Upload
hoangkhanh
View
213
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
A STUDY OF THE RJMflONSHIPS BETWEEN Till WliCHSLER-
BELLEVTJE INTELLIGENCE SCALE AID THE
KODr,R PREFBRSICS RECORD-
APPROV,
jor* Profeafeor
norrrofesaor
l3iroctor of the Department of Mucatldn
it© School aduate n of t
A STUDY OF SIS REMT10IS11PS BETWEEN THE WECHSLSR-
BBLL3VUE INTELLIGENCE SCALE AND THE
KIJDER PREFERENCE RECORD-
PERSONAL
THESIS
Presented to the Graduate Come il of the
North Tejoaa Stat# College in Partial
Fulfillment of the Requirements
For the Degree of
MASTER Of ARTS
By
1798sG
Dorothy Carae, B. A*
Baytown, Texas
August, 1950
N. T. S. C. LIBRARY
179886
TABLE OF OOHTEITS
LIST OF TABLES. . . Iv
Chapter 1* INTRODUCTION , . , 1
General Statement 8pecl£ic Problems Definitions Descriptions of Testa Delimitations Heed for Study Related Studies Procedure In Collecting Data
IX. EVALUATION OF TfIB INDIVIDUAL WECHSLER-BELLEVUE SCORES , 8
III. EVALUATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL KlIDER . PRKFERENCB RECQRD-pfiRSOML SCORES 27
IV. RELATIONSHIPS B1TWSE1 TBI WECHSLSR-BELLEVUE IHTELLI &ENC E SCALE, FORM I, AND THE KHEER PREFERENCE RECORD-PERSONAL. * . 51
V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. . . . 54
Summary Conclusions
APPENDIX*
BIBLIOGRAPHY". 62
ill
List & tm*m
SNMMNMI 98 V®fbftl A#%## mBMifS&il 11181! #̂ iU. iSMHnJii Jt-#W» • • • • • •
2« Ave*#,.?* 'PerfawnBao# for Utetlm Sfsn# * • » « • • *
3* f%ftn4;# of IMInMitsI Ff*®f#s4«fi# 3e$r#fi ea the £lve Aetlvltl** of tli# &a&NPr imtmmmm
4# S « iaevlakJU-tie Befci»eii tfco iialw ir3»fer«s« and ulrl# i s fcti# ^ lo«avi l ie
3t»t* School far Cirla *t iiflixsa.svXXle, i©XAB • « « • » • • • » • • » • • « « • * • • • •
5* Smmwy #f Fiaetisg® as tern tf»ah*X;3r<*i}eli«vue Xnt4llis»xMM* Sc#i« and the iCttt#r tmt+rmse* fWlC ©IVi"*!1 ara033&X * » • • » * * « * • * « * • • •
fi# StJiaiijf? ©f Dmta mt th& XatellIgaaea Sesl# and th» S«4#^ imfmmm® R®e#M Msar-iag to M®gtii3l I4V91S • • » » » • * » « » • # » • • • • » • > • • O
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
General Statement;
The problem consists of investigating relationships be-
tween the Wechsler-*Bellevue Intelligence Scale# Form I, and
the Kuder Preference Record-Personal* The data were obtained
from girls In the Gainesville|State School for Girls at
Gainesville, Texas*
Specific Problems
The specific problems of this study are as follows
1* Administer and evaluate the w'echsler-Bellevue In* !
telligence Scale, Form I,1
2« Administer and evaluate the Kuder Preference Record-
Personal#®
3» Determine the relationships between the Wechsler-
Bellevue Intelligence Scale and the Kuder Preference Record-
Personal by correlations.
Definitions
For a complete understanding of the Kuder Preference
Record-Personal, the following terms of the scale are defined
by G» Frederic Kuder:
^Cf. Appendix B, 2Cf. Appendix B*
2
X, SOCIABLE* This scale measures expressed pre-ferences for personal activities of a sociable nature
preference for taking the lead and "being the center of activities involving people:,
2, PRACTICAL. This scale measures expressed pre-ferences for personal activities of a practical nature — a preference for dealing with practical problems and everyday affairs rather than interest in imaginary or glamorous activities.
3» THEORETICAL. This scale measures expressed preferences for personal activities of a theoretical nature—a preference for thinking, philosophizing,' and speculating.
4* AGKiSABLK* This scale measures expressed preferences for personal activities of an agreeable nature—-a preference for pleasant and smootn personal relations which are free from conflict.
