Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 043 658 TM 000 067
AUTHORTITLE
TNSTITUTIONPUB PATENOTE
DRS PRICEPESCRTPTORS
TNTIFIFRS
Smith, Stuart F.Strong Vocational Interest Blank Scores for JuniorCollege Students in Five Curricula.Alfred Univ., N.Y.Mar 7018p.: Paper presented at the 1970 American Personneland Guidance Association Convention, New Orleans,March 1970
EPPS Price MF-$0.25 HC-$1.00*College Curriculum, College Stueients, GuidanceCounseling, * Interest Scales, Interest Tests,*Junior Colleges, Student Characteristics, *StudentInterests, *Vocational Interests*Strong Vocational Interest Blank, SVIB
ABSTRACTAn irvestiaation was conducted to determine if
students in five junior college curricula could be differentiated bythe Stronci Vocational Interest Blank (1VIB) scores and if suchdifferentiation could be improved by using several scores incombination rather Phan single scores separately. The SVIB wasadministered to 130 students at Alfred Agricultural & TechnicalSchool and the resulting means and standard deviations were submittedto analysis. The conventional overlap method of scaling wassubsequently compared to the non-conventional multi-scale method toascertain the latter's differentiating power. However, furtherstudies based on a larger simple are necessary to adequatelydetermine the effectiveness of the multi-scale approach. (Figures1/4--SVIB Profilesmay not reproduce well due to marginal legibilityof the original copy.) (PR)
a
1970 APGA Convention
STRONG VOCATIONAL INTEREST BLANK SCORES FORJUNIOR COLLEGE STUDENTS IN FIVE CURRICULA
..S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ED UCATIOII WELFARE
OFFICE OF EDUCATIONTHIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCE0EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FPOM THE PERSON OFORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT. POINTS 01VIEW OR OPINIONS STATED DO NOT FAECESSARAN, REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF tOUCATION POSITION OR POLICY
Stuart E. Smith, Alfred University
CO The major objective of the study was to determine if Btu-
13 dents in five different junior college curricula could be differ-pr\
entiated by their Strong VocationalInterest Blank (SVIB) scores.
CD A second objeotive me to asoertain if differentiation between
LLJ curriculum groups could be improved by the use of several scales
in combination as opposed to differentiation by single scales
C) separately.
C)It is assumed that the majority of the readers are familiar
C) with the SVIB literature to the extent that they know that many
studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of the SV/B.(N).to
differentiate fairly wisll adult groups of employed men, and to
a lesser extent, students in various four-year college ourriou-
luma. The effeotiveneet, of the SVIB (W) to differentiate adult
and student groups of Roman has not been so well demonstrated.
Although there is a fairly extensive literature, aommulated over
the past 30 years or 30, concerning the interests of students in
four-year oollegee, e. e,, the well known studies by Strong (1955),
and by Darley and Hagonall (1955), only a few studies have been
published whioh provide data oonoerning the measured interests
of junior college students, Stewart (1966) found that students
in one junior college lcold be differentiated in terms of their
0 interests as measured hi the Interest Assessment Scales. Although0
two reoent studies (Ta;#:or & Bondy, 1966; Taylor & Hooker, 1967)
of the interests of junler college students have been published,
p, 2
differentiation by specific curriculum was not attempted. So
far as the writer can determine, no studies have been published,
other than Stewart's, whioh compare the measorsd interests of
students in various junior college ourrioula.
Inasmuch as the enrollments in the nation's junior colleges
are inoreasing, and in absolute Lerma already constitute a sub-
stantial number of post-high school studentelit would seem desir-
able to describe the characteristics, inoluding measured interests,
of junior college students as well as senior oollege students.
Beoause junior college students have less time than their 4 year
counterparts in which to make decisions about their curriculum
choices, it oan be argued that the need for better information
about curriculum choices is greater for the junior college than
for the typioal senior college.
PROCEDURE
Sample: The total sample wss comprised of 130 junior col-
lege students in five different curricula at Alfred Agricultural
and Technical College, Alfred, New York.* Men students in three
curricula were tested on the SVIB (1966 revision), and women
students in two curricula were tested on the SVIB (q). The
three men's ourrioula were (a) Design and Drafting (N = 20), (h)
Engineering Science (N = 14) and (o) "Agriculture" (Ii = 22). The
two women's 'curricula were (a) Pursing (N = 39) and (b) Medical
Laboratory Teohnioian (N = 35). The students were in the second
year (1968-69) of a two-year program. No attempt was made to
*Acknowledgment is hereby made of the assistance provided by Dr.
George Herrick, Director and Dr. Joan Blankenship, Counselor ofAlfred State College in making this study possible.
