^ , ^ - - ' .Ay
PERSONALITY CHARACTERISTICS OF EFFECTIVE
AND INEFFECTIVE REHABILITATION COUNSELORS
by
JOHN RAMIREZ, B.A.
A THESIS
IN
PSYCHOLOGY
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Technological College in Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for the Degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
Approved
r ay, 1969
(£> <®
T3 1969 '^Jo. I 14-
^ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The writer wishes to express his appreciation
to Dr. Beatrix Cobb for her direction and support In
the completion of this thesis. Appreciation is also
expressed to Dr. Dennis C. Cogan and Dr. Charles R.
Jones for their advice and suggestions.
I would like to convey my thanks to Mr. Jack
Thurman for obtaining the cooperation of the Supervisors
and Rehabilitation Counselors, without whose participa
tion this study would not have been accomplished.
Finally, I wish to express my deepest apprecia
tion to my friends and colleagues for their encourage
ment, and to my typist, Mrs. Barbara Darnall, for her
assistance in proofreading this thesis.
J.R.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 11
LIST OF TABLES v
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION 1
Review of the Literature 3 Personality Characteristics of Counse
lors 3 Personality Characteristics of Effec
tive and Ineffective Counselors . . . . 9 Evaluation Procedures for Determining
Effective and Ineffective Counselors . 13 Critique of the Literature 16 Rationale for the Study 17
Ratings 18 Comprehensive Personality Evaluation . . 18
II. METHOD 19
Subjects 19 Instruments 21
SVIB 21 16 PF 23 " RDS 23
Procedure 2^ Statistical Analysis 25 Statement of Hypotheses 25
III. RESULTS AND INTERPRETATIONS 2?
IV. DISCUSSION 31
V. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 38
Limitations of the Study 39 Implications for Further Research Ao
LIST OF REFERENCES 4l
ill
Page
APPENDIX A: LETTER SENT TO COUNSELORS ^4
APPENDIX B: QUESTIONNAIRE SENT TO SUPERVISORS. . . 45
APPENDIX C: PREDICTOR VARIABLES 46
iv
LIST OP TABLES
Table Page
1. Analysis of Supervisor Rating Scale Scores Comparing ME and LE Rehabilitation Counselors 20
2. Demographic Information for the Total Sample, High, and Low Rated Groups 22
3. Analysis of l6 PF, RDS, and Supervisor Rating Scale Scores Comparing ME and LE Rehabilitation Counselors 28
4. Analysis of SVIB Scores Comparing ME and LE Rehabilitation Counselors 30
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The selection of rehabilitation counselors who
perform effectively is important not only to training
institutions but also to rehabilitation agencies who will
engage their services and to the potential ineffective
counselor who may be saved the expense of time and money
necessary to become a rehabilitation counselor. The
problem of selecting rehabilitation counseling trainees
who can become successful in this field has increased
within the past few years. The demand for more and more
capable counselors in the various areas has placed addi
tional pressure on the academic institutions and state-
federal agencies. Ability to make proper selection is
highly dependent upon the knowledge of personality char
acteristics of successful rehabilitation counselors.
In considering better methods of selecting poten
tial rehabilitation counselors, one must first look at
the manner in which prospective counselors are now se
lected for training programs. This process has been
dependent on as many different criteria as there are
training Institutions to do the selecting (APA, 1954;
Santaricca, 1959; Patterson, 1962b). In Patterson's
2 review of 31 training institutions, he listed the most
commonly used methods: (1) undergraduate scholastic
record; (2) personal Interview; (3) recommendations;
(4) previous course work; and (5) scholastic aptitude
test. More effective criteria for the selection of
counselor trainees are subjects of constant study (Mut-
hard & Miller, 1964; McGreery, 196?; and Whlteley,
Sprlntnoll, Misher, & Donaghy, I967).
Despite the fact that studies have shown that
the counselor, rather than the technique employed, is
most important in counseling, a criterion which has been
slow to be accepted by the training institutions and the
state-federal agencies is that of personality character
istics (Fielder, 1950a; Fielder, 1950b). Personality
characteristics of counselors in general and of effective
counselor trainees, in particular, have been the subject
of much research (Cottle, 1953; Patterson, 1962a; Di-
Mlchael, 1949b; and Rosen, 196?). (Due to the questionable
reliability of some instruments employed in personality
evaluation and of the criteria used to determine effective
counselors, there has been a reluctance to accept per
sonality characteristics as a criterion for counselor
selectionJ Consequently their use is seldom encouraged
(Patterson, 1962b). Successful research beyond the
trainee level, using unobjectionable instruments and
research methods, may serve as an impetus toward a
3 greater acceptance and use of personality characteristics
In the selection of effective rehabilitation counselors.
( he purpose of this study was to compare prac
ticing rehabilitation counselors, who had been rated by
their supervisors as more effective or less effective,
on the basis of their personality characteristics, occu
pational interests, and attitude of flexibility. These
traits were measured by the Sixteen Personality Factor
Questionnaire (16 PF) (Cattell & Eber, 1957), Strong
Vocational Interest Blank (SVIB) (Strong, I960), Rokeach
Dogmatism Scale (RDS) (Rokeach, I960), and a Supervisor
Rating Scale.
Review of the Literature
Three areas of the literature were especially
pertinent to this study: (1)'personality characteristics
of counselors in general; (2) personality characteristics
of effective and Ineffective counselors; and (3) evalua-
-tlon procedures for determining effective and ineffective
counselors.
Personality Characteristics of Counselors
Jones (1951) discussed one of the earliest reviews
of the personality characteristics of counselors. In his
book, Jones reported individual studies and those of
various personnel organizations. The studies, mostly
about the school counselor, are, in the words of the
4 author, "very suggestive and helpful but nearly all as
a whole very unsatisfactory" (p. 553). Cottle (1953),
in a later review of the literature, listed reasons for
this fact as due to:
1. The lists represent merely the opinions of the people who make them; 2. they do not distinguish between the counselor and other members of the school personnel; 3. the traits of successful counselors vary so much that it is dif- v ficult to select one list that is satisfactory; 4. it is the interrelations or patterns of characteristics that is important (p. 446).