5. DOMINANT, This scale measures expressed pre-ference for personal activities of a dominant nature — a preference for activities involving tlie use of authority and power.*
V/echsler!s definition of intelligence is used, i.e.,
"Intelligence is the aggregate or global capacity of the indi-
vidual to act purposefully, to think rationally and to deal
«4 effectively with his environment."
Description of Tests
The Wechsler-Bellevue Adult Intelligence Scale is a point
scale which has been standardized on adolescent® as well as
adults. It is composed of six verbal tests: Information,
Comprehension, Arithmetic Reasoning, Digit Repetition, Simi-
larities, and Vocabulary which depend haavily upon language
for administration and for subject responses and five performance
Frederic Kuder, Examiner Manual for the Kuder Pre-ference Record Personal,' p,'T«
4David Wechsler, The Measurement of Adult Intelligence, p« 3»
teats: Picture Completion, Picture Arrangements, Object
Assembly, Block Designs, and Digit-Symbol Substitution which
require tlx© subject to manipulate concrete materials# Separata
Verbal and Performance I.Q.'s are obtained by summatlng the
appropriate tests and these in turn are combined in an over-
all measurement, the Full I.Q.
The validity of the ftechsler-Bellevue Adult Intelligence
Scale was checked by comparing the results of the test with
those of the Stanford-Binet, Army Alpha, A t e s t s and
other Intelligence Scales. Wechsler reports a correlation of
•32 £ .026 with the Stanford-Binet while other authors report
correlations varing from ,39 £ .07 to .93 £ .01.5
The Kuder Preference Record—Personal is a twelve page,
step-down booklet of preference items arranged in triads.
Item five illustrates the principles
1. Interview the author of the best-selling book
2. Interview the warden of a model prison
3. Interview the Secretary of State
The subject decides which of these three activities he likes
best and using the pin-punch answer pad marks it to show his
first choice: and then he decides which he likes least, and
marks it to show his third choice. The activities in each of
the 504 items are so written as to tap different personal
preferences in activities of social, practical, theoretical,
5Ibid., p. 134.
agreeable and dominant nature, ihero is no time limit, m
there are no right or wrong answers# Profile sheets are pro-
vided on which 'to convert the scores to percentiles and plot
them graphically.
Delimitations
It was believed that a sample would be thoroughly typical
of all girls in the State School; therefore, the number of
subjects comprising the group for this investigation was
limited to fifty who were chosen at random.
Need for Study
The psychologist working with delinquents in an institu-
tional setting is obliged usually to interpret his findings
in individual cases and group studies with the least expendi-
ture of time, energy, and resources. It was felt that any
relationships between the «iechslor-;Bellevue Intelligence Scale
and the Kuder Preference Record—torsonal would be of prognostic
value and would help to better understand the individual and
his personal adjustment* This study is an effort to make a
contribution toward this problem through an analysis of the
two scales for the fifty subjects chosen from the Gainesville
State School for Girls at Gainesville, Texas#
Related Studies
Research has not indicated a substantial relationship
between interests and intelligence; however, Many studies
5
have been aad® Investigating these relationships. ?. H. finch
and 0, 1>, Emazek studied the relationships between success
in high school, intelligence quotients, and personality traits
a® measured by the Bemreuter Personality Inventory. They 1
concluded that, nThe data at hand furnish no evidence that the
Bernreuter Inventory Is measuring any traits that contribute
in any important degree to successful achievement in the high
school.
David Segel and S» !»• Brintle used the total score on the
American Council on Sducation Psychological Examination as a
criterion of general ability and the Strong Vocational Interest
Blank# la the six areas indicated by Strong, they found only
on® correlation, -.32, that could not be accounted for by chance*
fhis was in the area of Purchasing Agent. ̂
Dorothy C. Adkins and G. Frederic Kuder investigated the
relationships of abilities as measured by the Thurstone Test
for Primary Mental Abilities and interest of preference for
certain activities as measured by the Kudfcr Preference
Record. The array of relationships found led the authors to
state that " . . . the interpretation of preference scores as
F* H. Finch and C. L. Memsek, *Th@ Relationships of the Bernreuter Personality Inventory to Scholastic Achievement and Intelligence,* School and Society. XXX?I, (Nov., 1932), 596.
?D. Segel and 3. L. Brintle, "The Relation of Occupational Interest Scores as Measured by the Strong Interest Blank to Achievement Test Results and College Marks in Certain College Subject Groups," Journal of Idueatlonal Research. XX7XX-, (Feb.> 1934)» 445.
indicative of the presence of absence of special abilities is
unwarranted by the results of this investigation.