P. 3
give the BVIB to those students who had entered these ourrioula
as freshmen in 1967-68 but had dropped out of school or trans-
ferred to other ourrioula.
Analysis of the data: For each of the five groups, means
and standard deviations for each of the oocupational scales of
the BVIB were computed. Tilton's (1937) index of overlap was
used to determine the percentage of overlap for each occupational
scale for each of the three comparisons between men's groups,
and for the two women's groups. Also, on the basis of inspeotion
of the mean profiles, various combinations of several different
scales were selected for multi-scale analyses as opposed to a
single scale, "one-at-a-time" approach.
Results: The means and standard deviations for eaoh of the
three men's groups are presented in Table 1; the means and stand-
ard deviations for the two women's groups are presented in Table
2. The mean profiles for each of the four sets of scores are
presented graphically In Figures 1, 2, 3, and 4. The percentages
of overlap for the men's groups are presented in Table 3; for
the two women's groups, overlap percentages are presented in
Table 4.
The extent to which the three men's groups and the two
women's groups are differentiated by their measured interests
is discussed below.
DISCUSSION
Campbell 0960 has stated that "the statistic usually used
to measure the differentiation of groups by an interest sofas
is Tilton's overlap, which given the percentage of scores in
AMA - 1970TABLE 1
.1.1
SVIB (1966 revision) Means and Standard Deviations for ThreeDifferent Curriculum Groups of Junior College Students (Nen)
--------.-.
SVIBOccupational
Scales
:'agriculture
(N . 22)Mean S.D.
Dentist 37 9Osteopath 33 7Veterinarian 50 5Physician 33 10Psychiatrist 13 7Psychologist 16 6Biologist 25 11Architect 31 10Mathematician 19 10Physicist 21 10Chemist 25 11Engineer 30 10Production Manager 36 10Army Officer 26 11Air Porce Officer 28 8Carpenter. 38 7Forest Service Man 37 9Farmer 52 6Math-Science Teacher 27 9Printer 42 7Policeman 29Personnel Director 13 122Public Wministrater 24 12Rehabilitation Cowes, 18 9YMCA Seeretary 25 12Social Worker 14 12Social Science Teacher 28 9School Superintendent 9 9Minister 1 10Librarian 17 8Artist 33 10Musician Performer 34 8Music Teacher 21 9C.P.A. Owner 15 8Senior C.P,A.Accountant
2219
910
Office Worker 24 8Purchasing Agent 37 8Banker 32 7Pharmacist 35 5Mortician 3.Sales Manager 28 5Real Estate Salesman 39 7Life Ins, SalesmanAdvertising Nan
3028
88
LawyerAuthor-JournalistPresident - Mfg,Credit ManagerChamber of Comp Exec,
3132242472
9,
81 1
9
Physical Therapist 35 11Computer IrogrammerBusiness Ed, Teacher
2527
89
Community Rec. Admin. 25 13.* ....... . 46. 16. .-
Design and EngineeringDrafting Science
20) (N . 14)Mean S.D, Mean S.D.
34 1429 932 1029 1218 824 728 938 1426 1231 1140 1042 1142 934 1542 1242 1223 1340 1235 1039 102 8185
1424 1322 13
1414 1318 8
...11133 1133 1434 1233 1523 1525 930 1429 1023 929 1139 1238 1038 1139 1445 1034 1730112
141;
33 1224 118 1228 1223 1227 5
171514
19 94 1 122 12
0 84 14
21 9 19 1035 13 28 73.) 9 32 820 9 16 101832 11 3 10
21 10
27 7 25 1127 7 25 1159 7 33 1127 8 229 7 32
588
28 6 25 824 8 23 833 6 30 620 5 19 926 9 19 822 7 23 829 10 24 626 9 20 8
215
2729 11
10 103 13 40 1143 10 49 11
21 1229 11
16 24 15
- - --- . Alb
S. E. Smith p.APO,: - 1970
TABLI3 2
SVIB 6) Neanc and Standard Deviationc for TwoDifferent Curriculwa Groups of Junior College Students (Women)
Nursing
(N x 39)ean S.D.
MedicalTechnician(N m
Mean
Lab.