Cottle prefaced his review with a comment concerning
the probable necessity of separating areas and levels,
as the characteristics of all areas and levels may not
be the same. He also stated that "most of the attempts
to evaluate the personal characteristics of counselors
are sporadic and unrelated" (p. 449), and concluded his
review by saying that "interest inventories and struc
tured personality inventories seem to offer a promising
area of investigation in the identification of charac
teristics of counselors in various areas and at various
levels within each area" (p. 449). One study reported
by Graver (1948) required counselors to list, in order
of frequency of use, the traits necessary for counseling.
The following traits were derived: understanding, sym
pathetic attitude, friendliness, sense of humor, stabil
ity, patience, objectivity, sincerity, tact, fairness,
tolerance, neatness, calmness, broadmlndedness, kindness.
pleasantness, social intelligence, and poise.
A detailed study by Krledt (1949) employed the
SVIB to Identify the vocational interests of psycholo
gists. The test was administered to 1,048 male psychol
ogists selected from the 1948 APA directory, of whom 115
were classified as guidance psychologists. Krledt found
that guidance psychologists scored significantly in a
social service direction and that they had a relatively
high mean-score on the psychologists' occupational scale.
Guidance psychologists also seemed to have a stronger
preference than others for interviewing, service to
others, personnel work, and writing. The results revealed
that although there was considerable similarity among the
different types of psychologists, those psychologists in
counseling and guidance could be differentiated in terms
of their scores on the SVIB.
Using the Kuder Preference Test to test voca
tional rehabilitation counselors, DlMlchael (1949b)
described the rehabilitation counselor as having high
scores in persuasive, literary, and social service areas
with low scores in mechanical, computational, scientific,
artistic, and clerical areas. In a more extensive study
of the personality characteristics of counselor trainees
at the University of Minnesota, Wrenn (1952) obtained
the following results: (1) Miller Analogies Test (MAT),
Form G—median raw score in the middle 70s, which was
above average; (2) Allport-Vernon-Llndzey Study of
Values—highest on the Theoretical and Religious scales,
with men lowest on Arithmetic and women lowest on the
Economic scale; (3) Guilford-Zlmmerman Temperament
Survey—median scores above the 75th percentile for
Restraint, Emotional Stability, Friendliness, Objec
tivity, and Personal Relations; and (4) Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) profiles—
Infrequency of high score for Hypochondriasis, Depres
sion, or Social Introversion-Extroversion scales.
Patterson (1962a), in a broad study of the personality
characteristics of rehabilitation counselor trainees,
administered a battery of five tests to 545 students
(391 males and 154 females) enrolled in graduate work in
rehabilitation counseling in 20 colleges and universities
The results were as follows: (1) MAT—the mean was at
the 80th percentile of the norms for education students
In master's degree-granting institutions, at the 65th
percentile for education students in doctorate-granting
institutions, but at the 15th percentile for psychology
students; (2) Kerr-Spereff Empathy Test—women scored
at about the 70th percentile for liberal arts women and
men scored 50th-55th percentiles for liberal arts men;
(3) Edwards Personal Preference Schedule—greatest
deviation from the norm by females was for Introception
(74th percentile) and Abasement (24th percentile).
7 whereas the males' greatest de.viation was for Introcep-
tlon (79th percentile). Deference (72nd percentile), and
Nurturance (70th percentile); (4) MMPI--both male and
female profiles were similar but greatly different from
college students in general, and generally similar to
Wrenn's (1952) findings; (5) SVIB—males had means at
the highest level (A) for the following scales: Clinical
Psychologist, Guidance Psycho]^ogist, and Social Worker.
Scales at the B level were Industrial Psychologist,
Personnel Director, Public Administrator, Social Science
Teacher, and Musician (performer). Scales at the B-
level were Minister and Physician. Females had no A
scores, but scales at the B level were Social Worker,
Lawyer, Office Worker, and Steno-Secretary. Scales at
the B- level were Psychologist and Occupational Therapist.
Patterson concluded that although "the personality char
acteristics are in general normal and similar to college
students in general, there is indication that those
traits that would seem to be desirable in counselors are
stronger in rehabilitation counseling students than in
students in general" (p. l6).
Recent studies of the personality of the coun- -
selor have focused either on the analysis of the coun
selor's characteristics or on the relationship between
certain characteristics and some aspect of the counselor's
behavior. Mills, Chestnut, and Hortzell (1966) computed
8 an analysis of the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule
scores for 37 counselors with varying degrees of experience
Five apparently non-random components were determined
which were then used to predict corrimon characteristics of
counselors in four out of five cases. The first four com
ponents were as follows: a general "social service" com
ponent; a component related to the counselor's sex; one
related to the counselor's position on a directive/non-
directive continuum; and one related to "false aggression."
De Roo (1966) employed the Holtzman Inkblot Technique
(HIT), the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale, and the Counselor
Response System (CRS) in a study to investigate relation
ships between personality characteristics of counselors
and verbal behaviors displayed by them during counseling
Interviews.
Summary. Research studies have yielded signif
icant personality differences between counselors and
other groups, even within the overall field of psychology
Itself (Krledt, 1949). The general characteristics by
which counselors have been identified include: warmth,
extroversion, emotional stability, understanding of
others. Interest in helping in social welfare areas, and
mental ability comparable to graduate students in other
areas of study (DlMlchael, 1949b; Wrenn, 1952; Patterson,
1962a).
/
9 Personality Characteristics of Effective and Ineffective Counselors '
The personality characteristics of effective
counselor trainees have been studied on several occa
sions, but only one similar study conducted with rehabil
itation counselors per se has been reported in the avail
able literature. In a study by Stefflre, King, and
Leafgren (I962), the SVIB and RDS were administered to
counselor trainees attending a National Defense Education
Guidance Institute. These students had been previously
rated as effective or ineffective by peer evaluations.
The effective group displayed significantly higher
Interest scores in the occupations of Public Administra
tor, YMCA Secretary, Social Studies Teacher, and Minister,
but had significantly lower scores on the RDS. Low scores
on this scale are interpreted as indicating "persons with
open minds who are able to approach a new experience
freely, and who can rationally analyze, evaluate, select, «
or integrate parts or all of a new experience" (Horsman,
1964, p. 10).
Other studies with the RDS (Brams, I96I; Kemp,
1962) also have yielded lower scores for counselor
trainees rated as effective. In Kemp's study, where
the criterion variable was instructor ratings, trainees
with lower scores made greater Improvement during in
struction and talked more freely with their clients.