Procedure in Collecting Data
The subjects for this investigation consisted of fifty-
girls who had bean committed to the Gainesville State School
for Girls at Gainesville, Texas, during 1949 and 1950 because
of behavior disorders. The behavior disorders were of the
type frequently associated with girls in a training school,
such as, truancy, unmanageability at home and school, petty-
stealing and sex offenses. The subjects were chosen at random
from 150 girls who had been coasritted to this institution by
placing the name of each girl on a card and dropping it in a
box. Prom the box were drawn the names of the fifty subjects
used, forty-five of whom were white and the remaining five,
Mexican, The age of this group ranged from thirteen to nine-
teen with a mean age of sixteen. By far the largest age group,
64 per cent, was younger and 10 per cent older.
The eleven tests comprising the Vtechsler-Bellevue Adult
Intelligence Scale Form I were administered to each of the
fifty subjects under the usual standardizes conditions. Scores
for each of the subtests were converted to weighted scores
from the tables provided by Wechsler and the Full-Seal© I.Q.
%)# C. Adkins and G-» X«-. Kuder, "The Relation of Primary Mental Abilities to Activity Preferences," Psychoiaetrlka, V, (1940)* 261.
was determined for s*eh subjeet eg well m the Performance
and Verbal X*Q**0«
Inaaamch as the Kuder Preference Record*~P«rraonal 1« a
aelf-administered inventory with no time limit* the directions
for aarking the Inventory were explained to groupa of five or
eix subjects at one time and they w»re than all jwed to proceed
with their marking* th% score* were converted to percsntiles
and plotted graphically on the profile sheets provided for thla
purpose*
An evaluation was aade of the relationships in each
subjects W«6haler-»3ellevue Score and his Kuder Preference
Haoord-»-Peraonal« the subject*8 Verbal I#Q*# Performance
X*tu« and Full Boale were deternlned as well as the per»
cantile scores in the five areaa of the Kuder Preference Record
Personal*
CMF'i'EE II
EVALUATION OF THJs INDIVIDUAL WE3IISLER-
BBLLEVUB SCORES
A study of each individual's Verbal I.Q», Performance I.Q.,
and Full Scale I»Q. was made to determine whether any signif-
icant differences existed. An evaluation of each subject is
presented.
Subject 1
On the basis of the Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale,
this subject indicates that she is in the borderline group
in intelligence. Her scores as Indicated by the teat are as
follows £
Verbal ! . < * , 7 2
rerformance 1,^ 89
Full Scale I.Ci 77
Subject 2
On the basis of the Vifechaler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale,
this subject indicates that she is in the borderline group
in Intelligence. Her scores as indicated by the teat are aa
follows:
Verbal I.ti 80
Performance 74
Pull Scale I.fci 74
8
9
Subject 3
On the basis of the "tfechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale,
this subject indicates that she is in the average group in
intelligence. Baa? scores as indicated by the test ar© as
followss
Verbal I.<* 105
Performance I.i*..... • 113
Full Scale I , y # 1 0 9
Subject 4
On the basis of the Yi/echaler-Bellevue Intelligence S-ale,
this subject indicates that she is in the average group in
intelligence. Her scores as indicated by the test are as
follows:
Verbal 1,^, 93
Performance l.Q. 113
Full Scale l.Q 103
Subject 5
On the basis of the *l'echsler-£ellevuo Intelligence Scale,
this subject indicates that she is in the average group in
intelligence. Her scores as indicated by the test are as
follows:
Verbal I.q 105
Performance I . Q . 1 1 2
Full Scale I,Q 110
10
Subject 8
On feh.© basis of the Wechaler-Bcllevue Intelligence Scale,
this subject Indicates that she is in the dull normal group
in intelligence. Her scores as indicated by the test are as
foll3wa:
Verbal I.Q, 89
Performance i«q, 37
Full Scale I . Q . 3 6
Subject 7
On the basis of the Wechsler-Dellevue Intelligence Scale,
this subject indicates that she is in the borderline group
in intelligence« Her scores as indicated by the test are as
follows:
Verbal l.Q 68
Performance 1 . Q . 71
Full Scale I.U*« 66
Subject 8
On the basis of the Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale,
this subject indicates that she is in the average group in
intelligence. Her scores as indicated by the test are as
follows:
Verbal I.Q., 87
Performance I,Q,...... 106
Full Scale I 9 5
11
Subject 9
On the basis of the Viechaler-Bjllevue Intelligence Scale#
