Prelim Inary T Echnical Manual For The S Tudent Developm Ental T Ask and L Ifesty Le Assessm Ent

Prelim inary T echnical Manual for the S
tudent Developm ental T ask and L ifesty le

Assessm ent
By
R oger B . Winston, J r.
T heodore K . Miller
Diane L . C ooper
1999
Preliminary Technical Manual for the Student

Development Task and Lifestyle Assessment
Contents
Acknowledgements
1
Chapter 1: College Student Developmental Tasks and Lifestyle Patterns
Higher Education and Student Development
Defining Development Tasks
Describing Developmental Tasks
Developmental Principles
Gender Differences in Psychosocial Development
Sexual Orientation Differences in Psychosocial Development
Ethnic Differences in Psychosocial Development
Applying Developmental Theory
Suggested Resources on College Student Psychosocial Developmental Theory
Chapter 2: Scoring and Interpreting Task,

Subtask, and Scale Defined
Task, Subtask, and Scale Descriptions
Forms of the SDTLA
Normative Sample
Administering the Instrument
Scoring the Instrument
Effects of Biographical-Demographic Variables on SDTLA Responses
Interpretation Approaches
Chapter 3: Reliability and Validity Estimates

Development of Instruments Reliability Estimates
Inter-relationships of Tasks, Subtasks, and Scales
Validity Estimates
Chapter 4: Using the SDTLA

Using the SDTLA for Programming
Using the SDTLA for Research and Evaluation
References
Acknowledgements
We have many people to thank for their assistance in revising the SDTLA. Most notable have been
many of the doctoral students in the Student Affairs Administration Program at The University of Georgia for
the past seven years. They contributed ideas, wrote items, assisted with data collections, critiqued
development strategies, helped design studies, collected data, and often kept us motivated to bring this project
to completion.
Special recognition must be afforded a number of people. First, we would like to thank Lane
McFarland who was especially helpful in researching the development of intimacy. It was her dissertation
2
that convinced us that the SDTLA approach was not adequate to the measurement of intimacy with young
adult college students.
We also must acknowledge the many hours of work that Mary Beth Vahala, Vasti Torres, and Ross
Papish devoted to coding data and running and re-running statistical analyses. Their contributions were
beyond value. We can never thank them enough for their resourcefulness, tenacity, patience, and dedication.
A number of doctoral students assisted in conducting the reliability and validity studies. Our
appreciation is especially extended to Ross Papish, Irene Prue, Stephanie Marsh, Bill Faulkner, Janice Taylor,
and Vasti Torres. Jessica Baker also helped establish the validity of the Salubrious Lifestyle Scale through
her master’s thesis. We would also like to recognize several generations of doctoral students who
volunteered to assist with item construction and critique. Steve Brown, Mary Beth Vahala, Vasti Torres, Ken
Goyen, Pete Mather, Janice Taylor, Bill Faulkner, Lane McFarland, Bobbi Johnstone Lathrop, Marianne
Edwards, Tyrone Bledsoe, Jeff Long, Jim Street, Irene Prue, and Martha Wisbey are especially noteworthy
for their contributions.
More recent doctoral students were especially helpful assisting in development of the list of suggested
activities associated with item responses. As we all learned, this is much more difficult than it looked when
we started. Thank you Mark Daddona, Amy Badel, Ross Papish, Erin Chernow, and Bobbi Johnstone
Lathrop. We also wish to thank Sue Saunders for encouraging use of the developmental activities as a means
of “institutional needs assessment” and her other contributions to this revision.
Finally, we would like to thank our many friends and professional colleagues across the United States
and in Canada (some alumni of The University of Georgia, others strangers who responded to our requests for
help). Over thirty colleagues collected data for the normative sample on their campuses without any
compensation. Without their assistance, this revision would have never been completed.
If we missed acknowledging someone (and we are sure we must have), please accept our heart-felt
apologies. It was unintentional. (Ted and Roger are getting old and this project has been going on for over
seven years.)
Roger B. Winston, Jr.

Theodore K. Miller
Diane L. Cooper
Athens, Georgia
August 1999
CHAPTER 1
College Student Developmental Tasks and Lifestyle Patterns
Higher Education and Student Development
Two fundamental presuppositions of education are that people can change and that educators and educational environments can
affect that change. Observations of college students from entry to graduation confirm that change does occur. Students learn factual
information in the humanities; the physical, natural, and behavioral sciences; and other academic disciplines. They learn to think
critically; to identify, use, and evaluate sources; to solve methodological and technical problems; and to communicate ideas more
3
effectively in oral and written language. If these kinds of academic and intellectual changes do not occur, educators know that they
have failed to carry out their educational mission.
There is considerably more to higher education than academic and intellectual learning alone, however, as the Hazen Foundation's
The Student in Higher Education (1968) pointed out. Colleges and universities are major social agents in promoting the personal
development of students in addition to their intellectual learning. College students mature and develop not only because of what they
learn in the classroom, not even mainly because of what they learn in that setting. Student interaction with college instructors and
leaders, involvement in friendship groups, acquisition of new personal values, exposure to varied campus climates and expectations
all have an immense impact on the evolution of young adults' self and world views, confidence and altruism, and achievement of
personal identities. By the fact that institutions of higher learning intentionally seek to inform students' minds, colleges become
intimately involved in the development of the whole person, of which intellectual faculties are but a part (Hazen Foundation, 1968;
Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991).
Especially during the college years, young adults seek to resolve the child-parent relationship in a search for independence
(Coons, 1971; Erikson, 1963), to establish a sense of identity and self-worth (Chickering & Reisser, 1993; Cohen, 1985; Erikson,
1968), and to form concepts about themselves as separate adult persons (Chickering & Reisser, 1993; Kegan, 1982). They also
develop increasingly mature patterns of interpersonal behaviors, coping styles, career orientations, values systems, and lifestyles that
will greatly influence the shape of their futures (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1993; Super, 1984).
Just as there is intellectual knowledge to be gained and academic skills to be acquired in college, there is also knowledge about
one's self to be learned and interpersonal skills to be developed (Astin, 1993). Likewise, just as academic competence can be taught
and learned, so can personal assessment, goal setting, interpersonal relationship skills, and other important life skills (Gazda, Childers,
& Brooks, 1987; Miller & Prince, 1976).
As Chickering and Havighurst (1981, p. 2) noted, "the overarching educational purpose of our colleges and universities should
be to encourage and enable intentional developmental change in students." The purpose of the Student Developmental Task and
Lifestyle Assessment (SDTLA) is to provide an assessment tool and procedure that educational practitioners can use with young
adult college students to facilitate development of life purpose, mature interpersonal relationships, and academic autonomy as well
as the establishment of healthy lifestyles. The assessment procedure is based on concepts and principles of human development,
specifically that of developmental task achievement that typically occurs within the college setting. The developmental tasks with
which the SDTLA is primarily concerned are most typical of college students between 17 and 24 years of age, though comparable
task achievement has relevance for older students as well. The SDTLA and this manual have evolved from earlier assessment
instruments including the Student Developmental Task Inventory (SDTI) (Prince, Miller, & Winston, 1974, 1977) and the Student
Developmental Task and Lifestyle Inventory (SDTLI) (Winston, Miller, & Prince, 1987).
Because no assessment instrument designed to describe or facilitate change in human behavior can be free from value judgments
or the culture in which the behavior occurs, the authors have attempted to make explicit the values implicit in the Student
Developmental Task and Lifestyle Assessment. These include the following . . .
• One should be able to act independently without continual reassurance or direction from others.
• Relationships among people should be characterized by openness, honesty, trust, mutual respect, and equality.
• One should be able to exhibit self-discipline, understand personal motivations, and employ rational processes to solve problems
and make decisions.
• Altruism, charity, democratic processes, individual freedom, social responsibility, and self-directedness are positively valued
behaviors.
• Prejudice and discriminatory treatment of people based on race, sex, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, handicapping
condition, physical appearance, or age are morally wrong and inhibiting to personal happiness.
• Knowledge and learning are worthy of pursuit for their own sakes.
• Behavioral change and growth result from the stimulation accruing from interaction between individuals and their environments.
• Health engendering lifestyles encourage positive personal development.
It is not essential for those being assessed by the SDTLA to accept these values in toto. Students who hold alternative values may
benefit from the opportunity to articulate and openly examine them. No one should be pressured, overtly or covertly, to accept these
values when using the SDTLA.
Practitioners who use the SDTLA will note that many items are set in a middle-class milieu. The primary reason for this is that
colleges in North America are basically middle-class social institutions, and it was from students attending these institutions that
4
many items were derived. Also, it is with students attending these types of institutions that the assessment instrument is primarily
being used.
As previously noted, the Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle Assessment was designed for young adult college students
in their late teens and early twenties. The theoretical work of Chickering and Reisser (1993) as presented in their book Education and
Identity and its revision was a major influence in guiding the creation and evolution of the SDTLA. The seven developmental vectors
he postulated are fundamental to the SDTLA. Anyone contemplating use of the SDTLA is encouraged to examine carefully
Chickering's writings as a prerequisite to their attempts at student development implementation.
Defining Developmental Tasks

Developmental tasks are the best available organization of statements regarding human development and represent those
experiences that are essential to the full development of the individual. A framework of developmental tasks proves useful to those
concerned with the development of college students because a complete statement of such tasks (a) covers important components of
human development, (b) gives a comprehensive and ordered view of the life cycle, and (c) can be stated in terms of behaviors that
make them useful in formulating behavioral change strategies.
For purposes of the Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle Assessment, a developmental task is defined as an interrelated set
of behaviors and attitudes that the culture specifies should be exhibited at approximately the same chronological time of life by age
cohorts in a designated context. Successful accomplishment or achievement of a developmental task allows the individual to acquire
the experiential base needed to accomplish subsequent developmental tasks that arise in the future. Failure to meet successfully the
challenges inherent in a given developmental task results in social disapproval and may hinder further growth in that area of
development or can lead to maladaptive adjustment (Havighurst, 1953, 1972; Kitchener, 1982; Mines, 1982).
Numerous psychosocial theorists and research authorities have used the developmental task construct in their work and have
postulated a variety of behavioral expectations common to young adult college students and other adults throughout the life cycle.
As early as 1950 Tryon and Lilienthal identified the developmental task as an important concept for fostering healthy development
in school settings. Erikson (1963), in his seminal work Childhood and Society, established the "eight stages of man" ego development
model that, although he did not refer to them as developmental tasks, identified patterns of behavior and essential learnings that were
common to most individuals as they moved through one life stage to another.
Havighurst, an early proponent of the developmental task concept, proffered what has probably become the most widely
recognized and quoted definition of the term. His definition was "A developmental task is a task which arises at or about a certain
period in the life of an individual, successful achievement of which leads to happiness and to success with later tasks, while failure
leads to unhappiness in the individual, disapproval by society and difficulty with later tasks" (1953, p. 2).
Describing Developmental Tasks

Descriptions of the nature and content of developmental tasks take many forms depending upon the view of the person describing
and reporting the characteristics involved. In some instances authorities disagree on when, in a chronological sense, a particular
developmental task will likely become manifest. McCoy (1977), for instance, took a detailed approach when identifying nine tasks
common to the "leaving home" developmental stage for 18-22 year olds. Her tasks included . . .
• Breaking psychological ties