10 Brams reported that, where the criterion variable was
evaluation by two Judges on a communication rating
scale, trainees whose low scores on the RDS correlated
significantly with the Berkley Public Opinion Question
naire were said to be more tolerant of ambiguous material
In the counseling interview than the less effective coun
selor trainees.
Studying counselor trainee effectiveness in
relation to role concepts and psychological needs was
the purpose of a study by Fowler (I967). Thirty students
attending a National Defense Education Counseling and
Guidance Workshop were administered the Edwards Personal
Preference Schedule (EPPS) and their responses were
categorized according to the Helping Relationship Inven
tory. The criterion variable was the rating of Judges
who were professional counselors. Finding counselor
effectiveness to be positively related with role concept
and some measured needs, the author stressed the contin
uation of similar studies dealing with the characteristics
related to counselor effectiveness.
Horsman (1964) administered the SVIB, Index of
Value Orientations, Index of Adjustment and Values,
Rokeach Dogmatism and Opinionation Scales, Analysis of
Interview Responses, and the Analysis of Counselor Role
to sixteen males and fifteen females attending a National
Defense Education Institute. The criterion variables
11 were ratings by experts (practicing counselors with
0
several years experience), supervisors, and peers.
Effective counselor trainees were described as "differ
ing from other students in interview behavior, feeling
about themselves and others, and occupational interests
and experiences" (p. 74). More specifically, the effec
tive counselor trainees were more understanding, less
directive, exhibited greater J.nterest and understanding
of the feelings and motives of other people, showed
greater acceptance of other people, displayed greater
acceptance of their own faults, had more years of coun
seling experience, but were dissimilar in occupational
interests to Office Workers, Math-Physical Science
Teachers, Physicians, Engineers, and Dentists (profes
sions described as being "content-oriented" with empha
sis upon impersonal, objective type tasks). Less ef
fective counselor trainees were characterized as being
more directive in interviewing, and as preferring
occupations in which they dealt with things or objects
rather than people.
Rosen (I967), in an even more extensive study,
employed the Allport-Vernon-Llndzey Study of Values,
SVIB, EPPS, and the RDS in testing twenty-eight male
counselor trainees who were also rated by Judges. He
hypothesized that specific personality characteristics
measured by these instruments were positively or
12 negatively correlated to counselor competency. Although
the hypotheses were rejected, Rosen recommended that
additional research be done in this area, employing
different research designs, methodologies, and measuring
instruments, in order to determine the predictive value
of personality characteristics which are associated with
counselor competency. Of the hypotheses postulated by
the author, the following are^presented because of their
interest to this study: "(1) The Social Service group
pattern of the SVIB is positively related to counselor
competency; (2) The RDS is negatively related to coun
selor competency" (p. 2408).
The only study in the literature directly
related to personality characteristics of effective
and ineffective vocational rehabilitation counselors
was by DlMlchael (1949b). The Kuder Preference Record
was administered to 146 vocational rehabilitation coun
selors for whom a supervisor's rating for work efficiency
also was obtained. Product-moment r's then were computed
between the Kuder Preference Record scores (first and
second tests) and the supervisor ratings of efficiency.
Results showed that higher Kuder scores on the Persuasive
and Literary scales were positively related to supervisory
ratings of Job efficiency.
Summary. Several studies were found in the
literature in which attempts were made to identify
13 personality characteristics of counselor trainees
(general or rehabilitation), whereas reports of similar
studies with practicing rehabilitation counselors have
been extremely limited. Effective counselor trainees
have been Identified as being more understanding and
accepting of themselves and others, less directive,
more receptive to conditions of ambiguity, and having
little Interest in occupations dealing with things or
objects. The effective rehabilitation counselor has
been differentiated by having higher scores on the Kuder
Persuasive and Literary scales than the ineffective
counselor.
Evaluation Procedures for Determining Effective and Ineffective Counselors
This is an area which usually constitutes ratings
by experts, supervisors, or peers. The first of these,
expert rating, is Implemented on the premise that educa-
tor(s) can detect in a person those traits which are
important for effective counseling. The rating can be
based upon a specific criterion or can be more compre
hensive, which necessitates the use of more elaborate
criteria, as in the study by Snyder (1955). Snyder asked
four professors who had knowledge of most of the subjects
in his study to classify each student on a six-point
scale according to predicted potential for becoming a
successful clinical psychologist. The results yielded
14 high reliability for these ratings. In contradiction,
a study by Moore, reported in an unpublished disserta
tion by Horsman (1964), Investigated global ratings by
counselor educators at fifteen different counselor train
ing Institutes. No more than two factors correlated at
greater than .10 level of significance with the criterion
measure. Therefore, Moore hypothesized that the validity
and consistency of global ratings could be questioned.
The second rating, that done by supervisors, is
implemented on the premise that the supervisor(s) will
be able to match expected with actual performance and to
ascertain the degree of effectiveness. Representative
of this type of measure is a study by Brams (196I), in
which at least two Judges, who had supervised the coun
selor trainees in a practlcum course, rated each student's
degree of effectiveness in that trainee's counseling
Interviews. The criterion score was obtained by com
bining and averaging on a rating scale the supervisors'
total weighted scores for each trainee. This measure
was then correlated with the trainee's ability to tolerate
ambiguity in the counseling Interview and with personality
characteristics. Although the criterion measure did not
yield the expected correlation with personality charac
teristics, it did positively correlate with the trainees'
ability to tolerate ambiguity in the counseling inter
view.
15 Peer rating is Implemented on the premise that
the students will have a greater knowledge than either
supervisors or experts of each other's functioning in
comparison to what is expected. In a study by Stefflre,
et al. (1962), counselor trainees at a summer institute
were asked to rate each other as potential counselors
on the basis of to whom they would be most likely to go
and to whom they would be least likely to go for coun
seling. Applying the Kuder Richardson Formula, the
results yielded an r of .96.
A study by Horsman (1964) compared peer, expert,
and supervisor ratings. Only three variables had sig
nificant correlations with all three criterion rankings.
One might speculate, therefore, whether each type of
rating was measuring the same sort of effectiveness.
Peer ratings may be more a measure of commonality than
effectiveness. Expert ratings have the limitation of
placing as much emphasis on the knowledge of the rater
as upon his evaluation. Consequently, supervisor rating
Is probably the best selection of a criterion variable
since it measures effective performance.