35)S.D.
am. a
SVIBOccupational
Scale
Lusic Teacher 24 13 16 11Nusic Performer 36 11 29 9Artist 33 9 33 9Author 30 11 28 9Librarian 23 9 24 8English Teacher 14 12 12 12Social-Science Teacher 10 11 11 13YWC.:. Staff Member 9 10 8 12Social 'orker 31 9 27 11neychologist 16 11 23 10Ikwyer 13 8 17 10Life ins. Sal:iswoman 13 8 12 9BuyeV 23 7 18 9Bus. Education Teacher 22 9 21 7Stenographer-Secretary 36 7 32 5Office \ ?orker 33 9 33 7elementary Teacher 32 10 27 10Housewife 38 8 33 8Home Econ. Teacher 26 13 26 11
Dietician 28 10 31 8
Phys. 2d, Teacher 30 10 30 9p.G.)Phys. Ed, Teacher Coll,) 14 13 21 13
Occupational Therapist 37 10 33 12Physical Therapist 3? 8 41 9Nurse 34 9 31 12Physician 26 9 34 7
Dentist 26 3 32 6
Laboratory Technician 31 10 41 8
Math-Science Teacher 20 10 30 11
Engineer 13 9 26 10
Sister Teacher 24 10 24 9
Speech Pathologist 30 13 31 11
Computer Programmer 23 10 34 8
0.111 .0.411. AM.. O.. MO.. abe. 4a. 411 aL. mu. de, OWIllwelOIMYYMOMI
POOR ORIGINAL COPY BESTAVAILABLE Al TIME P/LMED
..111.1..
NCS PROFILE STRON
les
01111100ATM
IISTININARIAN
PM TOMS!
mimeo 'PRODUCTION MAN/4M
AIR PONCE omegaCARPIDITIA
PORMIT IMERVIC11 MAN
VOCATIONAL. INTEREST BLANK FOR ME
illifilifflE11111111M21111112111 11111111MINERWNg7TKT'ir/41.141r4.4
; 40 %., :..0.0...6 el 0 pe.1111!'4 *1 .1. A .
..41.44111)Till i:e1 10110.1 .18' **. .
.....i..;...ir.e.r...:..
)VII... .,I .141..iii 1:1'.1,1I I., II, .. 41,1itleac.
, ba a 4 a la:aj 00.1 e a a. .0. .
Pi 41.11a t i 1 l' 4.i? ';14.4. 0 s. VIIf .11*
.*-. ..''onneeiree5eieeete's #
51r174. 551'119.......23...4. r :1.'4:v- a .,,, ''.
.29. :-...: ,.. - ... -:.. O i I ... . I.
AAA ase sow soll.00, Pip.tr p e 411, IA e',.. it e. 41
III 0.........5.,....
4% I 10 e.e 4;6 b.
i 11 .41 li 11.1i1 4.1 40
45IIII41r7L ,5
'W.
/Aiwa, .Astollesuocat 1mA:sit* "if.
la...3POLICEMAN
POICSINSI. DI RUTON
MAW ADM I NI ST RATON
RtHAIIIUT AVON OWNS.
YMCA "UNITARY
SOCIAL WARM
WWI. KWIC" TRAVOIN
110400 SUPCNtsitmovit
MINISTIM
L111114M1,011
ARTIST "MUSICIAN PVIIICAS
RIOS TUVIVIA.
ACCOUNTANT 55.55.OPTIC' WORKS"
PUNCMAIIMS ASINT
6466011'1. 11 .!II, 410: Pols
le,4. I IV
a'4.14..4.411. .4 0
.
4 :JO 411. I .1 ras a 611.a.es
a .1
. I .0!. 10:110:1! . Ie Iup Co: %. 6.:41' 'a's' I,
1'1/1 1).6'11 l 14.: I666 OO , :41 4 4p., /1:11 14, q. e. 4 1 I00000000 oo 554etsolle,,'eae
/ 00000.
Asa Adagio?. ., . . 4
,.44 1'371
'''',1``1"! ?ipi,
4
. oo 000 Y
do was tititkaiNst,se re wear filar al-4
.. j.
1140 4..1 it..
;Oa 'a Ielatt o'11:*
OW
1=1,43131111111111111
SAM MAMA" VI
NtAl MATS "ASUMAN
lint OMAI:WWI/NM NAM
Pit W0r.M111.
1 f
.
I
"s-1
L.
I
AD VIIIp.....,rr"`
P 't .'Y ra.. 0 tilt01/ tJ1
.1.. A . O 1 1 . . . 1.4011.1111 00000000 Iltefe**11111Peesec" ...i:Li .1,.vi.r 11611.e'vettiotIitoiteil-t
it t 1.. I e 4r, 1,4 .....1- 41...kr-f01.- f
111E01 0000000 sip'.o111
SO
jai I .. 6
.32. 00001.6...1 e- '4'. e 41 ': I. I.
alee A i.i l'e's A's'. i's.t.3.5. 0 a 0166251 .1;1.1 101 1. es .' a e" a*
25 * I '11 '''1 $0 ,. ;,, . '.*easy.. t.'be 4.1.....37 ... ...:. .. , .i. .,..-:601. 1 N Ii.... .ili! 1.k...e k . . o .5: N. 8 4.8'1:61.0 1 : 4 ,. ,,, ,.. , ...-
. a ,..a.. e,..i0* 11a. oil,. I. .110, % , s.