• Choosing careers
• Entering work
• Handling peer relationships
• Managing home
• Managing time
• Adjusting to life on own
• Problem-solving
• Managing stress that accompanies change
In specific reference to late adolescence and youth, ages 16 to 23, Chickering and Havighurst (1981) presented a less comprehensive
set of developmental tasks viewed as necessary accomplishments in order to move successfully into early adulthood. These were (a)
achieving emotional independence, (b) preparing for marriage and family life, (c) choosing and preparing for a career, and (d)
5
developing an ethical system. But, these were followed by a set of developmental tasks they viewed as common to the age range of
23 to 35, the early adult years. It will be noted that there is some overlap between the tasks that McCoy (1977) postulated for the
earlier stage with those that Chickering and Havighurst (1981) postulated for the later developmental stage.
• Deciding on a partner
• Starting a family
• Managing a home
• Starting in an occupation
• Assuming civic responsibilities
The cultural aspects of developmental tasks are most evident, for example, in the area of marriage and starting a family. The
median age of first marriage changed from about age 23 for men and 21 for women in the United States in 1970 to about age 25 and
23 (for men and women respectively) in 1983 and this trend has continued in recent decades. Accordingly, more women are having
their first child at a later age. The proportion of women aged 30 to 34 who had never married was more than twice as high in 1983 as
in 1970 ("Marital status and living arrangements," 1983). The age at which a particular developmental task is addressed is, to a large
extent, culturally defined and changes as social customs and economic conditions vary.
Probably the main reason for disagreement among authorities is the fact that human development does not occur at precisely
the same chronological time for all people. As Montagu (1981) warned, beware of the "age-stage dilemma" when considering human
development. Even though there is strong evidence that individuals experience common developmental tasks and progress through
similar developmental processes and stages, the individual differences involved make it impossible to predict with even reasonable
accuracy when a particular individual will face or deal with a particular developmental task, crisis, or stage. As Kitchener (1982, p.
39) noted, traditional aged college students are at both the end of adolescence and the beginning of early adulthood. As a result, the
developmental tasks associated with college students overlaps both stages. "Many will enter college without having completed the
developmental tasks of adolescence, while others will be ready to embark on those associated with the older group." It does appear
important that professional practitioners concerned with facilitating the development of college students come to understand the
unique developmental characteristics of that population and utilize strategies and tools to help students assess their current
developmental needs and status so that developmental plans may be established and implemented.
Several authorities have postulated a late adolescence, youth, or young adult stage between adolescence and early adulthood.
Sanford (1962) for instance, proposed such a distinctive stage as did Keniston (1970). Chickering (1969) maintained that the
increasing complexity of the time--the fact that approximately 50% of the college age population is enrolled in college because of
increased demand for skilled and specialized personnel--has created a new developmental period. The developmental age spanning
the years from 18 to 25 must be studied separately from other developmental stages because the tasks of this period are related to,
but substantially different from, those of both adolescence and adulthood. Calling this developmental stage "the young adult,"
Chickering (1969, pp.8-19) postulated seven major developmental tasks he referred to as developmental vectors. In a revision of
Education and Identity (Chickering & Reisser, 1993, pp. 43-52), the authors down-played the young adult emphasis, yet proposed a
comparable set of developmental vectors in slightly different order and with slightly different emphases. The latter set of vectors
follows.
1. Developing Competence. Competence involves the development of intellectual competence, physical and manual skills,
and social and interpersonal competence. It reflects a sense of competence defined as "the confidence that one can cope
with what comes and achieve goals successfully" (p.53)
2. Managing Emotions. The student's first task along this vector is to become aware of feelings and to acknowledge and trust
them, to recognize that they provide information relevant to contemplated behavior or to decisions about future plans. As
a larger range of feelings are fully expressed, new and more useful patterns of expression and control can be achieved.
3. Moving Through Autonomy Toward Interdependence. Mature independence requires both emotional and instrumental
independence and the recognition of one's interdependencies. To be emotionally independent is to be free of continual and
pressing needs for reassurance, affection, or approval. Instrumental independence has two components, the ability to carry
on activities and to cope with problems without seeking help, and the ability to be mobile in relation to one's needs.
Interdependence is recognizing that loving and being loved are complementary, and that one cannot receive benefits of a
social structure without contributing to it. “Developing autonomy culminates in the recognition that one cannot operate in
a vacuum and that greater autonomy enables healthier forms of interdependence” (p. 47).
6
4. Developing Mature Interpersonal Relationships. Relationships shift toward greater trust, independence, and individuality
and become less anxious, defensive, and burdened by inappropriate past reactions and more friendly, spontaneous, warm,
and respectful. Maturity is reflective of “long-lasting relationships that endure through crises, distance, and separation” (p.
48). Developing greater tolerance for differences is a significant aspect of this task.
5. Establishing Identity. Identity is an advanced vector that reflects confidence in one's ability to maintain inner sameness and
continuity. Further, it involves clarification of conceptions concerning physical needs, characteristics, and personal
appearances; clarification of sexual identification and of sex appropriate roles and behaviors; and a sense of self-esteem,
personal stability, and integration. Establishing identity “leads to clarity and stability and a feeling of warmth for this core
self as capable, familiar, worthwhile” (p. 50).
6. Developing Purpose. Development of purpose requires formulating plans and priorities that integrate a vocational and
recreational interest, vocational plans, and life style considerations. “Developing purpose entails an increasing ability to be
intentional, to assess interests and options, to clarify goals, to make plans for action” (p. 50).
7. Developing Integrity. Developing integrity involves humanizing and personalizing values and developing congruent
values. Humanizing of values describes the shift from a literal belief in the absoluteness of rules to a more relative view.
Personalizing values occurs as values are first examined and then selected by an individual. The development of congruence
is the achievement of behavior consistent with the personalized values held. “With this final stage, internal debate is
minimized.” . . . and “the response . . . is made with conviction, without debate or equivocation” (p. 52).
According to Chickering and Reisser (1993), these seven areas represent the common core of the major foundations of
nonintellective development during the college years variously termed growth trends, developmental tasks, stages of development,
personal development, needs and problem areas, or student typologies. Their theory “assumes that emotional, interpersonal, and
ethical development deserve equal billing with intellectual development” (p. 39).
Researchers and theorists concerned with vocational maturity such as Tiedeman and O'Hara (1963) and Gribbons and Lohnes
(1968) used the developmental task concept to describe the observed career changes. Super and associates (1963, 1984, 1986) used
developmental tasks as an integral part of career pattern studies that focused on the exploratory and establishment stages of vocational
development. The tasks that span these two life stages occurring between the ages of 14 and 25, according to Super, are as follow . .
.
• Crystallizing a vocational preference

• Specifying a vocational preference
• Implementing a preference
• Stabilizing in the chosen vocation
• Consolidating one's status
• Advancing in the occupation
Crystallizing, specifying, and implementing a vocational preference provide a frame of reference for viewing vocational development
of college students. Crystallizing a vocational preference is concerned with individuals formulating ideas as to fields and levels of
work which are appropriate for them to make tentative choices. Specifying a vocational preference is the selection of a specific
occupation and the "attitude," as opposed to the "act," of commitment to it. Implementing the preference represents the "conversion
into reality" of the occupation by entering an entry-level job, participating in an internship, or entering an educational program to
prepare for a preferred career (Super, et al., 1963). Super and his colleagues outlined the behaviors or attitudes that foster the
crystallization, specification, and implementation of a vocational preference.
Developmental Principles
In the developmental framework, college students should be seen as changing individuals engaged in a series of developmental
tasks. Some of the tasks are intellectual in nature and tend to reflect two aspects, logical reasoning and concepts of knowledge.
Although these aspects often interact when an individual seeks to solve a problem, they appear to function as separate developmental
dimensions (Kitchener & Kitchener, 1981). Some tasks are social in nature and lead to learning ways of relating more effectively
while other tasks are concerned with intrapersonal development, which result in increased self-knowledge, selfconfidence, and
clarification of goals. Still other developmental tasks are concerned with the individual becoming more cognizant of and effective in
dealing with cultural aspects of the environment. As Oetting (1967) indicated, the student who engages in and learns from these tasks
7
becomes a person with new skills and abilities who is capable of assuming a responsible place in society and capable of continuing
to learn from future developmental experiences.
Three basic developmental principles reappear throughout the literature on human development that are of particular importance
to understanding the dynamic nature and process of human development. These are that development is (a) continuous, (b)
cumulative, and (c) a continuum. Human growth and development are continuous in nature and normal maturation leads to
developmental changes irrespective of the environment, but not independent of it. Growth tendencies can be modified by exposure
to an environment, and the nature of the experience can determine whether change will be optimal, minimal, or somewhere in
between. Human growth and development is also cumulative in nature, and life experiences act as "building blocks." What has gone
before influences what will be in the future. Some developmental tasks must be mastered before moving on to other, more advanced
tasks, for there is an additive and interlocking process involved. Human growth and development progresses along a continuum from
simpler to more complex behavior. Simple, more elementary behavior must be mastered before more complex behavior can be,
assuming that the simpler behavior is a component of the complex behavior. Throughout life, human beings progress along a series
of developmental continua accomplishing increasingly difficult learnings. The concept of the developmental task is founded upon
these three important principles.
Knowledge of the processes of development, as well as the tasks that must be mastered via those processes, is very important for
college student development educators to comprehend. Because development is continuous, practitioners need to know what
behaviors must be mastered and in what logical order for optimum development to result. Likewise, because development is
cumulative, actions to promote further development must be based on an understanding of the experiences and learnings the individual
has had to date. Because development progresses from the simpler to the more complex, it is important to know an individual's present
level of development in order to help him or her effectively attain a maximum level of development. Therefore, facilitators need the
ability to assess behaviors that have previously been acquired by individual students.
Gender Differences in Psychosocial Development
Most of the foundational works related to psychosocial development did not include women in the initial data collection.
Because of this, psychosocial development has often been discussed as if it is a phenomenon that occurs in a similar form for both
men and women. We now know that that is in fact not the case. From the time Carol Gilligan (1982) first questioned differences in
the moral development patterns of men and women, researchers have explored the various differential patterns of development that
occur by gender.
Most notable in this area would be Josselson’s (1987) work that questions the establishment of identity for woman based on
establishing relationships with others rather than on autonomy and independence. This may account for the differing developmental
patterns that emerged in the SDTLA normative data collection and why we ultimately decided to publish different norms for men and
women. More longitudinal research is needed to establish the relationship of gender to psychosocial development over the lifespan.
Sexual Orientation Differences in Psychosocial Development
Since psychosocial development is primarily focused on the identity development, gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender
(GLBT) students often find the college years filled with internal turmoil. While their heterosexual peers are dealing with one
psychosocial development process, GLBT students find themselves also concerned with a parallel, gay identity development process.
There are a variety of gay identity development models available for understanding this aspect of identity formation (Cass, 1979;
Coleman, 1981; Troiden, 1979). Recently, researchers have even suggested that identity formation occurs differently based on gender
(Brown, 1995; Golden, 1996). Other researchers argue that bisexual individuals have an identity formation process that also deserves
specific attention (Fox, 1995; Paul, 1996). Research is just beginning to emerge for transgender individuals (Carter, 1997 as sited in
Evans, Forney, & Guido-Dibrito, 1998).
Ethnic Differences in Psychosocial Development
A number of researchers have postulated various models of cultural identity development (Cross, 1971, Helms, 1984, Sue &
Sue, 1971), minority identity development (Atkinson, Morton, & Sue, 1983), as well as models for specific ethnic groups. At their
core, all of these models consider the effect of group membership on developing a sense of self within the culture. Thus identity
formation may be impacted by the role of language, customs, socioeconomic status, racism, and acculturation. Several subtasks on
the SDTLA do show significant differences based on race but no patterns emerged to warrant separate norms as was the case with
gender difference.
8
Applying Developmental Theory
Evans and her associates (1998, p. 289) noted that, “assessment and evaluation must be a part of every intentionally designed
developmental intervention.” Contemporary student affairs and student development practitioners are increasingly acting on this
proposition as they strive to promote developmental change in students. Based on developmental theory, three actions can increase
the effectiveness of the student development facilitator's ability to influence change in students.
1. Assessing learnings and behaviors the student has previously accomplished. Developmental assessment should occur
periodically and requires that the student's progress in developing educational, social, personal, and other important life skills he
known.
2. Formulating developmental goals and behavioral objectives. With help, students can identify both short- and long-range
educational, personal, social, career, and other life skill objectives as directional guidelines for future growth.
3. Making developmental plans and selecting behavioral change strategies. Student development facilitators must work closely
with students and the various campus personnel and program resources available to support student growth and development. Helping
students make plans to access available resources in attempts to enhance growth and development is an essential aspect of student
development programming. Helping students to identify support resources and use instructional, consultation, and environmental
resources to accomplish their developmental goals is an essential component of a campus student development program.
Although space does not allow for a detailed examination of developmental theory and its application in higher education
settings, those wishing to provide quality student development programs are encouraged to examine the continually increasing
professional literature available. A short bibliography follows to assist readers in locating resources.
Suggested Resources on College Student Psychosocial Developmental Theory

Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Atkinson D. R., Morton, G, & Sue, D. (1993). Counseling American minorities: A cross-cultural perspective.
Dubuque, IA: Brown.
Brown, L. S. (1995). Lesbian identities: Concepts and issues. In A. R. D’Augelli & C. J. Patterson (Eds.) Lesbian, gay,
and bisexual identities over the lifespan: Psychological perspectives (pp. 2-23). New York: Oxford University Press.
Cass, V. C. (1979). Homosexual identity formation: A theoretical model. Journal of Homosexuality, 4, 219-235.
Coleman, E. (1981-1982). Developmental stages of the coming out process. Journal of Homosexuality, 7(2-3), 31-43.
Creamer, D. G. & Associates. (1990). College student development: Theory and practice for the 1990s (Media Publication
No. 49). Alexandria, VA: American College Personnel Association.
Chickering, A. W., & Havighurst, R. J. (1981). The life cycle. In A. W. Chickering & Associates, The modern American
college: Responding to the new realities of diverse students and a changing society. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Chickering,
A. W., & Reisser, L. (1993) Education and Identity (2nd Edit.). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Chickering, A. W., & Schlossberg, N. K. (1995). How to get the most out of college. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Cross, E. W., Jr. (1995). The psychology of Nigrescence: Revising the Cross model. In J. G. Ponter, J. M. Casas, L. A.
Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.). Handbook of multicultural counseling (pp. 93-122). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Evans, N.J. (1996) Theories of student development. In S.R. Komives, D.B. Woodward, Jr., & Associates, Student
services: A handbook for the profession (3rd. ed., pp. 147-163). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., & Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998). Student development in college: Theory, research, and practice.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fox, R.C. (1995). Bisexual identities. In A. R. D’Augelli & C. J. Patterson (Eds.) Lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities
over the lifespan: Psychological perspectives (pp. 2-23). New York: Oxford University Press.
Golden, C. (1996). What’s in a name? Sexual self-identification among women. In R. C. Savin-Williams & K.M.
Cohen (Eds.) The lives of lesbian, gay, and bisexuals: Children to adults (pp. 229-249). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
Helms, J. E. (1995). An update of Helm’s white and people of color racial identity models. . In J. G. Ponter, J. M.
Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.). Handbook of multicultural counseling (pp. 181-198). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Josselson (1987). Finding herself: Pathways to identity development in women. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
Kitchener, K. S. (1982). Human development and the college campus: Sequences and tasks. In G. R. Hanson (Ed.),
Measuring student development. New Directions for Student Services, no. 20. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
McEwen, M.K. (1996). The nature and uses of theory. In S.R. Komives, D.B. Woodward, Jr., & Associates, Student
9
services: A handbook for the profession (3rd. ed., pp. 147-163). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Miller, T. K., & Prince, J. S. (1976). The future of student affairs: A guide to student development for tomorrow's Higher
education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Miller, T. K., Winston, R. B., Jr., & Associates.. (1991). Administration and leadership in student affairs: Actualizing
student development in higher education (revised 2nd edit.)Muncie, IN: Accelerated Development.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights from twenty years of
research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Paul, J. P. (1996). Bisexuality: Exploring/exploding the boundaries. In R. C. Savin-Williams & K.M. Cohen (Eds.) The
lives of lesbian, gay, and bisexuals: Children to adults (pp. 229-249). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
Phinney, J. S. (1989). Stages of ethnic identity development in minority group adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence,
9, 34-49.
Straub, C. A. (1987). Women's development of autonomy and Chickering's theory. Journal of College Student Personnel,
28, 198-205.
Sue, W. S., & Sue D. W. (1971). Chinese-American personality and mental health. Amerasia Journal, 1, 36-49.
Super, D. E. (1983). Assessment in career guidance: Toward truly developmental counseling. Personnel and Guidance
Journal, 61, 555-562.
Super, D. E. (1984). Career and life development. In D. Brown, L. Brooks, & Associates, Career choice and
development: Applying contemporary theories to practice (pp. 192-234). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Taub, D.J., & McEwen, M.K. (1992). The relationship of racial identity attitudes to autonomy and mature interpersonal
relationships in Black and White undergraduate women. Journal of College Student Development, 33, 439-446.
Thomas, R. E., & Chickering, A. W. (1984). Foundations for academic advising. In R. B. Winston, Jr., T. K. Miller, S. C.
Ender, T. J. Grites, & Associates, Developmental academic advising: Addressing students educational, career, and personal needs
(pp.89-118). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Troiden, R.R. (1989). The formation of homosexual identities. Journal of Homosexuality, 17(1-2), 43-74.
Winston, R. B., Jr., Bonney, W. C., Miller, T. K., & Dagley, J. C. (1988). Encouraging student development through
intentionally structured groups. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Wright, D. J. (1987). Minority students: Developmental beginnings. In D. J. Wright (Ed.), Responding to the needs of
today's minority students. New Directions for Student Services, no. 38. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
CHAPTER 2 Scoring and Interpreting
The Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle Assessment (SDTLA) is a major revision of the Student Developmental
Task and Lifestyle Inventory [SDTLI] (Winston, Miller, & Prince, 1987). It represents a sample of behavior and reports about
feelings and attitudes that are indicative of students who have satisfactorily achieved certain developmental tasks common to
young adult college students between the ages of 17 and 25. The phenomena with which the SDTLA are concerned are the
changes produced in individuals as a result of accomplishing a developmental task or having addressed important life events
or issues within the context of higher education. The samples of behavior have been chosen to be representative of larger
behavioral domains. The behavioral descriptions and depictions of affective states, however, are meant to be used as stimuli
for work with students rather than as absolute definitions of developmental tasks.
Task, Subtask, and Scale Defined
The SDTLA is composed of both developmental tasks (and subtasks) and scales. For the purposes of the SDTLA,
developmental task is defined as an interrelated set of behaviors and attitudes that the culture specifies should be exhibited at
approximately the same time by a given age cohort in a designated context (for the SDTLA, that is the context of higher
education). Successful accomplishment or achievement of a developmental task allows the individual to acquire the
experiential based need to accomplish future developmental tasks. Failure to meet the challenges inherent in the developmental
task area results in social disapproval and/or may hinder further development in the area or can lead to personal adjustment
problems (Chickering & Reisser, 1993; Havighurst, 1972; Kitchener, 1982; Mines, 1982).
A subtask is a more specific component or part of a larger developmental task. In the SDTLA, tasks and subtasks are
differentially affected by participation in the academic and collegiate environments (both formal and informal) and change as
a result of the person-environment interaction (or personality-social milieu interface), biological maturation, and in some cases,
unanticipated, chance events. The latter (for instance, loss of a limb in an accident, diagnosis of a lifethreatening disease, or
the death of a partner or parent), while not predictable by theory, can have profound effects on psychosocial development.
Subtasks are independent constructs that also share commonality with other subtasks within a larger developmental task area.
10
A scale in the SDTLA is the measure of the degree to which students report possessing certain behavioral
characteristics, attitudes, or feelings, but unlike a developmental task or subtask, may not be directly affected by participation
in the higher education environment. In the SDTLA, the Salubrious Lifestyle Scale shows little change over the course of
students’ academic careers. Some students enter higher education adhering to sound health and wellness strategies, while
others do not; for a wide variety of reasons, students may change their lifestyle in terms of diet and exercise for better or worst.
Without specific, and rather powerful, interventions in this area, it is not possible to predict how a student will perform in this
area upon graduation. There seems to be little environmental press towards a salubrious lifestyle on most college campuses
today and there is no evidence that there is a biological press towards wellness either. In other words, this construct, cannot be
classified as “developmental” within the framework of the SDTLA.
Task, Subtask, and Scale Descriptions
The SDTLA is made up of three developmental tasks (Establishing and Clarifying Purpose, Developing Autonomy, and
Developing Mature Interpersonal Relationships, each of which is further delineated by subtasks) and two scales (Salubrious
Lifestyle and Response Bias). Definitions of the tasks, subtasks, and scales follow.
Establishing and Clarifying Purpose Task (PUR). The Establishing and Clarifying Purpose Task is composed of four
subtasks: Educational Involvement, Career Planning, Lifestyle Planning, and Cultural Participation. Students who have high
achievement on this task (a) have well-defined and thoroughly explored educational goals and plans and are active, selfdirected
learners, (b) have synthesized knowledge about themselves and the world of work into appropriate career plans, both making
emotional commitment and taking steps now to allow realization of career goals; (c) have established a personal direction in
their lives and made plans for their futures that take into account personal, ethical, and religious values, future family plans,
and vocational and educational objectives; and (d) exhibit a wide range of cultural interests and active participation in both
traditional and non-traditional cultural events.
Educational Involvement Subtask (EI). Students who have accomplished this subtask have well-defined educational
goals and plans, are knowledgeable about available resources, and are actively involved in the academic life of the
college/university. After careful investigation and self-analysis, they have selected areas of academic concentration for which
they are intellectually compatible and academically qualified, and with which they are temperamentally suited. They are not
passive learners; they take initiatives to insure that they are obtaining relevant and appropriate educational experiences through
activity such as initiating personal study projects, attending non-required lectures and programs, and making regular contact
with academic advisors, faculty, and staff members.
Career Planning Subtask (CP). An awareness of the world of work, an accurate understanding of one’s abilities and
limitations, a knowledge of requirements for various occupations, and an understanding of the emotional and educational
demands of different kinds of jobs are evidence of accomplishment of this subtask. Students who have achieved this subtask
have synthesized knowledge about themselves and the world of work into a rational order which enables them to make a
commitment to a chosen career field and formulate specific vocational plans. They have taken the initial steps necessary to
prepare themselves through both educational and practical experiences for eventual employment, and have taken steps
necessary for beginning a job search or enrollment in graduate school.
Lifestyle Planning Subtask (LP). Achievement of this subtask includes establishing a personal direction and
orientation in one’s life that takes into account personal, ethical, and religious values, future relationship/family plans, and
vocational and educational objectives. Plans need not be highly specific, but must have sufficient clarity to permit identification
of present steps that can lead to plans’ realization; that is, they can specify how current activities relate to the realization of the
kind of future they envision for themselves.
Cultural Participation Subtask (CUP). Students who have accomplished this subtask are actively involved in a wide
variety of activities, including traditional cultural events such as attending plays, ballets, museums, art exhibits, and classical
music concerts, as well as new forms of expression and ethnic celebrations and performances. Their leisure time is spent
productively in such activities as reading, pursuit of hobbies, and voluntary participation in student organizations. They exhibit
a wide array of cultural interests and a developed sense of aesthetic appreciation.
Developing Autonomy Task (AUT). The Developing Autonomy Task is defined by four subtasks: Emotional Autonomy,
Interdependence, Academic Autonomy, and Instrumental Autonomy. Students who have high achievement on this task: (a)
11
are able to meet their needs and action on their own ideas without the need for continuous reassurance from others; (b) can
structure their lives and manipulate their environment in ways that allow them to satisfy daily needs and meet responsibilities
without extensive direction or support from others; (c) structure their time and devise and execute effective study strategies to
meet academic expectations without the need for direction from others; and (d) recognize the reciprocal nature of the
relationship between the individual and his/her community and acts as a responsible, contributing member.
Emotional Autonomy Subtask (EA). Students who have accomplished this subtask are free from the need for
continuous reassurance and approval from others. Trusting their own ideas and feelings, they have the self-assurance to be
confident decision-makers and to voice dissenting opinions in groups. They have confidence in their abilities and are prudent
risk-takers. The reliance on parents for direction is minimal. Relationships with authority figures are constructive and
nondefensive.
Interdependence Subtask (IND). Students who have high scores on this subtask recognize the reciprocal nature of
the relationship between the individual and his/her community. They fulfill their citizenship responsibilities and are actively
involved in activities that promote improvement of the institution and the larger community. Concern for others is reflected in
their awareness of how their behavior affects the community.
Academic Autonomy Subtask (AA). Students who have accomplished this task have the capacity to deal well with
ambiguity and to monitor and control their behavior in ways that allow them to attain personal goals and fulfill responsibilities.
High scorers devise and execute effective study plans and schedules; perform academically at levels with which they are
satisfied and are consistent with their abilities; are self-disciplined; and require minimal amounts of direction from others.
While they are independent learners, they are also willing to seek academic help when needed.
Instrumental Autonomy Subtask (IA). Students who have completed this subtask demonstrate an ability to structure
their lives and to manipulate their environment in ways that allow them to satisfy daily needs and meet responsibilities without
extensive direction or support from others. They are able to manage their time and other aspects of their lives in ways that
allow them to meet daily demands, satisfy personal needs, and fulfill community and family responsibilities; to establish and
follow through on realistic plans; and to solve most problems as they arise. They are independent, goaldirected, resourceful,
and self-sufficient persons.
Mature Interpersonal Relationships Task (MIR). The Mature Interpersonal Relationships Task is defined by two
subtasks: Peer Relationships and Tolerance. Higher achievers on this task: (a) have relationships with peer that are open, honest,
and trusting; their relationships reflect a balance between dependence and self-assured independence; and (b) show respect for
and acceptance of those of different backgrounds, beliefs, cultures, races, lifestyles, and appearances.
Peer Relationships Subtask (PR). Having accomplished this subtask, students describe their relationships with peers
as shifting toward greater trust, independence, frankness, and individuality and as feeling less need to conform to the standards
of friends or to conceal shortcomings or disagreements. Students can distinguish between friends and acquaintances and have
both kinds of relationships. Friendships survive the development of differences in activities, beliefs, and values, and reflect an
appreciation for individual differences. Relationships with peers are open and honest; disagreements are resolved or simply
accepted.
Tolerance Subtask (TOL). Respect for and acceptance of those of different backgrounds, beliefs, cultures, races,
lifestyles, and appearances describe students who have high achievement on this subtask. They respond to people as
individuals; do not employ racial, sexual, or cultural stereotypes; have an openness to new or unconventional ideas and beliefs;
and are appreciative of individual differences. Tolerance involves an openness to and acceptance of differences and does not
mean the development of screening devices to shield one from the values and ideas of those with different backgrounds,
lifestyles, or belief systems. Students high in tolerance do not shy from or reject contact with those with different ethnic, racial,
or cultural heritage or with different religious beliefs, political views, or lifestyles.
Salubrious Lifestyle Scale (SL). This scale measures the degree to which a student’s lifestyle is consistent with or
promotes good health and wellness practices, including moderating (or abstaining from) consumption of alcohol and abstaining
from use of tobacco products. Eating well-balanced, nutritious meals, maintaining an appropriate body weight, planning for
and getting sufficient amounts of sleep and physical exercise, using effective stress reduction techniques, and holding a positive
evaluation of one’s physical appearance all contribute to receiving a high score on this scale.
12
Response Bias Scale (RB). A high score on this scale means that the student is attempting to portray himself/herself
in an unrealistically favorable way. Scores higher than 3 mean that the validity on the assessment is suspect and probably do
not accurately describe the student. (We suggest that for research and evaluation purposes, that respondents with RB scores of
4 to 6 be eliminated from the data pool.)
Forms of the SDTLA
There are four forms of the SDTLA. Form 1.99 is made up of 153 items and assesses three developmental tasks and two
scales. Form 2.99 is made up of 57 items and measures the Establishing and Clarifying Purpose Task (Career Planning,
Lifestyle Planning, Cultural Participation, and Educational Involvement Subtask), plus the Response Bias Scale. Form 3.99 is
made up of 57 items and measures the Developing Autonomy Task (Emotional Autonomy, Instrumental Autonomy,
Interdependence, and Academic Autonomy Subtasks), plus the Response Bias Scale. Form 4.99 is made up of 47 items and
measures the Developing Mature Interpersonal Relationships Task (Tolerance and Peer Relationships) and Salubrious Lifestyle
Scale, plus the Response Bias Scale.
Form 1.99 generally requires 25 to 35 minutes to complete. Forms 2.99 and 3.99 require about 15 to 20 minutes to complete, and
Form 4.99 requires approximately 10 to 15 minutes to complete.
Reading Level. The SDTLA is an untimed instrument, but the time necessary to complete may be affected by students'
reading levels. The overall reading level of the SDTLA is between grade 11.2 and 11.5. If the SDTLA is used with students
below grade 12 reading level, the instrument administrator should plan additional time and make provisions to explain the
meanings of some words privately.
It may be advisable to read the instructions related to providing the demographic information to students before they
begin. This information may be collected in a variety of places on an optical scan answer sheet, depending on the publisher
and the given format of the answer sheet. It should be emphasized that obtaining the demographic information, especially sex
and class standing, is essential to scoring the instrument.
Normative Sample
Data were collected from 1458 students from 31 colleges and universities in the United States and Canada between the months
of October and May. (See Table 2.1.) Data were collected, with the voluntary consent of students, through groups of
opportunity, including regularly scheduled classes, student organizations, residence hall staffs, and members of self-exploration
and career exploration groups.
By institutional type, data came from 20 private, four-year liberal arts colleges, 19 public four-year colleges and
universities, and 3 public two-year colleges. Approximately the same number of participants were enrolled in public and private
institutions. Only data obtained from students age 17 to 25 and that had no missing responses were included in the normative
sample. (Special thanks is extended to many of our professional colleagues who assisted with data collections.)
In Table 2.2 the means and standard deviations for the normative sample are provided. This information is necessary
to compute standard scores. Note that separate means and standard deviations are provided for men and women because there
are statistically significant differences in their responses on all measures, expect Salubrious Lifestyle.
Table 2.1
Demographic Characteristics of the Normative Sample
Variable n Percent Variable n Percent
13
Sex by Class Age Age 33 2
Freshman 17 Age 475 26
Male 18 456 25
Female Age 19 Age 384 21
199 14 20 Age 21 292 16
Sophomore
310 21 Age 22 Age 108 6
Male
23 Age 24 35 2
Female 23
143 10 Age 25 1
Junior 9 1
222 15
Male
Residence
Female 9
130 Single-sex residence hall
Senior 13 328 23
195 Coed residence hall Home
Male 734 50
with parent(s)
Female 100 7 122 8
On-campus apartment
155 11
Off-campus apartment/house (not 59 4
Ethnicity (self-reported)
with parent or spouse)
African American or Black 128 12
15 Home with spouse
Hispanic or Hispanic American 218 11 1
2 Fraternity/sorority house
Asian American 29 30
Native American/People 74 5
Caucasian/European American 10 1
Bi-racial or multi-racial 1090 75
Other 23 2
15 1
Note. Categories may not total 100% due to rounding.
Sample size varies by category due to missing demographic
data.
Administrating the Instrument
We recommend that the SDTLA be administered in groups under standard testing conditions, or individually
through paper and pencil or on computer terminals. The practice of providing students a booklet and answer
sheet and instructing them to take them home to complete is not recommended. For research or evaluation
purposes, it may be necessary to collect data by mail. If students complete the instrument in unsupervised
situations, it is particularly important they understand how the data are to be used and the limits of
confidentiality of their responses; it is also essential that students agree to participate voluntarily. The authors'
experience suggests that if data collection is to be by mail, that students first be contacted by telephone or e-
mail, have the purpose of the data collection explained, and invited to participate. Once a student has verbally
committed to provide data, she or he is much more likely to take the instrument seriously and to follow
through.
If the SDTLA is to be used for counseling or self-exploration purposes (for example in a freshman
seminar), it is essential that the student and the person who is to work with the student first establish a
relationship of trust and respect prior to the student completing the SDTLA. Failure to do so may severely
limit the potential usefulness and meaningfulness of the results.
Scoring the Instrument
To score the SDTLA follow this procedure. (a) Identify the items that compose each subtask and scale. (b)
Sum the values for each item that is included in the subtask/scale. [Values for each response are provided on
a separate scoring key.] (c) Divide the sum for the subtask/scale by the number of items to which the student
responded. (Item responses for most subtask/scale can range from 1 to 5.)
14
EXAMPLE
Instrumental Autonomy Subtask
The Instrumental Autonomy Subtask contains 9 items. This scoring example is for a freshman woman
student who made the following responses.
17. 5 105. 4
22. 2 119. 1
49. 4 125. 2
69. 2 145. 1
92. missing data
1. Total item values = 21.