Summary. Three types of criterion measures most
commonly used were expert rating, supervisor rating, and
peer rating. Although each was found to be somewhat
acceptable, supervisor rating was considered to be the
most desirable.
16 Critique of the Literature
Many of the studies previously reviewed are
limited by the presence of certain methodological weak
nesses, including type of population, instrument selec
tion, and criterion variables. Jones (1951), although
he listed four limitations to the studies that he re
viewed, overlooked the more basic problems of choice of
instruments and appropriate timing of the testing situa
tion. Questionable information about counseling was ^
provided by Graver (1948), because he used only self-
report without correlation with any standardized Instru-
ment. In addition, i^e results are so applicable to
any profession working with people that counselors are
hardly differentiated from the general population.")
Several studies (Krledt, 1949; DlMlchael, 1949a;
DlMlchael, 1949b) are limited by having used only one
instrument. Present use of the Information from these
studies is further hindered because all the instruments
used have since been revised.
In interpreting the results from the study by
Wrenn (1952), it should be pointed out that all subjects
were drawn from only one institution. The study also is
weakened by the fact that the MMPI was still in the de
velopmental stages.
De Roo (1966) did not use any standardized
personality instruments. Those Instruments which he
17 employed, the HIT, RDS, and CRS, were limited by the
amount of error variance present. The RDS is the only
one for which evidence for validity is suggested.
Several studies (Stefflre, et al., 1962; Fowler,
1967; Rosen, 1967) are limited by the type of criterion
variable employed. Stefflre, et al. (1962), employed
peer ratings which, as was observed earlier, may be
-more a measure of commonality than effectiveness. Fowler
(1967) and Rosen (I967) used expert ratings, which tend
to place as much emphasis on the knowledge of the rater
as upon his evaluation of the subject.
Rationale for the Study
In consequence of the limitations found in pre
vious research, the present study was designed with the
following criteria: (1) a population consisting of
practicing rehabilitation counselors; (2) ratings by
supervisors who were relatively familiar with the sub
jects; and (3) use of instruments yielding a more com
prehensive view of the personality. Although there have
been several studies which have explored the personality
characteristics of counselors in general and the person
ality characteristics of rated rehabilitation counselor
trainees, only one (DlMlchael, 1949b) goes beyond the
trainee level in the specific field of rehabilitation.
18 Ratings
The use of supervisors as raters, as contrasted
with the peer or expert ratings used in most of the
previously cited studies, avoids the pitfalls of these
two rating forms while maximizing their effective points.
Comprehensive Personality Evaluation
The instruments used in this study—the l6 PF,
SVIB, RDS, and Supervisor Rating Scale—all are accepted
instruments for personality evaluation and allow for a
valid, comprehensive picture of the personality.
CHAPTER II
METHOD
Subjects
The population studied consisted of l8 male
rehabilitation counselors from one rehabilitation
administrative region in Texas, who had been employed
by the agency for a minimum of one year. The sample
was divided into two groups by means of a 10-point
supervisor rating scale (Appendix B), which ranged from
"unsatisfactory," through "needs improvement," "satis
factory," "above average," to "outstanding." All par
ticipants rated by their respective supervisors as
being "above average" and "outstanding" became Group I,
hereafter referred to as More Effective (ME). Those
counselors rated "needs improvement" or "satisfactory"
became Group II, hereafter referred to as Less Effective
(LE).* No subjects were rated "unsatisfactory."
The 18 participants fell into two equal groups
of nine each. Supervisor scores ranged from 4 through
10 (Table 1), with the ME group scoring 8 and above
and the LE group scoring 6 and below. When the t-test
was applied to the means of the two groups, a t value
of 7.22 (p < .001) was obtained (Table 1).
19
20
TABLE 1
Analysis of Supervisor Rating Scale Scores Comparing ME
and LE Rehabilitation Counselors
ME
I
N
X
Diff.
Counse
M
0
P
R
T
U
Y
AA
BB
2.89
lors Score
8
8
8
8
8
10
8
8
8
74
9
8.22
LE
t-ratl
Counselors
B
E
L
N
S
V
W
X
CC
0 7. .22*
Score
4
4
4
6
6
6
6
6
6
48
9
5.33
•Significant at the .001 level
21 The two groups were approximately matched as to
age, education, and years of experience (Table 2). The
mean age of the ME group was 33.88 with a range of from
24 to 48 years. The mean age of the LE group was 33.00
with a range of from 25 to 48 years. The mean years of
experience of the ME group was 2.66 years with a range
of from 1 to 6 years. The mean years of experience of
the LE group was 1.77 years with a range of from 1 to 5
years. In terms of education, the ME group had eight
members with Master's degrees, whereas the LE group had
four members with Master's degrees.
Instruments
The instruments used in this study were the
Strong Vocational Interest Blank for Men (SVIB) (Strong,
1966); Cattell Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire
(16 PF) (Cattell, 1957); and Rokeach Dogmatism Scale
(RDS) (Rokeach, 196O). These instruments are summarized
below.
The SVIB is a psychological Interest Inventory
measuring likes and dislikes, which compares a person's
scores on various occupational scales with that of
members of that specific occupational group as distin
guished from men in general. This instrument was used
because prior research indicated that the interests of
the effective counselor are similar to individuals in
22
TABLE 2
Demographic Information for the Total Sample, High, and
Low Rated Groups
Total ME LE
X" Range X" Range X" Range
Age 33.83 (24-48) 33-88 (24-45) 33.00 (25-48)
Experience 2.22 (1-6) 2.66 (1-6) 1.77 (1-5)
Master's Degree Completed 12 8 4
23 occupations of a social service or literary nature
(Stefflre, et al., 1962; Rosen, 1967; DlMlchael,
1949b). The effective counselor is also described as
being dissimilar to individuals in occupations which
are "content oriented" and have an emphasis upon im
personal, objective types of tasks, i.e.. Office Workers,
Math-Physical Science Teachers, Physical Engineers,
etc. (Horsman, 1964).
The 16 PF (Cattell and Eber, 1964) is a per
sonality questionnaire which was factor analytically
developed and consists of fifteen distinct personality
traits and an Intelligence scale. The literature
(Wrenn, 1952) described the counselor as displaying
greater restraint, emotional stability, friendliness,
and objectivity than was found in the general population.