X 4 a.1 t b. ,0 0 ? I ele.i. 00000.......11boa...... ...Al ev11.11. Sol 4 e * 0 a VA,
43P6 6...0 .0 ...1.,.:ti',61,4 p 4 1,' ". 0000ION', , r1
. . :, , .i.:.. II .;:.11 t 5.1g .
...; 1, 0.:... I. i is, 1f 1 a i. 't 4
tneteetreettaa1 00000 000000ogee 0 e 1.1 ,1 SI I.4.11111451111410114.1111
.." Il ... $se I ois eA's e'i.; ...el f 5.5 1,6.4 8 411.iii
194 1:61;.111111 :4 i I .':. : 1 e PVs Jel..e4 a.e's a 11-1!0. I II I a s
P 4 4 1r CO 1 . 1'
as
et 6. 4408114t0146thk.. ..?......:' A' :,.'
o o o o 44 I ; 5,.. . 11, .4 p1 0 o oo .6 ..0 .0 r I : 6,614 4 I
t. 0000 4;.!.
, ',.1 .0 :0 .6
...
05 11 1 4,. :t ' eiseeie.00606.011'.16.
; 11 a
.64041
..1%1311115.a G. .0 a es'
L.:4 111f11*.0000000000000 011011410'00
.s116641104
1210ENDI.
203.14 line Agriculture(N 22)
Broken line ncgineering Wog*(11 14) ,
oo 44,
ft -.414
AVM OCCUPATIONAL KALIL
tkrbilf MO WMPIIIM011 0 4;01. UM.POITIIAS TN T
a if 'II
4 p 10 00000 1
4 0000 ,pot-Ieeas.eall
4066.11; 000 000000000000 Ia000 51 te
'a 4 I lie -I 41.0 Iti414 I e 41411111111110
4 . iv 1:se:5esselle..'a oo o as
SUS'S 00000 'est.**teeeees1111.11.46 seaSesteeseetio
1:. 0 01 000I. 00000 t Is'ea a
16455.116ses m 60114 8.4040.66SIM 1
I40:0 465OM" 105ee'ei
e'** e Is ol/ 611.oo I 1
16117tiliVZ At* tf4.4.1k
Pipit* it ilia Profiles f Asrlealture sad Infoinewring %Iwo
eC UPAT1ONAL
MT/,OSTCOPATH
NCS PROFILE -- STRONG VOCATIONAL' INTEREST, BLANK-FOR71 ' ,1.t I 4
31. 4 '7to
0,2 w a
;1:.?...9.AP.!IIi !1!.sarr ft,1641.11' (.. .6,
.33. ; I, .0.7 0% .1. .
grr 1 9: 9. ?it 't !
1,4.10 . I 4;4 II
29.1:13°.I
23 . 4 .5.0 11.
11.. O.;.139. . II .e 000 o
.313. . 4.,4411,511,38. LI's 5 5
10
nArr .4 ol.6 r.1 ie.'. it
5. if
WitflINARIAN
PSYCH CLOCilSIT
7
li
It
it14
IT
IS
N
Cl
II
ri14
101.001111
ARCHITECT
MATH t NATI* N
PHYSICIST
C HtiA 1St
ENISINCER
III P*001./CT ION MANABLR
ARMY 0111CIER
AIR FORCE OFFICLN
CA RINDITtfl
1107NE1T StRYiet VAN
IPA ritot
MAT NSIIENCt
EN
A
$ 441 9, pp.! OOOO O
.sat..0.11:116.0.:::.'11* 4,1 :64;11.
I
6 1 511 .; s a
5. , r1 II I ..64
6' ' 6 V+. 444444440pf,.':
. 44 S I6 1 o l 44 oo
I I s:.I ;
$ .1 I.5 f b. iv a
30:,..;e: 4 '. 54$., Sie Oh 15.6., 5
___....... .39 . 1 . 04...ritAvitA 35.* silo if, .
.....N 6.4,4. 14. 6 91 8.11 10; 411,0A ,
.3 .3 ....:. 0 I I. 4 Ird .;.45 to-..25.- .2
?
7114SONINTI. 0 t littl'Olt 411.....1.8 .. . : e. .; . ,,,, ..,:.... 6
Witte ADMINISTRATOR 24... 28. .... ... .. 00000Ai:HAIM/TAW* Mount 22. ot10, I a .. i
?YMCA StCRITARY Si.. a.., .1,
..1114 ...17. . . . ..........soCtiL ScitrItt 1 tACHt/1
areal inotiaVt.. ...........
,..i.g.SCHOOL im .14...