this subject indicates that she la in the1dull normal group
in intelligence. Her scores as indicated by the teat are as
followss
Verbal I.Q. 85
rerforaance I.i*,...... 95
m i Scale I.Q,....... 89
Subject 10
On the basis of the w/echsler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale,
this subject indicates that aim ia in the average group in
Intelligence. Her scores as indicated by the teat are as
follows;
Verbal I.i4............ 83
Performance l.Q Ill
Full Scale I.Q.,. 96
Subject 11
On the basis of the wechalar-Bellevue Intelligence Scale,
this subject indicates that she ia in the average group in
intelligence. Her scores as indicated by the test are as
foil~ws:
Verbal I . Q . 7 9
Perf orinance I.^»...... 89
iall <bcsl9 I.vi........ 92
12
Subject 12
On the basis of th© Wechslor-Bell3vue Intelligence Scale,
this subject indicates that she Is In the borderline group
in intelligence. Her 3cor03 as indicated by the test are as
follows:
Verbal I.t*,........... 64
Performance I.Q, 89
Pull Scale 1 »Q* 73
Subject 13
On the basis of the Wechsler-iJ-ellevue Intelligence Scale,
this subject indicates that ahe is in the average group in
intelligence* Her scores as Indicated by the test are as
follows:
Verbal 1.(4 100
i-erf ordnance I.h« „«»**• 111
ifull Scale I.Q 106
Subject 14
On the basis of the Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Seals,
this subject indicates that the is in the average group in
intelligence. Her scores as indicated by the test are as
follow®:
Verbal I.Q, 94
performance l.ti....... 105
#ull Scale I.Q 99
13
Subject 15
On tho basis of the Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Seal©.,
this subject indicates that she is In the dull normal group
in Intelligence# Her scores a® indicated by the test are as
foilawa:
Verbal I.Q.. 79
Performance 1,^ 92
Full Scale 1 .Q, 83
Subject 16
On the basis of the iVechaler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale,
this subject indicates that she is in the dull normal group
in intelligence. Her scores as indicated by the test are as
follows;
Verbal I.H 85
Performance I«v*. 92
Full Seal© 1,^ ©7
Subject 17
On the basis of the Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale,
this subject indicates that she is in the average group in
intelligence. Her scores as indicated by the test are as
follows®
Verbal I.Q, , 91
Performance I»Q....... 113
Full Scale 1#Q,....... 102
14
Subject 18
On the basis of the Wechaler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale,
this subject indicates that she la in the average group in
intelligence• Her scores at indicated by the test are as
followst
Verbal l.Q 82
Performance l.Q 108
Full Scale I.<4........ 94
Subject 19
On the basis of the Wechaler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale,
this subject indicate® that she is in the borderline group
in intelligence. Her scores a si indicated by the test are as
follows:
Verbal l.Q.,.. 77
Performance I , * * . 6 1
i-Till Scale i«vi« •***••• 66
Subject 20
On the basis of the ttechsler-Bellavue Intelligence Scale,
this subject indicates that she is in the bright normal group
in intelligence, Her scores as Indicated by the test are as
follows;
Verbal I. si 90
Performance I,Q,...... 125
M l Scale I• Q «,. 112
15
Subject 21
On the basis of the Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale,
this subject indicates that she is in the dull normal group
in intelligence* Her scores as indicated by the test are as
follows 5
Verbal !•(*............ 83
Performance 1»Q, 86
Full Scale I.Q. 03
Subject 22
On the basis of the wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale#
this subject indicates that she is in the dull normal group
In intelligencet Her scores as indicate-; by the teat are as
follows:
Verbal I • w ...... 66
Performance 1»Q....... 104
Pull Seals iW... 83
Subject S3
On the basis of the Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale,
this subject indicates that she is in the dull normal group
in Intelligence. Her scores as indicated by the test are as
follows:
Verbal I.w 75
Performance J.w,....... 90
Full Scale I.Q SO
16
Subject 24
On the basis of the kVechaler-Bellavue Intelligence Seal©,
this subject Indicates that she is in the defective group in
intelligence. Her scores as indicated by the test are as
follows:
Verbal 1.4*. • 56
Performance .,..., 76
Full Scale 1.^.. 61
Subject 25
On the basis' of the Wechalor-Bellevue Intelligence Scale,
this subject indicates that she ie in the borderline group in