In addition, it was suggested that the counselor was more
inclined to let others make decisions, more readily
understood his and others' motives and feelings, and was
more willing to help others (Patterson,- 1962a; Horsman,
1964). The 16 PF was used in this research to investi
gate these and additional personality traits in the
population studied.
The RDS (Rokeach, I96O) is an instrument devised
to measure individual differences in openness and closed-
ness of belief system and to ascertain general authori
tarianism and general tolerance. For the purpose of
24 this study, only the measure of openness or closedness
of belief system was used. This test was selected
because it yields measures of attitude of flexibility
which seem related to effective performance in counse
lors (Stefflre, et al., 1962; Kemp, 1962; Brams, I96I;
Horsman, 1964).
Procedure
Following a conference with the Regional Director
of Rehabilitation to explain the purpose of the proposed
research, a meeting was set with three district super
visors of the region. After explanation of the investi
gation, the supervisors agreed to participate in the
study. Each supervisor then mailed to the counselors in
his district (a total of 30) a packet containing the
three Instruments (I6 PF, SVIB, and RDS) with specific
directions for self administration. A letter from the
researcher, describing the study and requesting coopera
tion from the counselors, was included (Appendix A). Of
the 30 requests forwarded, only 20 counselors responded.
Two of those did not meet the previously established
criterion of a minimum of one year's experience and were
deleted, leaving a total population sample of I8 counselors
Answer sheets of the tests were scored in the standardized
manner prescribed for each test. To secure additional
information, the supervisors were furnished questionnaires
25 which they filled out for each counselor in their respective districts (Appendix B).
Statistical Analysis
The variables Investigated were of three general
types—personality characteristics, occupational inter
ests, and attitudes of flexibility. The first, person
ality characteristics, consisted of the 16 factors
measured by the 16 PP. Occupational interests were as
certained by 23 of the SVIB's occupational scales.
Attitude of flexibility was measured by the RDS.
Student's t-tests were used to determine if
there were significant differences between the means of
the ME and LE rehabilitation counselors on the variables
of personality characteristics and attitudes of flexi
bility. Median tests were used to compare the scores of
the ME and LE rehabilitation counselors on the 23 varia
bles of occupational interests.
Statement of Hypotheses
This study attempted to demonstrate that there
was a relationship between the degree of effectiveness
of .the rehabilitation counselor and measures of his
personality characteristics, occupational interests, and
attitude of flexibility. Previous studies in the liter
ature prompt the following hypotheses for testing:
Hypothesis I: Counselors rated as More Effective
26 scored significantly higher tft'an those rated Less Effec
tive on the following perspnallty traits:
(a) Outgoing as measured by Factor A of the l6 PF. (b) Intelligent as measured by Factor B of the l6 PF. (c) Emotionally stable as measured by Factor C of
the 16 PF. (d) Assertive as measured by Factor E of the 16 PF. (e) Conscientious as measured by Factor G of the
16 PP. (f) Venturesome as measured by Factor H of the l6 PF. (g) Tenderminded as measured by Factor I of the l6 PF (h) Imaginative as measured by Factor M of the l6 PF. (1) Shrewd as measured b: Factor N of the 16 PF. (J) Experimenting as measured by Factor Q, of the
16 PP. 1 (k) Self-sufficient as measured by Factor Q^ of the
16 PF. ^
Hypothesis II: Counselors rated More Effective
scored significantly higher than those rated Less Effec
tive on the following occupational interest scales:
(a) Social Service group as measured by the SVIB. (b) Physician as measured by the SVIB. (c) Psychologist as measured by the SVIB. (d) Librarian as measured by the SVIB.
(e) Physical Therapist as measured by the SVIB.
Hypothesis III: Counselors rated Less Effective
scored significantly higher than those rated More Effec
tive on the following occupational interest scales: as measured by the SVIB. lence Teacher as measured by the SVIB. Performer as measured by the SVIB. ant as measured by the SVIB. Worker as measured by the SVIB. ing Agent as measured by the SVIB. sing Man as measured by the SVIB. r Programmer as measured by the SVIB.
is IV: Counselors rated More Effective
scored significantly lower than those rated Less Effective
on the RDS, indicating a greater degree of openness.
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h)
Dentist Math-Sc Musical Account Office Purchas Adverti Compute
Hypothes
•^mmmmm
CHAPTER III
RESULTS AND INTERPRETATIONS
Each hypothesis was tested for statistical sig
nificance. Data analysis involved employing a parametric
test (student's t-test) and a non-parametric test (median
test) to investigate differences between the ME and LE
groups.
Hypothesis I: It was predicted that the ME
group would score significantly higher on eleven of the
16 PP's factors. The eleven factors were: Outgoing (A),
Intelligent (B), Emotionally Stable (C), Assertive (E),
Conscientious (G), Venturesome (H), Tenderminded (I),
Imaginative (M), Shrewd (N), Experimenting (Q,), and
Self-sufficient (Q2). The results)(Table 3) revealed
that the two groups differed significantly (p < .05)
only on Shrewdness (N). However, two hypothesized fac
tors (Intelligence [B], and Venturesomeness [H]) and an
additional factor (Apprehensiveness [0]) had t-ratios
(p < .20) which Indicated a trend toward a reliable
difference.
Hypothesis II: It was predicted that the ME
group would score significantly higher on the occupa
tional interest scale's Social Service group and on the
27
28
TABLE 3
Analysis of 16 PF, RDS and Supervisor Rating Scale Scores
Comparing ME and LE Rehabilitation Counselors
16 PF
(A)
(B) (C)
(E) (P)
(G) (H)
(I)
(L)
(M)
(N)
(o:
(Qi ]
( « j
(Q-* «
(Qi
RDS
Supei
Factor ME (X)
Reserved vs. Outgoing 11.00
Intelligence 7.88 Ego Strength vs. General Emotionality 17.88
Dominance 13.66 Surgency vs. De-surgency 14.44
Superego Strength 14.55 Shy vs. Venturesome 17.44
Tough-minded vs. Tenderminded 10.11
Trusting vs. Suspicious 9.44
» Practical vs. Imaginative 10.00
1 Artlessness vs. Shrewdne s s 13*33
• Guilt-Proneness vs. Confidence 7.22
) Conservatism vs. ^ Radicalism 10.77 ,) Group Dependent vs.