'1.3111 0" 1.0 000
1110
51
i!i6 4
o 11
1 'sOD. 0000 00000 )
oo
NNNit
PO4.ICIMAN
SOCIAL. WOR110111
MINIiTLR
LIBRARIAN
ARTIST
MUSICIAN
ok . 1 41 ip
35...2.1..1. ; o'PlAtomM tit
#0.110 gAtomi A:L4A .
le if ..11# e"3 2. 35 . 1 1 . . . . . r .
25 .61 VIellei%25. ! . f. a
..I. P -.
6
I a 3 11 I
St 545 l A. tlifffitol
ttPtiOli C.P.A.
N ikCCOURTANt
I OPTICS ITORRIth
. o 55711orr41
t t '"41'.
Is
a
44
N4
4
tiff
Pit A PIMA! 1ST
MORTICIAN
SALES MAJ4.110111
tit Aft tuttiiAN_ 31.LITE INS. tAIt/MAN
Atvtlitittigi MAN
AVTHORlpURllALit?
*.'4C-"
1::(3--°*11.,' 1', .-.4A.1f t;11-fi
1,3 00000 000 1.55011 11 I
- 41 t
I 1 6 l000000.
41
:-. . VII -ifir"-", ---1 *. .5.566. ..4;:--.. )4,11.. 6k...6. .14, .1. i t. , . 15,1): 1
' .a ".2,ois : O.: ..,.. ..t, 1 1 5 / .. '' . . T-L".4 c -... ",...-,1 r oo4...... 4sr. -.. A.
,,..-_, .-.. #.32. 5 , 3 41 .' ..4 . r !.. I . ' 00 Vt -i,-7::::.,:sl..
6 4 I 41 I 1 4 1)099 `IL .1254st 1 .P. 41.! -6...441114
16; .1.11, 6. .f.as.. it 10 14:
49. . a %I i 5 .1 I . , .14 . . 1-73V
19. 6 4,011 1 I 9! '1..1% .. 11.6
. ,k li. 'IA'. p' 11 , ,: 41. I:- 1
AL ,4 11.11 11 4. 000000000 1.. it to
), 11. 4- 4 4 1 000 . oo ' 'S . b,. .
3/194 01 4 I 41. '11 tt :4 1 8. 1
E i g a I. O . t 4 4 5 4 ' 5
tiks 1° if:11 i il 1 :1 t . MOO8.Y41141-'ili'4.1111,'14116111
., : 1 :T, :..
. . . . . .111011/1111001.r""###
' .
I I "'
P. ! o
o o o .. 6, i6 01 5.11: A
I. 4. .11 .5i oo oo.
.11.11 11,4 411.4
' oo1
oo NI I I .11 45 .110.00000000 6,6
tlat 000000000000 444115144111
ir14146:4 YONP.4.11-1,,1- a tt'..C1.if 1 r4=, VD', 417i '
I.1110/ 1
0 0 II 0 0000000 0 011114(6) 1. i w.
.1.Ir--9 I 5
. 4141114341.0-6: .,%.1tA'tl :i ' 4 '7
i 4....'-.7iTP104-i 4111145,4..,0-- ell OW 11013110610.0
exAM INA Of 1:010.
00041110.iiii
ttAtititinsietv tC.. AOWIN
tot
o 000 oo ,gs, .6.741 .! 1,6 000001 1 - ,I. o 1 oo $.4 '11 5
o
5
.!r
6
dr
) I
1,, ,s-Virp Ivt 14 elk.%151 1
IPSI..S1..,.41515,40 . . :. 4 I
4 9 lie (.1456~4160,516585.45000/14.410.4/81".44 . ..041.00 0)4501.6040.11511. A
sei aamaso11.14.111111141
Is Soso Profiles for 20 WWI eal en.1 1.4 te.,Tbsserisi
14.14M
It
NCS PROFILE-STRONG VOCATIONAL INTEREST BLANK - FOR MEN*c+OCivrAtliONAL SCAM X1,.. 1.4 C a' 4
"'run 6 34 ..... . "Ogrimani TA 00 . . 5. "
h".
.. ...OrThika.itiAM ev .16.11.11 ;11 '61%1 J14. .... iPellrfeLAN
PlYCHIATAIIIT
1liereOl4361111
11101.0411111
Ai/tat/reel
:!.16 :;:-6444 @111,0 .111-
... 11
1011 .. .. I. .. ..... I
.1. ;i
. .... .. . . .le
049.711t6tATICJAM
atICl/13
;. 16 . 64 o
21 31 .
I. . i1.1111.- 11.: ;tag .1 1'11
Ku ...At 11 110 I
4 II 4 l,174;11 i $ I,s..59 ..... .. , .... 4,
23.
11.. . 6. 0.. 14 4. . 1 .: .