intelligence. Her scores as indicated by the test are as
follows s
Verbal I.Q. 73
Performance 1,Q 86
Full Scale I.i; 77
Subject 26
On the basis of the 'ft'echsler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale,
this subject indicates that aha is in the borderline group
in intelligence. Her scores as indicated by the test are as
follows;
Verbal I.Q 81
Performance i.(4* ...... 78
Full Scale I.t* 73
17
Subject 27
On the basia of the ftechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale,
this subject indicates that she is in ths average group in
intelligence. Ear scores as indicated by the test are as
follows s
Verbal X.Q.. 99
Performance I.(4....... 91
Pull Sbcstls X.tj..««***. iJo
Subject 28
un the basis of the ««echaler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale,
this subject indicates that she is in the average group in
intelligence. Her scores aa indicate^ .by the test are as
follows t
Verbal l*tfc. • 96
Performance I.Q....... 106
full Scale 1.v,......• 101
Subject 29
On the basis of the Wecbsler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale,
this subject indicates that ah© is in the average group in
intelligence. Her scores as indicated by the test are as
follows;
Verbal I.'«<,»• 85
Performance 1.*....... 112
Snail Scalo 1.^........ 98
18
Subject 30
On the basis of the Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Seals,
this subject Indicates that ah© la in the borderling group
in intelligence* Her scores as indicated by the test are as
follows:
Verbal I.<* 67
Performance I„Q,» 98
Full Scale I.k 79
Subject 31
On the basis of the Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale,
this subject Indicates that she is in the defective group in
intelligence. Her score® as indicated by the teat are as
followss
Verbal I«<4. « 66
Performance I»Q. 71
Full Scale I»Q 64
Subject 32
On the basis of the Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale,
this subject Indicates that she is in the average group in
intelligence* Her scores as Indicated, toj the test are as
followat
Verbal I.Q.. 92
Performance I.Q*...... 103
Full Scale I.Q 103
19
Subject 33
On the basis of the Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale*
this subject Indicates that ah© i® in the average group In
intelligence* Her scores as indicated, by the teat are as
follows:
Verbal I.<* 90
Performance 1 ,Q. 98
Full Scale ...» 95
Subject 34
On the basis of the Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale#
this subject indicates that she la in the dull normal group in
intelligence# Her scores as Indicated by the test are as
follows:
Verbal I»Q 72
Performance I.Q....... 102
Full Scale I,w,....... 85
Subject 35
On the basis of the Wechsler-Belle vue Intelligence Scale,
this subject indicates that she is in the average group in
intelligence. Her scores as indicated by the teat are as
followsl
Verbal I.ft*. . 88
Performance I.Q....... 93
Full Scale I.Q,....... 92
go
Subject 26
On the basis of the Wechaler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale,
this subject Indicates that she la In the dull normal group
In Intelligence# Her scores as indicated by the test are aa
foilowa:
Verbal I.Q, 77
Performance I.Q 104
Pull Scale I.Q. 89
Subject 37
On the basis of the Wechaler-Bellevue Intelligence Seal©,
this subject indicates that she is In the average group in
Intelligence. Her scores as indicated by the test are as
follows:
Verbal I.Q 90
Performance I.Q. 119
Full Scale 1.^. 105
Subject 38
On the basis of the "Wechsler-Bellevue-Intelllgence Scale,
this subject Indicates that she is in the bright normal group
in Intelligence. Her scor«a as indicated b;, the test are as
follows:
Verbal I.v*. 109
Performance I.Q....... 122
Full Scale l.Q 119
21
Subject 30
On the basis of the Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale,
this subject indicates that ah© Is In the bright normal group
in intelligence# Her score a® indicated by the test ar© as
followa;
Verbal !•(*• ........... 116
Performance i,4i....... 115
i-Nill Scale I.Q 119
Subject 40
On the basis of the 'Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale,
this subject Indicates that she la in the average group in
intelligence. Her scores as indicated by the teat are as
followss
Verbal I.Q 80
Performance 1*0,,.,.., * 116
Full Scale l.Q, 97
Subject 41
On the basis of the Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale,
this subject indicates that she is in the average group in,
intelligence. Her scores as indicated by the teat are as
follows:
Verbal I.Q 91