Self-Sufficient 8.77 ,) Self-Sentiment ^ Control 11.88 j) Relaxed vs. Tense 10.00
151.77
-visor Rating Scale 8.22
LE (X)
10.33 9.22
17.22 13.66
14.00 13.88
13.88
9.66
8.88
10.77
10.77
9.33
9.44
8.00
11.88 10.22
144.44
5.33
Difference
0.67 1.34
0.66 0.00
0.44 0.67
3.56
0.45
0.56
0.77
2.56
2.11
1.33
0.77
0.00 0.22
7.33
2.89
t-ratlo
0.37 1.52*
0.46
0.27 0.54
1.46*
0.30
Q.38
0.71
2.24**
1.56*
1.18
0.43
0.13
0.70
7.22***
•Significant at the .20 level «»Signifleant at the .05 level »»*Slgnlfleant at the .001 level
29
scales of Physician, Psychologist, Librarian, and Phy
sical Therapist. The results (Table 4) revealed that
the two groups tended to differ on one scale only
(Social Worker) of the Social Service group (p < .20),
and that difference was opposite to the predicted
direction.
Hypothesis III: It was predicted that the LE
group would score significantly higher on the occupa
tional interest scales of Dentist, Math-Science Teacher,
Musician Performer, Accountant, Office Worker, Purchasing
Agent, Advertising Man, and Computer Programmer. The
results (Table 4) revealed that the two groups differed
significantly (p < .05) only on the occupational scale
for Accountant, and this difference was opposite to the
predicted direction.
Hypothesis IV: It was predicted that the ME
group would score significantly lower on the RDS. The
results (Table 3) revealed the scores for the two groups
to be somewhat similar, although the LE's lower score
was opposite to the predicted direction.
30
TABLE 4
Analysis of SVIB Scores Comparing ME and LE
Rehabilitation Counselors
Occupation Scale
Dentist Physician Psychiatrist Psychologist Mathematician Engineer Math-Science Teacher Personnel Director Public Administrator
Total Median
Rehabilitation Counselor YMCA Secretary Social Worker Social Science Teacher School Superintendent Minister Librarian Musician Performer Accountant Office Worker Purchasing Agent Advertising Man Physical Therapist Computer Programmer
•Significant at the ••Significant at the
.20
.05
24.0 28.0 30.0 26.5 13.0 19.0 33.0 30.5 42.5 44.0 42.0 39.0 40.0 27.5 20.5 28.0 31.0 20.5 31.5 29.0 25.0 43.5 27.0
level level
Total Range
4-35 12-50 5-54 11-42 -2-35 2-33 13-47 16-58 28-64 28-61 19-56 17-60 16-53
• 15-52 5-52 6-39 16-43 8-34 21-45 23-49 14-38 27-66 2-54
X^
0.00 0.89 0.88 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.22 2.02* 0.00 0.89 0.22 2.02* 0.22 3.56** 0.89 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00
CHAPTER IV
DISCUSSION
The present study was concerned with the compari
son of personality characteristics, interests, and
attitudes of effective and less effective rehabilitation
counselors. The ultimate goal was to isolate and iden
tify those traits which might be used to describe the
more effective rehabilitation counselors. An orderly
and inclusive discussion of the results of this study
can best be presented by referring to each of the tested
hypotheses.
Hypothesis I: The ME rehabilitation counselors
scored significantly higher on a measure of Shrewdness
(Factor N of the l6 PF). A high score on Factor N is
represented by the following behaviors: socially alert,
exact, emotionally disciplined, esthetically fastidious,
insightful regarding self and others, ambitious, and
expedient. Thus the ME counselors are described as
being more sophisticated and insightful than the LE
counselors. The sophistication enables them to perform
at a more optimal level and to relate better with others
The insight aids them in being more sensitive to and
critical of self and others.
31
32
Sensitivity and criticism facilitate the inte
grating of people•s problems with possible solutions.
These traits also give rise to the detection and correc
tion of mistakes, a characteristic which is necessary
for successful goal attainment.
Although not significant, the ME counselors
tended to be less intelligent (Factor B), more venture
some (Factor H), and less apprehensive (Factor 0).
Intelligence, according to the l6 PF, is defined as a
higher scholastic mental capacity. Behaviors represen
tative of high scores on Factor B are conscientiousness "
and perseveration. The ME counselors' lower score on
Factor B is Interesting in light of the fact that their
attained educational leyel was higher than that of the
LE counselors. However, since several of the LE coun
selors were working on their Master's degrees, and
therefore were operating in a more academically oriented
setting than the other counselors, it might be expected
that they would exhibit a higher scholastic mental
capacity. In addition, an awareness of their educational
limitation might prompt the LE counselors to be more
conscientious and more persevering in their work.
The ME counselors scored higher on Factor H, a
measurement of the shy vs. venturesome continuum. Be
haviors representative of high scores on Factor H are:
likes meeting people, overt interest in opposite sex,
4 33 genial, friendly, impulsive and frlyolous, emotional
and artistic interests, and carefree. The difference
between the two groups was large enough to Indicate a
tendency for the ME counselors to score higher. There
fore, the ME counselors could be said to be less in
hibited than other counselors, a fact which would apply
to their working with ideas as well as with people. As
a consequence, the ME counselors would tend to more
readily seek goal attainment since they are less deterred
by dangers and failures. Uninhibited counselors would
also be less restrictive in selecting ways of solving
problems. In essence, being more willing to experiment
and to work with others at different levels should lead
to a higher degree of success in rehabilitation counseling
The ME counselors also scored lower on Factor 0,
placid vs. apprehensive, than did the other counselors.
Behaviors representative of low scores on Factor 0 are:
self-confident, resilient, tough, expedient, does not
care, rudely vigorous, fearless, and given to simple
action. The difference between the two groups was
sufficient to indicate a tendency for the ME counselors
to score lower. Thus ME counselors could be said to be
less apprehensive and less given to worrying, character
istics which would tend to lower a counselor's effec
tiveness and produce a loss of self-confidence. Conse
quently, relations with others would suffer, as well as
34 the ability to implement those actions which might bring
about successful closure for their clients.
In summary, the ME rehabilitation counselor can
be described as being more sophisticated than other
rehabilitation counselors. The ME counselor also tends
to be less scholastically oriented, less inhibited and
less apprehensive than other counselors.