.... .. . 4.11' '41. a. . .. 1.4114111414:4
II. ......-a Z1A6 ..... .
8/
'0
to
.1
as
4
AIA remC10.222cire
1ST Ille111/70114APi
PARIlelle
siAtatIcatyeft riAtion
1 cm...0:2 ham
... .... ... 114 4I ' oleo' ......... ,;ei,11 6
V) te.4 . ... ..... ...
,....... *.4 .11 *4
..... ......11 11 a
1.4.11 4;.11 .... . . ... I
10 a33. 111. . ...... a 11
L .39. . . . Atto21/421 21. buteCtal
PrObak AD2InalualAire
AtHAburAti021 DOOM
VoleA etCAttTARt
2422,124. wellitta
116CAL 110002 TtAatat
fiSatlIell7404NT
Hien*312AAAtAlel
AATIiT
At1/$1CtAN irdatoOt welt
21ci SIC TeAalik
a: ota+Irt
,e"' s' .11.! 4.6 1
ler
11111110011,4 real=Of . . ,
1
,
Bolikline is Agrioulturi . 1
. (t 22) . ,
Broken line WW1 end DreitiPtNis 20
11 .....el. WON
21 .... .. 11
.dl
1 I'I . 4 4
114.5NN Ott11PAI104/1101/11
411:1i*. i 60.11'444 41;-* 144, .
-11 a I, ; I: t 11... AO 0 I ... .0,1!:. 8,114. 0.10. 1 .1111.1i ..... 6.'81
1'0 " ;$1.4111 1 31 *1911 .......
y*,VI I1'1 11 CO 1
; . .fl - 1;1 a ' .
' Lat for ati .1 ,,iI I 0,;;11 IV 11 *..6
11 . a a a 1'. a'11 ki!
6..
.... ..
I
e a 1-
1
O 9111 1 0' 11 1.11
... . ..../ a
. . 04...... .: . I 1.I 11. ... .. .11 I ...
.11
et'iliet;111, 1!811.. * ... .. *
IN,. . .110 44,
.4 I' : l I ie. a I.: 4ro!4'ori. ..:..... 111 .....
.11010.441.116.4641.4.444.4.a..".44......4.41. ^AA.% .0. a., ..a.)4
06-,PN
I?. . . a a
4..+1'a.. . so4,, :a 41101141a1'4.14
4.M M r
a' s I . ott 4 1 I 441 1 4
i ; 1' el 4 *4troortItt/... ..... it
IA 446.4: 5 I.% 01 a 44'fi.lit*i: 6i4./ VP. 0- .44... I
neat 31 *a Profiles tee 22 Age.ieeXtve.: wt. 20 Deli* etei Wetting'WW2
NCS PROFILE STRONG VOCATIONAL INTEREST BLANK FOR WOMENC An061#4. ICA1.II C+ 8+ A
le 4I MV ItAC14.11 ........ il'o11 000011.10MuiC 0111/00A11
l AloftAvIm011
1,41041.
.16
2i ig.................
Ali. .....Imam, IIACHIOA ICIAlICONCITIAC40 LI 39
YWCA HAIL Atmyil 8 9wal..wymmPINWMGOIlt
LAWTU
. LFdglfD
U._ ....... ..16
IV WNW tAtIlwOmANY IvIts 1 .23
DVI IDuColION memo _21 .22.---------IlfIrOCAArNit4/COttAlry 32 36. . . . a ............*MCI w001.1
I
.4 4:4 44.{
Solid line d Med. 141). Tecinician
Of r 35)
Broken line Runt*9, 39)
.....V e ItImINIAlt IIACmIt _27 32 . . . .
38. .
26.28
mOvIAWVI
WWI ICON. IIACsIO
ONIICIAN
Pon I D. IIACktil 04.11
PNtl.ID.11 AC1 It ICOW
creel/PAW:40A INUAMl
PtnIC At 114YAIISt
MAWONIICiA/4
t4 .............. N.4.1O 0,
/.~.1,0 41
..
:1:70444ft
444
4$ .....10 GO4.
C4r1Wil
tAboes.tort nemoca.MAIN1444C. WOO10/010tit
4.0CCJ/iUIttl IIAC411MINN PAI44X004I
COUNItt GOCKWAIAAlt
.0*4141.61
I. _1 .4= 4
1 r e
* II
.
11.i.ibli111.
GO
e
el 1 slb
4...oo
. 1 1 ..... 11.0. 60 0
.......... D o e ....... .