Performance I . Q , 8 7
Full Scale 1 » ^ » . 9 4
22
Subject 42
On the basis of the Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale#
this subject indicates that she is in the dull normal group in
intelligence. Her scores as indicated by the test are as
follows *
Verbal I.Q... 79
Performance l.Q 85
Full Scale I.Q 80
Subject 43
On the basis of the Weehsler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale,
this subject indicates that she is in the defective group
in intelligence. Her scores as indicated by the teat are as
follow®{
Verbal 56
Performance I. <4*...... 50
Full Scale i.Q, 47
Subject 44
On the basis of the Wechsler-BelleTO© Intelligence Scale,
this subject indicates that she is in the borderline group
In intelligence. Her scores as indicated by the test are aa
foil ws:
Verbal I.Q. 70
Performance I.U...... 82
Pull Seal© I.w 73
23
Subject 45
On the baals of the ¥i/echaler~Bellevue Intelligence Scale,
a aubject Indicates that she is An fell© average group in
intelligence, Hejp scores as indicated by the teat are as
followat
Verbal I#Q 92
Performance I , Q . 9 5
m i Scale I.Q## 94
Subject 48
On the basis of the Wechaler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale,
the subject Indicates that she is in the borderline /?,roup in
intelligence» Her scores as indicated by the test are as
follows:
Verbal I . Q . 7 2
Performance 1*Q*•*«.,« 82
Full Scale I.Q, 74
Subject 47
On the basis of the Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale,
this subject indicates that she is ih the dull normal group
in intelligence# Her scores a© indicated by the test are as
foilovat
Verbal I«Q. 82
Performance I . Q . 9 8
full Scale 89
24
Subject 48
On the basis of the Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Seals,
this subject indicates that sbe la in the borderline group
in intelligence, Her scores as indieatea by the test are as
follows:
Verbal •»»*•••««•» 59
Performance I,Q.*#.»•• 95
full Scale I.Q. 72
Subject 49
On the basis of the Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale,
this subject indicates that she is in the average group in
intelligence. Her scores as indicated by the test are as
follows:
Verbal I,Q**••*••»*»•» 98
Performance I»Q,...... 91
Full Scale I,<i 94
Subject 50
On the basis of the Wechslor-Bellevue Intelligence Scale,
this subject indicates that she is in the average group in
intelligence. Her scores as indicated by the test are as
follows:
Verbal I.Q..,.. 95
Performance I . Q , 9 8
Full Scale I*Q , 95
25
In order to batter present; comparisons of the individual
scores, a summary is presented in Table 1.
TABLE 1
RANGE OF INDIVIDUAL 30ORIS ON VERBAL I.Q., PERFORMANCE I.Q., AMD FULL SCALE I.Q.
Subject Verbal Performance Full Scale I.Q. I • * I.Q.
1 72 89 77 2 80 74 74 3 105 113 109 4 93 113 103 5 105 112 x 110 6 39 87 87 7 68' 71 6© 8 87 IOC 95 9 85 98 i 89
10 0S i n ; 96 11 79 89 92 12 64 39 73 13 100 111 106 14 94 105 99 15 79 92 83 16 85 92 87 17 91 113 102 18 82 108 94 19 77 61 66 20 98 125 112 21 83 86 83 22* 68 104 83 25 75 90 80 24 58 76 61 25 73 86 77 26 81 78 73 27 99 91 95 28* 96 106 101 29 65 112 98 30 67 98 79 31* 66 71 64 32 92 103 103 33 90 90 93 34 72 102 85
25
TABLE 1—Continued
Subject Verbal X# Q«
Performance I«k.
Full Scale X
35 86 93 92 36 77 104 89 37 90 119 10S 38 109 122 119 39 110 115 119 40 80 116 97 41* 91 37 94 42 79 85 80 4S* 56 50 47 44 70 82 73 45 92 95 94 46 72 82 74 47 82 98 89 48 59 95 72 49 98 : 91 94 50 95 98 95
•Wlaxioan
The Full Scale I .Qa . range from forty-seven to 119 with
a mean of 88*2* The Verbal i»<4s. range from fifty-alx to 116
with a mean of 83.6, The jferf orraance i«Q,a« range from fifty
to 125 with a mean of 96*6* I'he results for the total group
are given in Table 2*
f ABLii 2
AVBRAGS PERFORMANCE FOR ESTIRE GROUP
Mean Median S» D*
Full Scale X.Q. 88 #2 89.5 15.5
Verbal I.Q, 83»6 84»5 13.5
Performance 1 98 • 6 98 f 7 14.0
CHAPTER H I
EVALUATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL KtJDIB PREFERENCE
RECORD-PERSONAL SCORES
A study of each Individual's KUder Preference Record-
Personal was made to determine her preferences In activities
of a aocial, practical, theoretical, agreeable and dominant
nature. An evaluation of each, subject's preferences is pre*»
seated, using Kuder'a recommendation that the 80th and 20th
percentiles be used as cutting points to identify high or
low scores*
Subject 1
This subject shows a high preference for activities deal-
ing with practical problems and everyday affairs rather than
