evaluation
Tests,
XIV
Research,
(19
44), pp. 55-66.
113.
of Guidance
A. E. Techniques
Traxler,
1945).
(New York: Harper and Brothers,
114.
A. E. The Use of Tests and Rat

Traxler,
of Personal
in the Appraisal
ing Devices

Dec.
259
LAMKE
1951)
Bur-
Records
Educational
ity (New York:

eau, 1942).
XXIX
122.
115.
M.
Troyer,
School
116.
E.
LXVII
Executive,
Ullman,
"The
R.
Roy
"
Success,
ching
Von
of
Types
pp.
"On
into
nals
44),
of Two
One
of Mathematical
pp. 145-162.
125.
Prob
Groups,
XV
Statistics,
An
Watson,
G.
j
and
"Character
"
Tests,
Psychological
33), pp. 467-487.
Personality
Bulletin,
Watson,
G.
Applications
Educational
Tests
Through
Research,
"
cher,
Their
Review
1930,
II (1932), pp.
of
185
127.
I
Watson,
Personality,
G.
"Measures
"
Psychological
of Character
Bulletin,
of
Techniques
Apti
Intelligence,
"
of
Yearbook
Personality,
the
Frederick
L.
"The
Prediction
of Educa
6
No.
School Pub
Public
in
Improving
Report
Research
Educational
Research,
of the American
Association,
Educa
pp.
1948,
198-204.
270.
121.
Specific
Testing
of Studies of
Paul A. "Evaluation
Witty,
Tea
of the Effective
the Characteristics
"
XXX(19
and
66-73.
"
Journal
of Teaching
Success,
tional
Research
Monographs,
Official
"Character
and
Whitney,
tional
120.
"The
G.
Watson,
in Personality
and Personal
Steps
Character
pp.
Education
245-258.
pp.
Illinois:
(Bloomington,
Co.
,
1924).
lishing
(19
126.
119.
II (1933),
tudes,
of an
"
"Next
"
G.
of
National Society for the Study of Educa

tion, III, Part 2 (1938), pp. 357-373.
XV
a Statistical
V (1935),
Emo
and
Hygiene
Review
"
Investigation:
Efficiency,"
in the Classification
lem Arising
Individual
124.
of
Employ
Education,
"Mental
Watson,
ity,
61-84.
Abraham,
Wald,
p. 608.
of Teaching
of Experimental
(1946),
118.
Data
G.
Adjustment,
Measurement,
Evaluation
Personal
ed in the Prediction
Journal
"An
I.
123.
Administra
(1930),
Watson,
tional
pp.
al Research,
of Tea
Prediction
XVI
Herbert
Haden,
Certain
60.
pp.
(1948),
Educational
tion and Supervision,

117.
on Rating,"
"Bibliography
147-176.
(1932),
and
Yaukey,
Review
J.
of
V.
the
and Anderson,
on
Literature
Teaching
Conditioning
tional Administration,
511-520.

P.
the
L.
Factors
"A
"
Educa
Success,
XIX (1935), pp.

20153877

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

20153877

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Personality and Teaching Success

Author(s): Tom Arthur Lamke

This content downloaded from 156.35.192.2 on Wed, 7 Jan 2015 05:33:39 AM

TOM ARTHUR LAMKE *

1. Are the personalities

Much effort has been expended on the problem

In case (a) the techniques

DESIGN OF THE STUDY

(126) in two studies

1. 2 Statement of the Problem.

for their first teaching posi

ing, at the University

to the traits desirable

be taken to the problem.

On the basis of such investigations,

studies such as those by Bul

of good and poor

This content downloaded from 156.35.192.2 on Wed, 7 Jan 2015 05:33:39 AM

The traits were identified by descriptive

by a friend of the subject; and certain,

followed in this study.

This content downloaded from 156.35.192.2 on Wed, 7 Jan 2015 05:33:39 AM

subject and to insure not only his cooperation

were asked in a given order (Appendix 4) to ob

ior of the subject were obtained.

this study: expert opinion of a teaching perform

ratings were generally

higher than the ratings

In this way the school official was led to con

How do you like this teacher?

between the characters

the use of Fisher's

the two as yet hypothet

This content downloaded from 156.35.192.2 on Wed, 7 Jan 2015 05:33:39 AM

index number which best discriminates

Having obtained the function, we must still in

lished, and so support the original hypothesis.

for the index

At the same time, as the discriminating

aration of the values of z\ within each group.

This content downloaded from 156.35.192.2 on Wed, 7 Jan 2015 05:33:39 AM

have also increased

so that the distributions

| hyper space makes

What we have gained

The index numbers are to provide the required

Xi, obtain index numbers

to their unknown parent populations

We notice that for a good discrimination

and the same on each of another group of N2 in

This content downloaded from 156.35.192.2 on Wed, 7 Jan 2015 05:33:39 AM

Let Sni (h, i = 1. .. p) be the sums

S/D is a factor common to the 2 un

It can be shown (61) that an estimate

the notation of the preceding

This content downloaded from 156.35.192.2 on Wed, 7 Jan 2015 05:33:39 AM

longing to one of two

tics of the population

fect the utility of the test (63).

and the procedure

be found to lie on a continuum

for h = 1, we have S = Xx_C

for h = 1 we have D = Xxdx

This content downloaded from 156.35.192.2 on Wed, 7 Jan 2015 05:33:39 AM