2. Divide 21 [sum of item values] by 8 [number of items to which the student responded--note
student left one item blank] = 2.625 [raw score].
3. Convert raw score to a T score: (a) consult Table 2.2 and obtain the mean and standard
deviation for the category in which student falls (in this example, the student is a freshman woman):
mean = 3.175 (standard deviation = .639). (b) Subtract 3.175 from 2.625 = -0.550. (c) Divide -.550 by
.639 = -0.861 and then multiple by 10 = -8.610. (d) Add to 50 = 41.390. This student's T score is 41
(rounded to a whole number) or 41.39 (for research and evaluation purposes).
Because we know that for T scores the mean is set at 50 and standard deviation is set at 10, this
student's score is almost one standard deviation below the mean for the normative sample (that is, firstyear
women). This would suggest that this student's achievement on this subtask is substantially less advanced
than that of the normative sample. Because of measurement error, we suggest that scores that are within
one-half a standard deviation above or below the mean (that is, between 55 and 45) be treated as
substantially equivalent to the mean.
To obtain Task scores, follow the same procedure above by first identifying the items that go to make up
a given task, sum, then divide by the number of items to which the student responded.
Missing Data. By using the scoring procedure outlined above, a student's failure to respond to a few items
will not invalidate the whole instrument. We, however, caution the users of the SDTLA to establish a cutoff
point for an "acceptable level" of missing data in a given subtask/task/scale as a rule for determining whether
to generate a score for an individual who has missing data. As a general rule of thumb, we caution against
scoring any subtask/task/scale that has more than 12% missing responses in a given subtask/task/scale. The
12%-criterion has not been empirically investigated, however, but is rather an intuition-based suggestion
based on familiarity with the instrument and collection of the normative data. Each user must make this
decision for individually.
Scoring responses for entering first-year students. The SDTLA was not designed to be administered
to students who have not had a opportunity to fully experience the collegiate environment. Some items, such
as "I have met with my academic advisor" may not have any meaning if this is administered to students
during a summer orientation program before their being assigned an advisor. If users find it necessary to
administer the SDTLA before students have had at least four weeks on the campus, we suggest that the
following items be treated as "missing data" and not be used in computing subtask/task/scale scores. Omit
from scoring the following items from the SDTLA (Form 1.99): 11, 26, 78, 116, 132, 137, 140, 143, and 153.
Omit the following items when scoring Form 2.99: 26, 38, 43, 46, 49, and 57. Omit the following items
when scoring Form 3.99: 5 and 11. Omit item 40 when scoring Form 4.99.
Effects of Biographical-Demographic Variables on SDTLA Responses
The effects of what were thought to be potentially important demographic-type variables were investigated, viz., age, sex,
class standing, and ethnicity.
Age. Age is not highly correlated with performance on the SDTLA but is closely related to class standing.
The Pearson product-moment correlations between age and each of the tasks, subtasks, and scales are: CP =
15
.23, LP = .17, IA = .14, PR = .10, TOL = .10, EA = .14, SL = -.01, AA = .06, IND = .10, EI = .33, PUR =
.28, AUT = .14, MIR = .12, and CUP = .15. Performance on the SDTLA, however, is related to class standing
(see Table 2.2). In the normative sample, age is correlated r = .82 with class standing (where 1 = freshman .
. . and 4 = senior).
Sex. To investigate the effects of sex on SDTLA performance, a two-way analysis of covariance was
computed, with sex and class standing as the independent variables and age as the covariant. As may be seen
in Table 2.3 and in Figures 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3, women scored higher than men on all measures except on the
Salubrious Lifestyle Scale. There were no statistically significant interactions on any measure. Because of
these gender differences, it is necessary to compute separate standard scores for men and women within
each class.
Ethnicity. Two-way analyses of covariance were also conducted with class standing and ethnicity as the
independent variables, and sex was the covariant (coded 1 = male, 2 = female). (Only African
American/Black and Caucasian/White data were used because there were not sufficient data to include
representations from other racial/cultural groups.)
Statistically significant differences were found on five measures. Caucasians/whites' means were
higher than African American/blacks' on Cultural Participation and Instrumental Autonomy Subtasks;
African Americans/blacks' means were higher than Caucasians/whites' on the MIR task and both its subtasks
(Tolerance and Peer Relationships). No good theoretical explanation is apparent as to why African
Americans would score higher than Caucasians in the relationships area. It is, perhaps, understandable why
Caucasians might score higher than African Americans on the Cultural Participation Subtask because some
African American students may not have had the equal opportunities to attend concerts, plays, and other
cultural events as Caucasians and some African American students may view the content as not being
culturally relevant to them (that is, its "dead white men's work"). No explanation seems obvious as to why
Caucasians scored higher than their African American counterparts on Instrumental Autonomy.
16
Table 2.2
Means and Standard Deviations for4 SDTLA: Sex by Class
Class Men Women