interest in imaginary or glamorous activities. Her scores on
activities of a sociable, theoretical, agreeable, and dominant
nature are within the average range• Her percentile scores
are as followss
Sociable . • • . , 75
Practical. # # # * $1
Agreeable. . . . . 53
Theoretical, , , , 76
Dominant . 71
27
28
Subject 2
This subject shows no preference for a particular type
of activity# Her scores all cluster around the fiftieth
percentile and ar© as follows:
Sociable . » . • 58
Irractlcal. • » . 55
Theoretical• • , 51
Subject 3
Thia subject shows a high preference for activities deal-
ing with practical problems and everyu&y affairs rather than
interest in imaginary or glamourous activities# She also
shows a high preference for personal activities of a theoretical
nature and a low preference for personal activities of an
agreeable nature. Her percentile scores ar® as follows:
Sociable
Practical # t * • • 94
Theoretic al. * • # 83
Agreeable * • • • • 9
Dominant
Subject 4
This subject shows a high preference for activities deal-
ing with practical problems and everyday affairs rather than
29
Interest in imaginary or glamourous activities. Her scores
on other activities ar© within the average range and are as
follows:
Theoretical. , . . 69
Agreeable* « . , • 55
Subject 5
This subject shows a high preference for activities of
a social and dominant nature and a . vory low preference for
activities of a practical and agreeable nature. Her percen-
tile scores are as follows
Sociable , , , . ,100
Practical, , , « • 1
Theoretleal, , , , 44
Dominant , • » . 35
Subject 6
This subject shows a high preference for activities of
a practical ana theoretical nature* Her scores on other
activities are within the average rang®# Her percentile
scores are as follows?
30
Sociable 71
Practical. . . . . 89
Theoretical, » • • 95
Agreeable. . . . . 22
Dominant * « . * • ©5
Subject 7
This subject shows a high preference for activities of
a dominant nature. Her scores on the other activities are
within the average range, Her percentile scores are as
follows:
Sociable • • * . • 58
Practical. . • » , 35
Theoretical. . . . 73
Agreeable# • . . . 30
dominant . . . • . 82
Subject 8 '
This subject ahowa a high preference for activities of
a sociable nature and a low preference for activities of a
theoretical nature. Her scores on activities of a practical,
agreeable and dominant nature are v?I thin the average range.
Her percentile scores are as follows:
Sociable . . . • . 94
Practical. . . . . 64
Theoretical. • , . 10
31
Agreeable# . . . . 30
Dominant . • • • * 63
Subject 9
This subject shows a low preference for activities of
an agreeable nature# Her other scores are within the average
rang© and are as follows
Sociable » . . . . 36
Practical* . . . . 67
Theoretical. • « , 43
Agreeable. . . . . 12
Dominant . . . . . 67
Subject 10
This subject shows a low preference for activities of
a practical nature* Her scores on the other activities are
•within the average range and are as follows:
Sociable . . . . • oO
, Practical. . . . . 13
Theoretical. * . • 39
-Agreeable. . . . . 25
Dominant . , . . . 63
Subject 11
This subject shows a low preference for activities of
an agreeable and dominant nature» Her scores on the other
activities are within the average range. Her percentile
scores are a® follows s
32
Sociable . . « . « 65
Practical. • . . . 42
Theoretical. • • * 4
Agreeable# . . . . 25
Dominant . . . . . 18
Subject 12
This subject shows a low preference for activities of an
agreeable nature# Her other scores are within the average
range * Her percentile scores are as follow®.
Sociable 75
Practical, .
Theoretical.
ilgreaable. «
Dominant » .
. 52
• 73
. 12
. 63
Subject 13
This subject shows a high preference for activltiea of
a practical, theoretical, and agreeable nature. She shows a
very Ion preference for activities of a dominant nature. Her
percentile scores are as follows:
Sociable , 45
Practical,
Theoretical
Agreeable.
Dominant ,
. 95
, 85
. 97
. 1
33
Subject 14
This subject shows a high preference for activities of
a dominant nature and a low preference for activities of ©
practical nature. Her other preferences are within the aver-
age range. Her percentile scores are as follows?
Sociable • • • • . 74
Practical* . . . . 10
Theoretical, » * • 60
Agreeable * . » • 45
Dominant . . . . . 85
Subject 15
This subject shows a high preference for activities of
a practical and agreeable nature* Her other preferences are
within the average range# Her percentile scorea are as followst
Sociable .