Hypothesis II: The ME rehabilitation counselor
tended to be more similar in interests to the Librarian
and more dissimilar in interests to the Social Worker,
although this result was not significant. The trend
toward Librarian interests is in agreement with previous
findings. As has been pointed out, effective rehabili
tation counseling is in part dependent upon keeping up
with reported developments in the profession. The ME
counselor's tendency to be dissimilar to the Social
Worker is opposite to the direction predicted. However,
the reversal may be explained in light of the differences
in the roles of these two professions.
The Social Worker generally is more inclined to
deal with people and their problems than with the plan
ning and eventual solving of problems. The Social Worker's
role is to cope with the initial phase, making contact
and enlisting other professions to plan and act, which
eventually leads to the elimination of the problems.
The rehabilitation counselor's role Involves a great
35 deal more planning and initiation of action upon these
plans. Thus, a counselor thinking and operating in a
manner similar to a Social Worker might be less effec
tive in his overall performance.
Hypothesis III: The LE counselor's score on the
Accountant scale was significantly different, on the
aver€ige, from the ME score, although opposite to the
predicted direction. This was the only scale which dif
ferentiated between the ME and LE groups, and it points
out some very interesting aspects of the rehabilitation
counselor's role. From the role of the Accountant,
the ME counselor can be described as being better able
to work comfortably in situations removed from contact
with people. He is also more Inclined to be willing to
perform those tasks which may be somewhat repetitious
and boring to others. Because the work of the rehabili
tation counselor generally involves a great deal of
office work, it would be to his advantage to have an
Interest in this aspect of his role. Consequently, the
more Interested counselor is able to perform at a higher
level and to approximate his overall effectiveness as a
rehabilitation counselor.
Hypothesis IV: Although not statistically sig
nificant, the LE counselor's lower score on the RDS
indicated an Interesting trend in the opposite direction
to that predicted. This result is contradictory to the
36 literature, which had shown the ME counselor scoring
lower, i.e., more openmlnded. Failure of the RDS to
differentiate between the two rehabilitation counselor
groups in the predicted direction may be attributed to
two facts: the prevailing attitude in the areas where
the study was conducted, and a form of projection effect
on the part of the rating supervisors, which originally
manifested itself in the establishment of the two groups.
The region from which the rehabilitation counselors for
this study were drawn is generally considered by sociolo
gists to be conservative and, at the most, to have only
a slight inclination toward a liberal viewpoint. Conse
quently, since all subjects worked within the same basic
environmental attitudes, with reference to openness and
closedness of belief system, the majority of those par
ticipating would tend to score within a small range.
The supervisors, exhibiting the same basic conservative
attitude common to the environmental area, may have
tended to rate higher those counselors who demonstrated
belief systems similar to their own. Thus, the ME coun
selors would have tended to have a higher mean score on
the RDS than other participants, as a result of the
operating belief systems of their supervisors, which was
indeed the case in this study.
In summary, the ME counselors had a higher mean
score than the LE counselors on the RDS, a finding which
37
was in conflict with previous literature. It is sug
gested that this is due to the similar environmental
attitudes from which the population was drawn and/or to
the supervisors* selection of rehabilitation counselors
who had somewhat similar belief systems as more effective
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This study was designed to compare two groups
of rehabilitation counselors, divided on the basis of
supervisory ratings of effectiveness (ME and LE), in
terms of their personality characteristics, occupa
tional Interests, and attitudes of flexibility. These
predictor variables were measured by the 16 PF, SVIB,
RDS, and Supervisor Rating Scale.
The subjects in this study consisted of eighteen
male rehabilitation counselors from one administrative
region in Texas. The counselors had all been employed
for a minimum of one year and had or were working toward
a Master's degree. They ranged in age from 24 to 48
years and in experience from one to six years.
All subjects were given self-administering tests
yielding measures of personality characteristics, occu
pational Interests, and attitudes of flexibility. The
sample was dichotomized on the basis of high or low
effectiveness as a rehabilitation counselor, measured
by demographic data and ratings obtained on each sub
ject from his supervisor. Hypotheses were formulated
concerning the degree of effectiveness, personality
38
39 characteristics, occupational interests, and attitudes
of flexibility of the counselors.
Statistical analysis employed the t-test on the
predictor variables from the 16 PF and RDS and median
test on the predictor variables from the SVIB. The
variables which differentiated better between the two
groups were Intelligence (Factor B), Venturesomeness
(Factor H), Shrewdness (Factor N), and Apprehensiveness
(Factor 0).
The higher rated rehabilitation counselors were
described as being less inhibited, more sophisticated,
more similar in Interests to the Librarian and Accountant,
and slightly more closed minded. They were further
described as having had more experience in the field of
rehabilitation counseling and as being slightly more
advanced in their educational level. The lower rated
rehabilitation counselors were described as being more
conscientious and apprehensive, more similar in Interests
to the Social Worker, and slightly more open minded.
They also were described in terms of the above mentioned
demographic variables.
Limitations of the Study
This study must be considered with regard to the
following limitations: (1) smallness of the sample
(nine in each group), resulting in difficulty in obtaining
40 significant differences; (2) the presence of possible
regional bias, since all subjects were drawn from only
one administrative region; and (3) the Inherent weak
nesses of the rating system employed by the supervisors.
Implications for Further Research
The results and limitations of the present study
suggest the following recommendations for further re
search: (1) The size of the sample should be increased
and should be as randomly selected as is possible. (2)
The rating system used by the supervisors should be
objectified in order to maximize its discriminatory
effectiveness. (3) The rating system should be well
explained to the supervisors and should undergo a trial
run by them. (4) Additional instruments, yielding
similar and additional traits to those found in this
study, should be utilized.
LIST OF REFERENCES
American Personnel and Guidance Association, Committee on Professional Preparation and Standards. "A Statement of Policy, the Counselor: Professional Preparation and Role." Personnel and Guidance Journal. 1963, 4l_, 480-4H5":
American Psychological Association, Subcommittee on Counselor Trainee Selection, Counselor Training Committee, Division of Counseling Psychology. "An Analysis of Practices in Counselor Trainee Selection." Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1954, 1, 174-179.
Brams, J. M. "Counselor Characteristics and Effective Communication in Counseling." Journal of Counseling Psychology, 196I, 8_, 25-30.
Cattell, R. B., & Eber, H. W. Handbook For the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire. Champaign, Illinois: The Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, 1957 with 1964 supplementation.