4091,00CVOGIVWX1. IC kW
point Pima 41
*r1IM A/CII
L_J E.= L-2-3 ED,Neon Profiles for 35 Medleal Laboratory taobnioions andStudents
39 Horsing
S. E. Smith p. 10APGA - 1970
.111
TABLE 3
PERCENTAGES OF OVERLAP BETWEEN THE THREE MEWS GROUPS
SVIBOccupational
Scales
Agriculturevs
EngineeringScience
Design andDrafting
vsEngineering
Science
Agriculturevs
Design andDrafting
Dentist 84 97 89Osteopath 100 85 81Veterinarian 33 93 28Physician 100 88 86Psychiatrist 65 78 76Psychologist 59 95 68Biologist 84 92 88Architect 92 71 78Mathematician 83 89 75Physicist 69 93 65
Chemist 53 96 44Engineer 69 84 54
Production Manager 91 84 74
Army Officer 59 87 76
Air Force Officer 35 89 48Carpenter 87 84 83
Forest Service Man 70 80 53Farmer 47 97 51Math-Science Teacher 45 64 66
Printer 62 78 86policeman 80 96 81
Personnel Director 84 100 85
Public Administrator 87 87 100
Rehabilitation Couns. 81 97 83
YMCA Secretary 100 89 87Social Worker 91 91 100
Social Science Teacher 62 95 55School Superintendent 96 86 80
Minister 91 94 96
Librarian 91 91 86
Artist 77 73 93Musician Performer 90 81 91Music Teacher 78 83 96
C.P.A. Owner 74 87 86
Senior C.P.A. 52 88 62
Accountant 76 91 62
Office Worker 96 91 87
Purchasing Agent 85 74 90
Banker 62 90 80
Pharmacist 83 83 62
Mortician 36 92 43
Sales Manager 67 92 73Real Estate Salesman 46 80 62
Life Ins. Salesman 5 94 74
Adverti..,!ng Man 66 67 91
Lawyer 62 94 54
Author-Journalist 61 76 87
President - Mfg. 80 72 90
Credit Manager 78 88 97
Chamber of Com. Exec. 100 92 91Physical Therapist 78 81 97
Computer Programmer 23 76 32
Business Ed. Teacher 92 93 100
Community Rec. Admin. 97 91 78
S. E. Smith. APGA - 1970
TABLE 4
PERCENTAGES OF OVERLAP BETWEEN THE TWO WOMEN'S GROUPS
p. 11
SVIBOccupational
Scales
Medical Lab.technician
vs
Nursing
Music Teacher 74Music Performer 73Artist 100Author 92Librarian 95English Teacher 93Social-Science Teacher 97YWCA Staff Member 96Social Worker 84Psychologist 71Lawyer 83Life Ins. Saleswoman 95Buyer 75Bus. Education Teacher 95Stenographer-Secretary 75Office Worker 100Elementary Teacher 80Housewife 75Home Econ. Teacher 100Dietician 87Phys. Ed. Teacher (H.S.) 100Phys. Ed. Teacher (Coll.) 79Occupational Therapist 66Physical Therapist 80Nurse 87Physician 62Dentist 67Laboratory Technician 58Math-Science Teacher 63Engineer 50Sister Teacher 100Speech Pathologist 97Computer Programmer 55
p. 12
one distribution which can be matched scores in the other
distribution." Although Strong (1959) used the percentage of
overlap measure in reporting on the validity of his scales,
and Campbell (1968) has used it to compare the effectiveness of
two recently developed scales, there does not seem to be a fixed
percentage of overlap which is accepted as the criterion of
"good separation." In one discussion of overlap, Campbell (1966,
p. 34) states that the Physicist scale separates "rather well"
chemists from physicists on the basis of a percentage of overlap
of "roughly 55 percent." This percentage of overlap (55%) has
been used in this study to indicate "the criterion for good sepa-
ration." In other words, if on a given scale, Group A's scores
overlap Group B's by 55% or less, Group A is said to have dif-
ferent measured interests than Group B.
The Agriculture students have different measured interests
from the Design and Drafting students, and from Engineering
students. The Agriculture students' scores overlap the Design
and Drafting students' scores 55% or less on the following ten
scales: Veterinarian, Chemist, Engineer, Air Force Officer,
Forest Service Man, Farmer, Social Science Teacher, Mortician,
Lawyer, and Computer Programmer. The Agriculture students over-
lap the Engineering Science students 55% or less on the follow-
ing ten scales: Veterinarian, Chemist, Air Force Officer,
Farmer, Math-Science Teacher,Senior C.P.A., Mortician, Real
Estate Salesman, Life Insurance Salesman, and Computer Programmer.
On the basis of percentage of overlap, the Design and Draft-
ing studensts and the Engineering Science students have similar
P. 13
measured interests. As ocm, be seen in Table 3, 23 of the 54 scales
overlap 904 or more. Thq scale with the least overlap (64%) is Math-
Science Teacher.