_______________________ __________________________
Mean SD Mean SD
CAREER PLANNING SUBTASK

Freshman 2.519 .673 2.508 .769 Sophomore 2.755 .775 2.807 .763
Junior 2.783 .712 3.138 .775
Senior 3.177 .775 3.154 .762
LIFESTYLE PLANNING SUBTASK

Junior 3.221 .748 3.552 .744
Senior 3.419 .811 3.459 .770
CULTURAL PARTICIPATION SUBTASK

Junior 3.281 .941 3.596 .907
Senior 3.336 .952 3.473 .941
EDUCATIONAL INVOLVEMENT SUBTASK

Junior 3.188 .881 3.721 .738
Senior 3.638 .802 3.603 .788
ESTABLISHING AND CLARIFYING PURPOSE TASK

Junior 3.137 .642 3.502 .625
Senior 3.399 .634 3.441 .616
EMOTIONAL AUTONOMY SUBTASK

Junior 3.568 .513 3.816 .444
Senior 3.789 .480 3.774 .465
[Table 2.2 continues]
17
Table 2.2 Continued
Class Men Women

_______________________ __________________________
Mean SD Mean SD
ACADEMIC AUTONOMY SUBTASK

Junior 3.393 .665 3.784 .645
Senior 3.628 .696 3.723 .575
INSTRUMENTAL AUTONOMY SUBTASK

Junior 3.288 .610 3.540 .606
Senior 3.463 .583 3.436 .593
INTERDEPENDENCE SUBTASK
Junior 3.133 .658 3.394 .592
Senior 3.200 .677 3.267 .672
DEVELOPING AUTONOMY TASK

Junior 3.355 .475 3.641 .418
Senior 3.523 .428 3.561 .423
TOLERANCE SUBTASK
Junior 3.483 .691 3.786 .641
Senior 3.480 .742 3.739 .592
PEER RELATIONSHIPS SUBTASK

Junior 3.674 .584 3.880 .554
Senior 3.818 .589 3.868 .507
[Table 2.2 continues]
18
Table 2.2 Continued
Class Men Women

_______________________ _______________________
Mean SD Mean SD
DEVELOPING MATURE INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS TASK

Junior 3.573 .505 3.834 .486
Senior 3.653 .541 3.801 .443
SALUBRIOUS LIFESTYLE SCALE

Junior 3.190 .547 3.273 .505
Senior 3.232 .619 3.287 .580
19
Table 2.3
Summary of Statistically Significant Differences on Demographic-type Variables for the

Normative Sample
___________________________________________________________________________________
___
Task/Subtask/Scale Groups with Statistically Significant Differences
___________________________________________________________________________________
___
Establishing and Clarifying Purpose Task W>M, Fr<Sop, Fr<Jr, Fr<Sr, Sop<Jr, Sop<Sr, Career Planning
Subtask W>M, Fr<Sop, Fr<Jr, Fr<Sr, Sop<Jr, Sop<Sr,
Jr<Sr
Lifestyle Planning Subtask W>M, Fr<Sop, Fr<Jr, Fr<Sr, Sop<Jr, Sop<Sr
Cultural Participation Subtask W>M, Fr<Sop, C>AA
Educational Involvement Subtask W>M, Fr<Sop, Fr<Jr, Fr<Sr, Sop<Jr, Sop<Sr
Developing Autonomy Task W>M, Fr<Sop, Fr<Jr, Fr<Sr, Sop<Jr, Sop<Sr

Academic Autonomy Subtask W>M, Fr<Jr, Fr<Sr, Sop<Sr
Emotional Autonomy Subtask W>M, Fr<Sop, Fr<Jr, Fr<Sr, Sop<Jr, Sop<Sr,
Jr<Sr
Interdependence Subtask W>M, Fr<Sop, Fr<Jr, Fr<Sr, Sop<Jr, Sop<Sr
Instrumental Autonomy Subtask W>M, Fr<Sop, Fr<Jr, Fr<Sr, Sop<Jr, Sop<Sr,
C>AA
Developing Mature Interpersonal Relationships Task W>M, Fr<Jr, Fr<Sr, Sop<Jr, Sop<Sr, C<AA
Tolerance Subtask W>M, Fr<Jr, Fr<Sr, Sop<Jr, Sop<Sr, C<AA Peer Relationships Subtask
W>M, Fr<Jr, Fr<Sr, Sop<Jr, Sop<Sr, C<AA
Salubrious Lifestyle Scale --

___________________________________________________________________________________
___
Note. W = Women, M = Men; Fr = Freshman, Sop = Sophomore, Jr = Junior, Sr = Senior; C = Caucasian/White,
AA = African American/Black
Interpretation Approaches
The SDTI, SDTI-2, and SDTLI, predecessor instruments to the SDTLA, were designed as counseling tools.
That is, its primary purpose was to assist individual students in self-exploration and ultimately in establishing
goals and objectives for the college experience. The SDTLA was created with a commitment to the original
purpose of its forerunners, but also to develop a tool that would be more useful in conducting program
evaluations, research on psychosocial development, and outcomes assessments.
Two different approaches may be taken to interpretation of SDTLA results--idiographic and normative. For
individual work with students, we recommend that idiographic approach. Normative interpretation is more
appropriate for research and program evaluation purposes.
Idiographic interpretation. Emphasis in an idiographic interpretation with an individual student is to help

her or him examine her or his behavior, attitudes, feelings, aspirations, and plans in a subtask or scale area,
without, or minimal, comparison to other students' responses (that is, using standards scores or other means
of comparison with the normative sample), and to help the student move towards action, if he or she so
desires.
SDTLA interpretation should generally include the following elements: (a) understanding the concepts that
underlie the inventory and the definitions of the subtask or scale; (b) making a broad comparison to the
normative sample, i.e., did the student score higher, lower, or about the same as his/her counterparts in the
20
normative sample, (c) exploring the personal importance of the results and desire to address development in
an area, (d) discussing activities that might be undertaken to further development in the area of greatest
interest, and (e) using the data to create a plan of action.
Understanding the concepts that underlie the SDTLA is essential if the interpretation is to be meaningful and useful to
students. The following should be emphasized:
• The SDTLA deals with normal behavior. All the response options in the instrument describe
normal behavior. The SDTLA is not designed to diagnose mental illness, personality disorders,
maladjustment, or even a problem. During the college years, it is natural that concern and
attention be directed toward developing personal and intellectual competency, a sense of
emotional stability and well-being, and feelings of self-worth.
• People develop at different rates and at uneven intervals. Because a student has not addressed an
issue or task does not mean that he or she should have done so. Rather, it suggests that this is an
issue or task that the student will need to address at some future date or make a decision not to
address.
• There is no "right" way to develop. Because students are individuals, they often find unique ways
of addressing developmental tasks, which may differ substantially from their peers' approaches
and are influenced by teachers, friends, family, cultural background, and the social milieu of the
educational institution.
• The purpose of the SDTLA is not to tell students "how or what they should be," but rather its
purpose is to provide an objective framework through which students can look at themselves.
Once they have a picture of themselves, then they can determine what change, if any, they would
like to accomplish in their lives. The SDTLA is designed to help students take charge of their
lives, not to dictate what their lives should be like.
As a first step in the interpretation process, we suggest that the student be given an explanation of the
SDTLA and a definition of the subtasks and scales. (A suggested handout is provided in Appendix A.)
Students can self-evaluate themselves on each subtask and scale and to estimate their level of interest in
addressing or working on a given subtask or scale area.
The next step is to present the student's scores, expressed as T scores (that is, a standard score in which the
mean is 50 and the standard deviation is 10). An alternative would be to present scores in a more general
format, for instance, suppose a sophomore student (Andy) got a T score of 40 on Instrumental Autonomy.
In stead of reporting 40, the report might read "your performance in comparison to a group of sophomore
men was somewhat lower" in this area. This may denote an area in which you would like to direct your
attention while you are in college.
A system of phrases might be developed to avoid reporting numbers: scores between 45 and 55
might be characterized as "about the same as the normative sample"; scores between 35 and 44 might be
characterized as "somewhat lower than the normative sample"; scores between 56 and 65 might be
characterized as "somewhat higher than the normative sample"; scores 34 and lower might be characterized
as "substantially lower than the normative sample," and scores 66 and higher might be characterized as
"substantially higher than the normative sample."
Whatever approach is taken to reporting results to students, it is essential that the frame of reference
be kept descriptive, that is, a student's score only reflects how her or his responses compare to a national
sample of college students. It does not mean that the student is "deficient" in this area or that she or he should
change behavior based solely on the results of this instrument. The principal value of the SDTLA
interpretation process is reflected in the assistance students receive in looking at themselves objectively and
exploring the implication of various behaviors in relation to the kind of life they envision. The primary
questions this phase of interpretation seeks to raise are (a) What implications does this way of behaving or
responding to your feelings have for the kind of person you are or want to become? (b) Do you feel
comfortable or satisfied in describing yourself this way?
21
The next step in the interpretation process is to move to develop of a plan of action. For this, it may
be helpful to generate a list of activities (keyed to the responses that a student made) that a student might
pursue if she or he wanted to address an area. The authors have developed a list of such activities which may
be used; this can be supplemented with more developmental activities that are unique to a given campus or
geographical location. The activities should be viewed only as suggestions; there has been no research on
them to determine whether actual pursuit of these activities will substantially change a student's performance
on the SDTLA.
Following a discussion of the activities listed in a subtask or scale area, a student can often benefit
from going through a somewhat formal goal setting process. Our experience using the SDTLI suggests that
it is important to actually write out the goal and to develop at least a brief outline of the steps that will be
followed to bring about the change, how success will be evaluated, and some form of accountability (for
instance, meeting to discuss progress in a few weeks or months).
Normative interpretation. For research and evaluation purposes, we recommend that raw scores be
converted to standard scores before analysis. The data from the normative sample can be used for this
purpose, or if an institution has a substantial amount of data that is representative of its students, then we
would recommend using the institution's normative data. Because men and women respond differently to
the instrument, it is very important to convert scores based on both sex and class standing.
22
Career Planning Subtask Cultural Participation Subtask
4 4
3.5 3.5
3 3
2.5 2.5
2 2
1.5 1.5
1 1
Men Men
0.5 0.5
Women Women
0 0
Fr. Soph. Jr. Sr. Fr. Soph. Jr. Sr.
Class Class
Lifestyle Planning Subtask Educational Involvement Subtask