Cottle, W. C. "Personal Characteristics of Counselors: I. A Review of the Literature." Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1953, 31, 445-450.
De Roo, W. M.. "A Study of Relationships Between Counselor Personality and Counseling Behavior." Dissertation Abstracts, 1966, 27. (6-A), l652-1^5l.
DlMlchael, S. G. "The Professed and Measured Interests of Vocational Rehabilitation Counselors." Education and Psychological Measurement, 1949a, i, 59-72.
DlMlchael, S. G. "Work Satisfaction and Work Efficiency of Vocational Counselors as Related to Measured Interests." Journal of Applied Psychology, 1949b, 31> 319-329.
Fielder, F. E. "The Concept of An Ideal Therapeutic Relationship." Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1950a, 14, 239-2 r5':
41
42 Fielder, P. E. "A Comparison of Therapeutic Relationships
in Psychoanalytic, Nondirective and Adlerlan Therapy." Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1950b, 14, 430-445.
Fowler, T. J. "Counselor Effectiveness in Relation to Role Concept and Psychological Needs." Dissertation Abstracts. 1967, 2]_ (9-A), 2826-2827.
Graver, P. "A Study of Counselors in Selected Industrial, Educational, and Social Service Organizations." Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Northwestern University, 1948.
Horsman, V. G. "Critical Factors in Differentiating Between Effective and Ineffective Counselors." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas Technological College, 1964.
Jones, A. J. Principles of Guidance and Pupil Personnel Work. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1951.
Kemp, C. G. "Influence of Dogmatism on the Training of Counselors." Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1962, i, 155-157.
Krledt, P. H. "Vocational Interests of Psychologists." Journal of Applied Psychology, 1949, 31, 487-488.
McGreery, C. P. "Factor Analysis of-Measures Used in the Selection and Evaluation of Counselor Education Candidates." Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1967, 14, 51-5 ":
Mills, D. H., Chestnut, W. J., & Hortzell, J. P. "The Needs of Counselors: A Component Analysis." Journal of Counseling Psychology, I966, H , 62-64.
Moore, V. R. "A Critical Analysis of Objective Measures and Subjective Evaluations on a Select Group of School Counselor Candidates." Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Illinois, 1964.
Muthard, J. E. & Miller, L. A. "Criteria for Rehabilitation Counselor Performance in State Vocational Rehabilitation Agencies." Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1964, 11, 123-12 "
Patterson, C. H. "Test Characteristics of Rehabilitation Counselor Trainees." Journal of Rehabilitation, 1962a, 2^, 15-16.
43 Patterson, C. H. "Selection of Rehabilitation Counseling
Students." Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1962b, iil, 318-324. •
Rokeach, M. The Open and Closed Mind. New York: Basic Books, I960. ""
Rosen, J. "The Predictive Value of Personal Characteristics Associated with Counselor Competency." Dissertation Abstracts. 1917, il (8-A), 2408-2409.
Santaricca, G. G. "Supervised Experience and Selection of Counselor Trainees." Personnel and Guidance Journal. 1959, M . 195-19 "
Snyder, W. U. "The Personality of Clinical Students." Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1955, 2, 47-52.
Stefflre, B., King, P., & Leafgren, F. "Characteristics of Counselors Judged Effective by Their Peers." Journal of Counseling Psychology. 1962, £, 335-340
Strong, E. K. Vocational Interest Blank for Men Manual. Stanford^ Stanford University Press, I966.
Whlteley, J. M., Sprlntnoll, N. A., Misher, R. L., & Donaghy, R. T. "Selection and Evaluation of Counselor Effectiveness." Journal of Counseling Psychology, I967, H> 226-214":
Wrenn, C. G. "The Selection and Education of Student Personnel Workers." Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1952, 21, 9-lr;
APPENDIX A
LETTER SENT TO COUNSELORS
Box 4505 Tech Station Lubbock, Texas June 17, 1968
Dear Rehabilitation Counselor:
May we enlist your time and effort (about two hours) in gathering data for our Master's theses? We are doing research on characteristics common to Rehabilitation Counselors. The results will be handled as group data; counselors will not be identified individually.
Enclosed are the following tests: Strong Vocational Interest Blank, Sixteen Personality Factor Test, Public Opinion Scale. These are self-administering; please fill them out at your convenience. In order to facilitate the gathering of our data, we ask that you return the packet by July 20.
We deeply appreciate your help. Your cooperation will lead to the successful completion of our theses. Again, thank you.
Sincerely yours.
Jim Crawford Johnny Ramirez Dale Williams
44
w- w- r-
APPENDIX B
QUESTIONNAIRE SENT TO SUPERVISORS
Questionnaire
1. Age of counselor
2. Highest educational level attained
3. Does counselor carry primarily a general case load or is he specializing in a certain area?
General Specializing
Area of Speciality
4. Years of experience
in general fleld_ in speciality
5. Number of referrals (from July 1, I967 - June 30, 1968)
Number closed in status 08
6. Supervisor evaluation (rate from 1 through 10)
2 4 6 8 10 Unsatisfactory Needs Satisfactory Above Outstanding
Improvement Average
Please return this questionnaire by July 20
45
APPENDIX C
PREDICTOR VARIABLES
16 Personality Factors
1 2 s: 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
Factor A Factor B Factor C Factor E Factor F Factor G Factor H Factor I Factor L Factor M Factor N Factor 0 Factor Q^ Factor Q2 Factor Qo Factor Qi|
Reserved vs. Outgoing Intelligence Ego Strength vs. General Emotionality Dominance Surgency vs. Desurgency Superego Strength Shy vs. Venturesome Tough-Minded vs. Tender-Minded Trusting vs. Suspicious Practical vs. Imaginative Artlessness vs. Shrewdness Guilt-Proneness vs. Confidence Conservatism vs. Radicalism Group-Dependent vs. Self-Sufficient Self-Sentiment Control Relaxed vs. Tense
Strong Vocational Interest Blank
Dentist Physician Psychiatrist Psychologist Mathematician Engineer Math-Science Teacher Personnel Director Public Administrator Rehabilitation Counselor YMCA Secretary Social Worker Social Science Teacher School Superintendent Minister Librarian Musician Performer Accountant Office Worker Purchasing Agent
46
37) Advertising Man 38) Physical Therapist 39) Computer Programmer
MO) Rokeach Dogmatism Scale
47