The Medical laboratory Technician and Nursing students have
similar measured interests on 32 of the 34 scales. On the Engineer
scale, the overlap is 504; nn Computer Programmer the amount of overlap
is 554 (see Table 4).
At this point, it should be noted that the sample sizes, especially
for the three men's groups. are small. Many of the differences presumably
are the result of considerable chance factors. On the other hand, there
is some evidenoe that sugg$sts that the mean scores for these samples
are quite stable. The Agriculture and the Design and Drafting means
were compared with mean scores obtained for Agriculture and Design and
Drafting students who were 'ested under comparable conditions the
previous year (1968). For the two Agriculture groups, on 48 of the 54
scales, the difference betroan means was 3 points or less; the largest
difference was 7 points. In a like fashion, the 1969 Design and Drafting
(N = 20) means were compare0 to a 1968 sample (N = 44). For 48 scales
the mean difference was 3 points or less; the largest difference was 6
points,
For the women, no comparison sample of Alfred students was avail-
able. A comparison with another two-year college sample of nursing
students indicated that the profiles were very similar.
The overlap method of comparison, as used in this study,
compares one scale at a time versus a multi -scale or Alonfigural"
approach. A multi scale approach was used with several combinations
of scales to ascertain if this method could "differentiate
ID. 14
better" than the conventional overlap method between the respec-
tive pairs of groups. The results of a study by Dunnette (1957)
suggested that scoring keys based upon an inspection of mean
differences (versus scoring keys developed by item-analysis)
could be developed.
In the present study, the multi-scale analysis was applied
only to the Design and Drafting and Engineering Science compar-
isons. Based essentially upon percentages of overlap, several
different combinations of scales were tried. Two such combina-
tions are reported in this paper. A "Design and Drafting key,"
based upon the differences between the Architect and Biologist
scores, was used. For the "Engineering Science key," President,
Mfg., and Computer Programmer scales were used.
The Design and Drafting key, developed upon the 1969 sam-
ple (N = 20), "correctly identified" 15 (75%) of the 20 Design
and Drafting students. The same key, when applied to the Engi-
neering Science scores, "incorrectly identified" 4 of the 14
Engineering Science students as Design and Drafting students.
The Engineering Science key was not as effective; 9 (64%) of
the 14 Engineering Science students were correctly identified.
When the Engineering Science key was applied to the Design and
Drafting students, it incorrectly identified 5 of the 15 as
Engineering Science students.
The Design and Drafting key was cross-validated on the 1968
sample of Design and Drafting students (N = 44). Twenty-nine
(66%) of the 44 students were correctly identified. The Engi-
neering Science key was also applied to the 1968 Design and
P. 15
Drafting sample. Eleven of the 44 students were incorreotly identified
as Engineering Science students. No sample of Engineering Science students
was available for cross-validation.
In the writer's view, the differentiation resulting from the applica-
tion of the two spools' keys, each based upon only two soales, was fairly
good, In other words, although the Design and Drafting students were not
differentiated from Engineering Science students on the basis of conventional
scale by scale comparisons, a multi-scale, or "oonfigural, approach pro-
duced fairly good differentiation. Obviously, studies based on larger
samples are needed to determine tho effectiveness of the multi-scale
approach.
SUMMARY
Means and standard deviations for students in five different junior
college curricula were presented. Measures of overlap were also presented.
A non-conventional multi-scale approach was discussed.
REFERENCES
Harmon, L. E. & Campbell. D. P. Use of interest inventories with non-professional women: stewardesses versus dental assistants.aurzaloljaunielingayeliology, 1968; 15, 17-22.
Campbell, D. P. lignualgotnng Vocational Tnterest Blanks.Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1966.
Darley, J. G. & Hagenah, T. bratianalWarStALEMBSV92111Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1955.
Dunnette, M. D. Vocational interest differences among engineers employedin different functions, gPurnal of Applied Psvoboloav, 1957, 41,273-278.
p. 16
Stewart, L. H. Characteristics of junior college students inoccupationally orientediqurricula. Journal of CounselingtayshRlom, 1966, 13, 46-52,.
Strong, E. K., Jr. Manual - Stronj Vocational Interest Blank.Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1959.
Strong, E. K., Jr. Vocational interests 18 yearsafter college.Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1955.
Taylor, R. G. and Hecker, D.L. Interest and intellectual indioearelated to successful and non-successful male collem stu-dents in technical and associate degree programs. UnitedStates Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1967.
Taylor, R. G. and Bondy, S. B. Interest patterns of male tradeand industrial and collegiate technical graduates. Voca-tional Guidance_auarLarly, 1966, 14, 57-60.
Tilton, J. W. Measurement of overlapping. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 1937, 28, 656-662.