4 4
3.5 3.5
3 3
2.5 2.5
2 2
1.5 1.5
1 1
Men 0.5 Men
0.5
Women Women
0 0
Class Class
Figure 2.1. Establishing and Clarifying Purpose Subtasks
Emotional Autonomy Subtask Academic Autonomy Subtask
23
4 4
3.5 3.5
3 3
2.5 2.5
2 2
1.5 1.5
1 1
Men Men
0.5 0.5
Women Women
0 0
Class Class
Instrumental Autonomy Subtask Interdependence Subtask

4 4
3.5 3.5
3 3
2.5 2.5
2 2
1.5 1.5
1 1
Men Men
0.5 0.5
Women Women
0 0
Class Class
Figure 2.2. Developing Autonomy

Subtasks
Tolerance Subtask Peer Relationships Subtask
24
4 4
3.5 3.5
3 3
2.5 2.5
2 2
1.5 1.5
1 1
Men Men
0.5 0.5
Women Women
0 0
Class Class
Salubrious Lifestyle Scale

4
3.5
2.5
1.5
1
Men
0.5
Women
0
Fr. Soph. Jr. Sr.
Class
Figure 2.3: Developing Mature

Interpersonal Relationships Subtasks and
Salubrious Lifestyle Scale
CHAPTER 3 Reliability and Validity Estimates Development of Instruments
The SDTLA is the fourth in a succession of developmental task assessment instruments. The first phase was the creation
of the Developmental Task Scale for College Students (DTS) by Judith S. Prince (1973). Her work was revised through
a Delphi study of student affairs practitioners and college faculty members (Miller, Prince, & Winston, 1973) with the
addition of new items. The first edition of the instrument (Student Developmental Task Inventory, SDTI) was published
in 1974 (Prince, Miller, & Winston, 1974a). As a result of experience with the first edition a revision was begun in 1976.
There was a need to reword some items to give them a more behavioral phrasing and to restructure others in order to
25
improve the psychometric properties of the instrument. This phase of development entailed writing new items, rewriting
first-edition items, and reevaluating the original items. The second edition of the instrument (SDTI-2) was published in
1979 (Winston, Miller, & Prince, 1979b).
Work on revising the SDTI-2 was begun in 1984. There were several motivations for continued work: (a) further
research had called into question the scale structure of the SDTI-2 (Stonewater, Dainiels, & Heischmidt, 1986;
Stonewater, 1987; Winston & Polkosnik, 1986), (b) objections about the exclusive emphasis on heterosexual
relationships in the Mature Interpersonal Relationships Task were made by several student affairs professionals and
acknowledged by the authors as problematic for use with gay, lesbian, and bisexual students, and (c) experience with the
instrument suggested the need to address several areas previously unaddressed by the SDTLI-2, viz., participation in
cultural activities, attention to health and wellness issues, and identification of response bias.
A total of three data collections, followed by elimination of some items and writing new items took place between 1984
and 1987. A significant change in format was effected in the area of measuring intimacy--that is, only students who
identified themselves as being currently involved in a self-defined intimate relationship were requested to respond to the
section. Also, the items were worded in gender-neutral way so that they could be responded to by all students regardless
of their sexual orientation. The Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle Inventory, SDTLI was published in 1987.
Exploratory revisions of the SDTLI were begun in 1991. Motivations behind the revision included a desire to reinstate
the autonomy task that had been eliminated based on the data analyses performed during development of the SDTLI,
interest in creating an instrument that would be more useful for research, evaluation, and outcomes assessment purposes,
and a need to further refine the measure of intimacy. Between 1993 and 1998 three large-scale data collections were
performed, each followed by elimination of some items and the addition of new items. One of the most obvious changes
in the SDTLA from the SDTLI is the absence of an intimacy measure. However, McFarland (1995) determined that
students tended to redefined "intimacy" during their college years. That is, what a freshman considers as a high degree
of intimacy, may be viewed by that same student as a senior as quite immature. Because of this changing, fluid self-
definition of intimacy during the college years and because the instruments are self-report, we were unable to create a
valid objective measure of this construct. Consequently, that scale was abandoned in the SDTLA.
Another significant change from the SDTLI was a change in the response format; the SDTLI and its predecessors used
a true-false response format which had a limited range of variability. For the SDTLA multiple response formats were
adopted. Also, instead of following the pattern of Likert-type responses, on some items some responses were assigned
the same weight. To assign weights, a panel of doctoral students and faculty members in the Student Affairs
Administration Program at The University of Georgia assigned weights to each response based on a knowledge of
developmental theory, especially Chickering and Reisser (1993), and experience working with college students.
(Weights were assigned using a consensus decision-making process.) A response was assigned a 5 if it represented
behaviors typical of an advanced level of development in the area measured, or lesser values if it represented less
advanced development. The lowest level of development in each item received a weight of 1. A weight of 1 meant that
the response showed as absence of development in an item content area or very minimal development, which is a level
of development that would be expected of all students early in their academic lives or perhaps while still in high school.
Items were ultimately included in the current version of the SDTLA if they met the following criteria: (a) the item
conceptually fit the subtask or scale to which it was assigned, (b) the item was more highly correlated with the subtask
or scale to which it was assigned than to any other subtask or scale, (c) the mean of the item for seniors (fourth year
students) was higher than the mean for freshmen (first year students), (d) inclusion of the item did not adversely affect
the internal consistency (alpha coefficient) of the subtask or scale, (e) there was a minimum of content duplication., and
(f) the item had no apparent gender, racial/ethnicity, or sexual orientation bias.
Reliability Estimates
Reliability estimates the degree to which results from a psychological instrument are attributable to systematic sources
of variance (error). Two different methods of reliability estimation, which take into account different sources of error,
were used with the SDTLA: test-retest and internal consistency.
Test-retest reliability gives an estimation of the stability of a measure over time. The SDTLA was administered to three
classes of students at two different institutions. Without any intervening practice or instructions, students again
completed the SDTLA four weeks later. (Total number of students from which both pre and post measures were acquired
26
was 52.) Pearson product-moment correlations were computed for all tasks, subtasks, and scales. The results are reported
in Table 3.1
Correlations cluster around .80 (the lowest being .70 and highest being .89). (All correlations were statistically
significant at p < .01.) Overall, we may take this to mean that that the SDTLA has adequate temporal stability, that is,
results would not be expected to vary greatly over short periods of time for individuals completed the instrument and is
more than adequate for group data.
27
Table 3.1
Score Ranges and Reliability Estimates for SDTLA
Task/Subtask/Scale Range of Number Coefficient Four-Week

Scores of Items Alpha Test-Retest Possible (n = 1822) (n = 52)
Establishing and Clarifying

Purpose Task (PUR) 1.000-4.902 51 .81 .84 Career Planning Subtask (CP) 1.000-4.929 14 .84 .89
Lifestyle Planning Subtask (LP) 1.000-4.846 13 .81 .80 Educational Involvement
Subtask (EI) 1.000-4.857 14 .82 .79 Cultural Participation Subtask (CUP)
1.000-5.000 10 .76 .79
Developing Autonomy Task (AUT) 1.000-4.882 51 .88 .81 Emotional Autonomy Subtask (EA) 1.000-
4.882 17 .71 .75 Instrumental Autonomy Subtask (IA) 1.000-4.778 9 .62 .78 Academic Autonomy
Subtask (AA) 1.000-5.000 11 .77 .74 Interdependence Subtask (IND) 1.000-4.857 14 .76 .80
Developing Mature Interpersonal

Relationships Task (MIR) 1.000-4.917 24 .76 .79 Tolerance Subtask (TOL) 1.000-4.857 14 .74 .78
Peer Relationships Subtask (PR) 1.000-5.000 10 .65 .73
Salubrious Lifestyle Scale (SL) 1.000-4.706 17 .71 .77
Response Bias Scale (RB) 0-6.000 6 .72 .93

______________________________________________________________________________________
The second method of determining reliability was that of estimating internal consistency. The alpha coefficients
(Cronbach, 1970) for a large group of students (n = 1822) enrolled in 32 colleges in the US and Canada are reported in
Table 3.1. Data were collected during the fall and spring of 1994-1995 and spring 1996. Alpha coefficients ranged from
.88 to .62.
Interrelationships of Tasks, Subtasks, and Scales
A variety of approaches were taken to estimate the validity of the various measures within the SDTLA. Items were
written based on the conceptualization of psychosocial development proposed by Chickering (1969) and Chickering and
28
Reisser (1993) and authors' observations of college students. Creating developmental measures are a challenge because
of the nature of psychosocial development. Chickering and Reisser argue that development in one developmental domain
can, and generally does, stimulate development in other domains. That is, development is not isolated; students do not
concentrate solely in developing autonomy, for instance, at the exclusion of all other developmental domains, such as
career development and peer relationships. For that reason, one would expect a relatively high degree of intercorrelation
among the different measures. The most that one could reasonably expect is that the subtasks within a given task area
will correlation more highly with each other than with other subtasks and scales and that there will be a relatively high
correlation between the aggregate task items (minus the items of the subtask under study) with the subtasks assigned to
it.
The intercorrelations of subtasks, scales, and tasks are reported in Table 3.2. Inspection reveals that most of the measures
are moderately correlated with each other, as the developmental theory suggests should be the case. In most instances,
subtasks within a task area are correlated relatively highly with each other and with the aggregate of items for the task,
minus the subject subtask items.
Table 3.2
Intercorrelations of Tasks, Subtasks, and Scales (n = 1822)
EA IA AA IND PUR CP LP CUP EI MIR TOL PR SL

AUT .54† .62† .54† .50† .71 .58 .63 .43 .66 .51 .39 .45 .44
EA .43 .42 .46 .51 .41 .46 .33 .49 .55 .39 .53 .27
IA .62 .42 .60 .51 .57 .28 .56 .30 .20 .31 .41
AA .32 .42 .36 .42 .19 .38 .32 .20 .33 .38
IND .64 .47 .48 .50 .59 .44 .44 .26 .26
PUR .74† .78† .44 .38 .35 .31

CP .73 .27 .19 .27 .26
LP .29 .73 .27 .17 .29 .33
.42 .47 .52 .22 .16
CUP
EI .32 .31 .32 .28
MIR .54† .53† .17

TOL .54 .10
PR .19
†Task total does not include the items from the subtask with which it is correlated.
Validity Estimates
A variety of scales were selected to estimate the validity of the constructs measured by the subtasks and scales of the
SDTLA.
Establishing and Clarifying Purpose Task (PUR) and subtasks. A total of six scales were correlated with the PUR task
and its subtasks. Data were collected through regularly scheduled classes at The University of Georgia. These
correlations are reported in Table 3.3.
Table 3.3
PUR Validity Estimates
______________________________________________________________________________________
29
PUR and Subtasks ___________________________Scales____________________________
CE CL EWF LSDI AMT PSDM
(n = 34) (n = 37) (n = 37) (n = 36) (n = 37) (n = 36)
______________________________________________________________________________________
Establishing and Clarifying

Purpose Task .53 .33 .44 .45 .40 .47
Career Planning Subtask .60
Educational Involvement
Subtask .28 .53
Lifestyle Planning Subtask .41 .44 .56
Cultural Participation .55

______________________________________________________________________________________
Note. Only correlations that were thought conceptually related are reported. CE = Career Exploration Scale from
Career Development Inventory (Super et al., 1981), CL = Classroom Learning Scale from College Student
Experiences (Pace, 1983), EWF = Experiences with Faculty Scale from College Student Experiences (Pace, 1983),
Life Skills Development Inventory (Pikleshimer, 1991), AMT = Art, Music, and Theater Scale from College Student
Experiences (Pace, 1983), PSDM = Problem Solving and Decision Making Scale from Life Skills Development
Inventory (Pikleshimer, 1991)
Developing Autonomy Task (AUT) and subtasks. The AUT task and its subtasks were correlated with the Georgia
Autonomy Scales (GAS) (Winston et al, 1997) and two scales from the College Student Questionnaire [CSQ] (Peterson,
1968). The GAS was selected because it was developed out of the same theory base as the SDTLA that is Chickering
and Reisser (1993). The scales from the CSQ were chosen because in past revisions of the SDTI/SDTLI they had been
shown to be moderately highly correlated with similar scales (Winston & Miller, 1987). These correlations are reported
in Table 3.4. Data were collected at three different moderate size public four-year colleges.
Developing Mature Interpersonal Relationships (MIR) Task and Subtasks. Validity of the MIR tasks and subtasks was
estimated by correlating them with the total score for the Multi-group Ethnic Identity Measure [MEIM] (Phinney, 1991)
and one of its subscales Other Group. These correlations are reported in Table 3.5. Data were collected in regularly
scheduled classes in the College of Business at the University of Georgia.
Table 3.4
Correlation of AUT and GAS , FI, SH Scales

______________________________________________________________________________________
AUT Task and Subtasks Georgia Family Study

Autonomy Independence Habits
Scales Scale Scale
(n = 56) (n = 45) (n = 52)
______________________________________________________________________________________
Developing Autonomy Task .56 .37 .39
30
Academic Autonomy Subtask .27 .32 .67
Emotional Autonomy Subtask .51 .62 .33
Instrumental Autonomy Subtask .21 .36 .45
Interdependence Subtask .31 .29 .25

______________________________________________________________________________________ Note.
Georgia Autonomy Scales (Winston et al., 1997); Family Independence Scale (FIS) and Study Habits Scale (SHS)
are from the College Student Questionnaire (Peterson, 1968).
Table 3.5
Correlation of MIR and MGEIM (n = 36)
______________________________________________________________________________________
MIR Task and Subtasks __________________Scales___________________
MGEIM Other Group
Subscale
______________________________________________________________________________________
Developing Mature Interpersonal
Relationships Task .58 .41
Tolerance Subtask .44 .38
Peer Relationships Subtask .54 .32
______________________________________________________________________________________
Note. MGEIM = Multi-group Ethnic Identity Measure (Phinney, 1992).
Salubrious Lifestyle (SL) Scale. Validity of the SL scale was investigated by Baker and Cooper (in press).
Because they were unable to locate another scale that measures a similar construct to the SDTLA's Salubrious Lifestyle
Scale, they generated a group of items (Wellness Scale) thought to measure the same things as the SL scale. They found
SL to be correlated with the Wellness Scale: r = .54 (n = 119, p < .001). They also asked respondents to identify
themselves as either a "non-exerciser" (NE), or "exerciser" (E), or "athlete" (A), which was functionally defined as being
a member of an intercollegiate athletic team. They reported that there were statistically significant differences (p < .01)
between the means for NE (M = 2.984) and E (M = 3.406) and between NE (M = 2.984) and A (M = 3.600); there were
no statistically significant differences between the means for E (M = 3.406) and A (M = 3.600). Data were collected at
The University of Georgia.
Response Bias (RB) Scale. Validity of the RB scale was estimated by correlating it with the Marlowe-Crowne Social
Desirability (SD) scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960). The correlation between the RB and SD scales was r = .83 (n = 46,
p < .01). Data were collected at two public colleges in the southeastern US through regularly scheduled classes.
CHAPTER 4 Using the SDTLA
The Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle Assessment has potential for enhancing individual development and
student programming activities in many ways. Changing the SDTLA to a computer-scored version from the SDTLI
hand-scored version has not decreased its potential uses as an individual counseling tool. The SDTLA remains a
potentially powerful individual intervention instrument. It can also be used as part of a needs assessment to establish a
developmental profile of the student body, a given academic class, or residence hall. Likewise, the SDTLA can function
as an aid in the new student orientation process as well as an assessment tool for use by those responsible for campus life
activities programs. As an instructional vehicle, the SDTLA can be used to teach student peer helpers, such as resident
assistants, tutors, peer counselors, and orientation leaders, about the principles and processes involved in human and
student development by allowing them to examine their own development. In addition, it can also function as an
assessment instrument for use in academic advising programs. The SDTLA also has utility as a research instrument in
the study of the psychosocial development of traditional-aged college students. Finally, it can serve as a program
evaluation tool to estimate the effect on participants' development.
31
The following presentation is designed to aid academic administrators and student affairs programmers in the process
of determining how best to use the SDTLA, depending upon institutional program needs. Inventory limitations and
suggestions for use are included.
Using the SDTLA for Programming
The Student Development Task and Lifestyle Assessment and its antecedents were designed as basic assessment tools
to aid students in post-secondary educational institutions to become active participants in their own learning and
developmental processes. The SDTLA is useful in several ways, some of which are presented as examples for those
wishing to create developmental programs on their campuses. It is important to remember that each institution is unique,
and that what is appropriate for one student body or institution may not be appropriate for others. Because of this
important consideration, all scenarios presented should be viewed as examples only, since there are no proven student
development program formulas that will be effective in all instances.
Orientation Programs. As newly entering students prepare to make the transition to college, there is need for them
to assess both the academic and personal goals they wish to accomplish during their higher education experiences.
Traditionally, institutions have tended to measure students' academic knowledge and accomplishments to determine the
levels of academic competence they possess in areas such as English and mathematics. Such academic measurement
information makes it possible to place students at more appropriate academic levels that would not be possible otherwise.
Academic measurement data alone, although important, is not in and of itself adequate when working with young adult
college students who are rapidly developing in personal and psychosocial ways as well.
For development purposes, it is equally important to help students ascertain their personal development levels as well
as their academic achievement levels. If orientation programs are to do more than just help students become acclimated
to the new college experience--if they are truly going to facilitate students' transitions to college, to help students assess
their developmental needs, to aid students in assuming increased levels of self-direction and responsibility for their
education and lives--then the assessment of students' personal development is also essential. Many colleges have
implemented continuing orientation programs, such as the "University 101" course designed to facilitate total student
development, which goes well beyond the initial admission-entrance phase. Whether a credit or non-credit orientation
course, a student-faculty mentor program, peer helper tutorial program, or a personal development program, each has
potential to aid the entering student’s transition to college and adult life.
Our experience in using the SDTLA and its predecessors (SDTLI, SDTI, and SDTI-2) suggest that initial orientation
sessions held before classes begin are not the most appropriate times to administer the instrument. When they first enter
an institution, students experience considerable stress and competing demands placed upon them. As a consequence, it
is often difficult for them to respond accurately about their personal development, especially when they have many as
yet unanswered question about their abilities to adjust and be successful in the college environment. In order to maximize
the potential of gaining the most accurate picture of students' developmental status, we suggest that the SDTLA not be
administered until after students have had 3 or 4 weeks to adjust to the college environment and had the opportunity to
become acclimated. As a general rule, it is only then that they are ready to direct attention upon intentional growth and
development while in the college environment. If it is necessary to collect data from new students before they have had
a reasonable opportunity to become familiar with the campus environment, some items (identified on the scoring key)
should be omitted before calculating individual scores.
Student Counseling Programs. College students often have concerns about their personal lives and experiences that
are difficult to identify and articulate. The SDTLA is designed to help students in this process, and is an excellent tool
to aid counselors in establishing quality relationships with self-assessment, goal-oriented foci. Each item on the
Assessment has potential for being stimulus for client self-examination and assessment and client-counselor dialogue.
Counselors will discover that the SDTLA can help to structure the counseling interview, in that it gives both the
student and the counselor specific behaviors and developmental issues to discuss. Most students can identify a number
of individual items as well as developmental tasks and subtasks that concern them in a direct way. For these reasons the
SDTLA is an excellent tool for those wishing to focus upon developmental as opposed to remedial, concerns.
Academic Advising Programs. Too often, the academic advising is little more than a "paper initialing" process in
which the "advisor" signs a course schedule form that authorizes the student to register for another term of courses. The
SDTLA can be of benefit to academic advisors who wish to provide students with quality advising experiences wherein
32
the development of academic autonomy, career planning, lifestyle planning, and educational involvement are
incorporated. These educationally related tasks and subtasks have great utility for providing both advisors and students
with relevant data that can be effectively used to identify students' educational needs and make educational plans. Quality
academic advising programs rely on personal as well as academic data for their advisors to use with students. Most of
the tasks and scales incorporated into the SDTLA have educational and academic relevance that should be overlooked
by those responsible for assuring that students receive quality academic advising. This is especially true for institutions
that wish to initiate developmental academic advising programs. For a more definitive description of this approach
consult Winston et al. (1982, 1984).
Student Life Programs. The SDTLA has particular value when used to help students identify personal developmental
needs that can be responded to via student life programming activities. Numerous colleges and universities have initiated
programs where each entering student is asked to complete a battery of personal assessment instruments (including
SDTLA) as part of their developmental programming efforts. Developmental programs-including small group discussion
sessions, mini workshops, intentionally structured groups, individual skill building sessions, and residence hall activities-
-are then created and offered to students based upon their identified individual needs.
Staff developmental training programs can be implemented so as to help staff members learn how to administer the
SDTLA, use the data it generates directly with students and create developmentally oriented student activities programs.
Such training programs can be directly designed to provide staff members with the knowledge and skills required to
initiate student development processes and procedures within the residence hall community or the student activities
center. Over time, such approaches have involved large numbers of other college and university staff and faculty
members as well. This approach has the capacity to ultimately permeate the total campus community, including the
academic departments.
Peer Helper Training Programs. The SDTLA is one of the best vehicles available to help educate campus helpers
about human and student development principles and processes. A number of institutions have incorporated an earlier
version of the Assessment into their peer helper and paraprofessional training courses and programs with the intention
of educating prospective helpers about student development. Because the SDTLA is designed to assess the personal
development of students, peer helpers can learn about development through self examination. By individualizing and
personalizing the educational experience, peer helpers obtain a more comprehensive understanding than they would
through traditional readings and lecture procedures only. Whether the peer helpers plan to work as residence hall
assistants, peer counselors, peer academic advisors, peer human sexuality educators, or as peer helpers in some other
program, knowledge about developmental processes is essential to their success in helping others.
Using the SDTLA in Research and Evaluation
Although earlier versions of the SDTLA were designed primarily as tools to assess and facilitate the growth and
development of individual college students, this version, because of its improved psychometric properties, has utility as
a research tool as well. A number of limitations and precautions should be exercised when using the SDTLA for research
and evaluation purposes, however.
1. Because of the relatively low Alpha coefficients for some subtasks, viz., Instrumental Autonomy (IA) and Peer
Relationships (PR), caution should be exercised when reporting subtask or scale results for small samples. We do
not recommend use of these subtasks as dependent variables in research studies.
2. It is unrealistic to expect to find statistically significant differences on tasks, subtasks, or scales (using pretest, posttest
designs) when short-term programs or experiences are the treatment. A more realistic approach, when evaluating
the impact of short-term programs, would be to analyze each item separately within a given task, subtask or scale.
The information gained thereby gives a much more accurate picture of exactly what specific behaviors were reported
to have changed. Another approach is to utilize a time series design that collects data prior to beginning the
intervention and several times after the intervention has been completed. A workshop, for instance, may have a
major impact on participants only months later when skills and knowledge are actually utilized.
33
3. Since the SDTLA is a self-report instrument and lends itself to a social desirability response set, the means of
presentation and the trust level present should be carefully considered when designing research projects. Means of
gaining rapport between students and the evaluators should be carefully and explicitly built into the research plan.
4. Built into the Assessment is a Response Bias Scale (RB), which researchers can use to help identify response bias.
We recommend that data from Instruments in which three or more RB scale items are answered in the keyed direction
not be used for research or evaluation purposes.
5. When using the SDTLA to assess developmental needs in a general survey of student bodies or sub-populations,
analysis of each item separately is recommended. Each of the 153 items (excluding RB Scale items) on the
Assessment reflects a specific behavior or attitude associated with college students' development or lifestyles. Such
an item analysis approach should generate the maximum amount of data available to guide designs of programs to
address directly the developmental needs of students.
References
Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college?: Four critical years revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Atkinson D. R., Morton, G, & Sue, D. (1993). Counseling American minorities: A cross-cultural perspective. Dubuque,
IA: Brown.
Baker, J. , & Cooper, D. L. (in press). A validity study of the Salubrious Lifestyle Scale: Creating a wellness
measure. Georgia Journal of College Student Affairs.
Brown, L. S. (1995). Lesbian identities: Concepts and issues. In A. R. D’Augelli & C. J. Patterson (Eds.),
Lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities over the lifespan: Psychological perspectives (pp. 2-23). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Cass, V. C. (1979). Homosexual identity formation: A theoretical model. Journal of Homosexuality, 4, 219235.
Chickering, A. W. (1969). Education and identity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Chickering, A. W. (1981). Introduction. In A. W. Chickering & Associates, The modern American college: Responding
to the new realities of diverse students and a changing society. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Chickering, A. W., & Associates. (1981). The modern American college: Responding to the new realities of
diverse students and a changing society. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Chickering, A. W., & Havighurst, R. J. (1981). In A. W. Chickering & Associates, The modern American
college: Responding to the new realities of diverse students and a changing society. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cohen, R. D. (1985). From in loco parentis to auxilio parentum. In R. D. Cohen (Ed.), Working with parents
of college students (pp. 3-14). New Directions for Student Services, no. 32. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Coleman, E. (1981-1982). Developmental stages of the coming out process. Journal of Homosexuality, 7(23), 31-
43.
Coons, F. W. (1971). The developmental tasks of college students. In S. C. Feinstein, R. L. Glovacchini, & A. A.
Miller (Eds.), Adolescent psychiatry: Developmental an dclinical studies. (Vol. 1). New York: Basic Books.
34
Cross, E. W., Jr. (1995). The psychology of Nigrescence: Revising the Cross model. In J. G. Ponter, J. M.
Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.). Handbook of multicultural counseling (pp. 93-122). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of
Consulting Psychology, 24, 349-354.
Cronbach, L. J. (1970). Essential of psychological testing (3rd ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society (2nd ed.). New York: Norton.
Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton.
Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., & Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998). Student development in college: Theory, research,
and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fox, R.C. (1995). Bisexual identities. In A. R. D’Augelli & C. J. Patterson (Eds.) Lesbian, gay, and bisexual
identities over the lifespan: Psychological perspectives (pp. 2-23). New York: Oxford University Press.
Gazda, G. M., Childers, W. C., & Brooks, D. K., Jr. (1987). Foundations of counseling and human services. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Golden, C. (1996). What’s in a name? Sexual self-identification among women. In R. C. Savin-Williams &
K.M. Cohen (Eds.) The lives of lesbian, gay, and bisexuals: Children to adults (pp. 229-249). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt
Brace.
Gribbons, W. D., & Lohnes, P. R. (1968). Emerging careers. New York: Teachers College Press.
Havighurst, R. J. (1972). Human development and education (3rd ed.). New York: McKay.
Hazen Foundation. (1968). The student in higher education. New Haven, CT: Author.
Helms, J. E. (1995). An update of Helm’s white and people of color racial identity models. . In J. G. Ponter,
J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.). Handbook of multicultural counseling (pp. 181-198). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Josselson (1987). Finding herself: Pathways to identity development in women. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Keniston, K. (1970). Yourth: A “new” stage of life. The American Scholar, 39, 631-654.
Kitchner, K. S. (1982). Human development and the college campus: Sequences and tasks. In G. R. Hanson (Ed.),
Measuring student development. New Directions for Student Services, no. 20. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kitchner, K. S., & Kitchner, R. F. (1981). The development of natural rationality: Can formal operations
account for it? In J. S. Meacham & N. R. Santilli (Eds.), Social development in youth: Structure and content. Basel,
Switzerland: Karger.
McCoy, V. R. (1977). Lifelong learning: The adult years. Washington, DC: Adult Education Association.
McFarland, M. L. (1995). The development of intimacy in heterosexual college students: A theoretical

perspective. Doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia.
Miller, T. K., & Prince, J. S. (1976). The future of student affairs: A guide to student development for
tomorrow’s higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
35
Mines, R. A. (1982). Student development assessment techniques. In G. R. Hanson (Ed.), Measuring student
development. New Directions for Student Services, no. 20. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Montagu, A. (1981). Growing young. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Oetting, F. R. (1967). A development definition of counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 14, 382-
385.
Pace, C. R. (1983). College student experiences: A questionnaire (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: University of California,
Higher Education Research Institute.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights from twenty
years of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Paul, J. P. (1996). Bisexuality: Exploring/exploding the boundaries. In R. C. Savin-Williams & K.M. Cohen (Eds.)
The lives of lesbian, gay, and bisexuals: Children to adults (pp. 229-249). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
Phinney, J. S. (1989). Stages of ethnic identity development in minority group adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence,
9, 34-49.
Phinney, J. S. (1992). The multi-group ethnic identity measure: A new scale for use with diverse groups. Journal of
Adolescent Research, 7(2), 156-176.
Picklesimer, B. K. (1991). The development and evaluation of the life-skills development inventory--college
form. Doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia.
Prince, J. S. (1973). Identification and analysis of selected developmental tasks of college students. Doctoral
dissertation, University of Georgia.
Sanford, N. (1961). Developmental status of the entering freshman. In N. Sanford (Ed.), The American
college (pp. 253-282). New York: Wiley.
Stonewater, B. B. (1987). The second edition of the Student Developmental Task Inventory and sex
differences: A factor analysis. Journal of College Student Personnel, 28, 365-369.
Stonewater, J. D., Daniels, M. H., & Heischmidt, K. (1986). The reliability and validity of the Student Developmental
Task Inventory-2: A pilot study. Journal of College Student Personnel, 27, 70-74.
Sue, W. S., & Sue D. W. (1971). Chinese-American personality and mental health. Amerasia Journal, 1, 3649.
Super, D. E. (1984). Career and life development. In D. Brown, L. Brooks, & Associates, Career choices and
development: Applying contemporary theories to practice (pp. 192-234). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Super, D. E. (1986). Life career roles: Self-realization in work and leisure. In D. T. Hall (Ed.), Organizing
careers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Super, D. E., Starishevsky, R., Matlin, R., & Jordaan, J. P. (Eds.). (1963). Career development: Self-concept
theory. New York: College Board.
Super, D. E., Thompson, A. S., Lindeman, R. H., Jordaan, J. P., & Myers, R. A. (1981). The Career Development
Inventory (College and University Form). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press.
Teidman, D. V., & O’Hara, R. P. (1963). Career development: Choice and adjustment. New York: College Board.
36
Thompson, A. S., & Lindeman, R. H. (1981a). Career Development Inventory. (Vol. 1: User’s manual). Palo Alto,
CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Thompson, A. S., & Lindeman, R. H. (1981b). Career Development Inventory. (Vol. 2: Technical manual). Palo
Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Troiden, R.R. (1989). The formation of homosexual identities. Journal of Homosexuality, 17(1-2), 43-74.
Winston, R. B., Jr., & Miller, T. K. (1987). Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle Inventory manual. Athens, GA:
Student Development Associates.
Winston, R. B., Jr., Miller, T. K., & Prince, J. S. (1979a). Assessing student development: A preliminary
manual for the Student Developmental Task Inventory (revised, second edition) and the Student Developmental Profiles
and Planning Record. Athens, GA: Student Development Associates.
Winston, R. B., Jr., Miller, T. K., & Prince, J. S. (1979b). Student developmental task inventory (rev., 2nd.
ed.). Athens, GA: Student Development Associates.
Winston, R. B., Jr., Miller, T. K., & Prince, J. S. (1987). Student developmental task and lifestyle inventory. Athens,
GA: Student Development Associates.
Winston, R. B., Jr., Phelps, R. E., Mazzeo, S., & Torres, V. (1997). A short measure of students’ autonomy
development: The Georgia Autonomy Scales. College Student Affairs Journal, 17, 4-17.
37

Prelim Inary T Echnical Manual For The S Tudent Developm Ental T Ask and L Ifesty Le Assessm Ent

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

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

Prelim Inary T Echnical Manual For The S Tudent Developm Ental T Ask and L Ifesty Le Assessm Ent

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Prelim inary T echnical Manual for the S

tudent Developm ental T ask and L ifesty le

Preliminary Technical Manual for the Student

Chapter 2: Scoring and Interpreting Task,

Chapter 3: Reliability and Validity Estimates

Chapter 4: Using the SDTLA

Roger B. Winston, Jr.

Higher Education and Student Development

Defining Developmental Tasks

Describing Developmental Tasks

• Breaking psychological ties

• Crystallizing a vocational preference

Gender Differences in Psychosocial Development

Sexual Orientation Differences in Psychosocial Development

Ethnic Differences in Psychosocial Development

Suggested Resources on College Student Psychosocial Developmental Theory

Task, Subtask, and Scale Defined

Task, Subtask, and Scale Descriptions

Forms of the SDTLA

Demographic Characteristics of the Normative Sample

Variable n Percent Variable n Percent

Administrating the Instrument

Scoring the Instrument

1. Total item values = 21.

Effects of Biographical-Demographic Variables on SDTLA Responses

Means and Standard Deviations for4 SDTLA: Sex by Class

Class Men Women

CAREER PLANNING SUBTASK

LIFESTYLE PLANNING SUBTASK

CULTURAL PARTICIPATION SUBTASK

EDUCATIONAL INVOLVEMENT SUBTASK

ESTABLISHING AND CLARIFYING PURPOSE TASK

EMOTIONAL AUTONOMY SUBTASK

[Table 2.2 continues]

Class Men Women

ACADEMIC AUTONOMY SUBTASK

INSTRUMENTAL AUTONOMY SUBTASK

DEVELOPING AUTONOMY TASK

PEER RELATIONSHIPS SUBTASK

[Table 2.2 continues]

Class Men Women

DEVELOPING MATURE INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS TASK

SALUBRIOUS LIFESTYLE SCALE

Summary of Statistically Significant Differences on Demographic-type Variables for the

Developing Autonomy Task W>M, Fr<Sop, Fr<Jr, Fr<Sr, Sop<Jr, Sop<Sr

Salubrious Lifestyle Scale --

Idiographic interpretation. Emphasis in an idiographic interpretation with an individual student is to help

Lifestyle Planning Subtask Educational Involvement Subtask

Figure 2.1. Establishing and Clarifying Purpose Subtasks

Emotional Autonomy Subtask Academic Autonomy Subtask

Instrumental Autonomy Subtask Interdependence Subtask

Figure 2.2. Developing Autonomy

Tolerance Subtask Peer Relationships Subtask

Salubrious Lifestyle Scale

Figure 2.3: Developing Mature

Score Ranges and Reliability Estimates for SDTLA

Task/Subtask/Scale Range of Number Coefficient Four-Week

Establishing and Clarifying

Developing Mature Interpersonal

Salubrious Lifestyle Scale (SL) 1.000-4.706 17 .71 .77

Response Bias Scale (RB) 0-6.000 6 .72 .93

Interrelationships of Tasks, Subtasks, and Scales

Intercorrelations of Tasks, Subtasks, and Scales (n = 1822)