Practical#
Theoretical
Dominant ,
Agreeable#
* 57
* 84
. 79
. 46
. 85
Subject 16
This subject shows a low preference for activities of a
sociable and agreeable nature. Her other preferences are within
the average range. Her percentile scores are as follows:
Sociable • » » , • 7
. Practical# • . . . 52
M
Theoretical. . . • 23
Agreeable* * # * « 1
Dominant , 24
Subject 1?
This subject shows a high preference for activities of
& practical nature and a 1preference for activities of &
sociable* agreeable, and dominant nature. Her percentile
scores are as followsi
Sociable » • • • • 1
Practical# . , . • 99
Theoretical. » # . 64
Agreeable# » . . . 12
Dominant • » • • • 6
Subject 18
' M s subject shows a high preference for activities of
a dominant nature and a low preference for activities of a
practical and agreeable nature. Her percentile scores are as
follows:
Sociable 72
Practical# » • • » 9
Theoretical. . . . 52
Agreeable# . . . . 8
Dominant . , . . • 92
35
Subject 19
This subject glioma a low preference for activities of
an agreeable nature# Her preference* for other activities
are within the average range. Her percentile scores are as
follows!
Sociable • • • • • 5*7
Practical* . . . . 71
Theoretical* . . . 64
Agreeable. . . . . 13
Dominant . . . . . 67
Subject 20
This subject shows a high preference for activities of
a sociable nature and low preferences for activities of a
practical and agreeable nature. Her percentile score® ar© as
followsJ
Sociable • • • • * 84
Practical. . . . • 1
Theoretical. . • . 45
Agreeable. • . . « 4
Dominant . 52
Subject 21
This subject shows a low preference for activities of a
theoretical and agreeable nature. Her scores on activities
of a sociable, practical and dominant nature clustered around
the fiftieth percentile. Her percentile scores are as follows:
36
Sociable • ,
Practical# •
Theoretical,
Agreeable, •
Dominant • *
• 57
. 52
• 14
• 18
• 42
Subject 22
This subject shons a low preference for activities of &
sociable and agreeable nature# Her preferences for other
activities are within the average range# Her percentile scores
are as followss
Sociable • * . • • 16
Practical* • • . » 60
Theoretical* • • • 48
Agreeable# * * * • 4
Dominant * » , » , 71
Subject 23
This subject ahow® a low preference for activities of a
sociable and agyeesble nature and a high preference for
activities of a practical nature* Her preferences for activ-
ities of a theoretical and dominant nature are within the
average range« Her percentile acores are aa follows
Sociable # • # * * 1
Practical. • , • • 95
Theoretical# • , • 39
37
Agreeable * * • * • 4
dominant * » . * » 49
Subject 24
This subject shows no preference for a particular type
of activity* Her scores all cluster around the fiftieth
percentile and are as follows:
Sociable * *
Practical# .
Theoretical,
Agreeable. #
Dominant . •
* 50
. 65
. 26
. m
. 65
Subject 25
This subject shows a 1 >w preference for activities of
an agreeable nature. Her preferences for other activities
are within the average range. Her percentile scores are as
follows:
Sociable . . . » . 71
Practical. „ • . , 80
Theoretical* . • • 77
Agreeable• « • • • 15
Dominant • . « • • 75
Subject 26
This subject shows a high preference for activities of
a practical nature and a low preference for activities of an
38
agreeable nature. Her preferences for other activities are
within the average rang©* Her percentile scores are as
follows:
Sociable . , . . , 15
Practical. . , , , 92
Theoretical, . . , 43
Agreeable. , , , , 6
Dominant « . , , , 46
Subject 27
This subject shows a high preference for activities of
a dominant nature and a low preference for activities of an
agreeable nature# Her preferences for other activities are
within the average rang©, Her percentile scores are at
follawa:
Sociable . , , , , 55
Practical, . . . . 15
Theoretical, « « „ 58
Agreeable . , . , 1
Dominant . , • , , 84
Subject 28
This subject shows a low preference for activities of
an agreeable nature. Her preferences for other activities
are within the average range. Her percentile scores are as
follows s
59
Sociable . • • • • 82
Practical. . . . . 52
Theoretical. . . . 39
Agreeable. . . . » 14
Dominant * . . . . 52
Subject 29
This subject shows a low preference for activities of an
agreeable nature* Her preferences for other activities are
within the average range. Her percentile scores are as
follow#s
Sociable » . . . . 50
Practical. .
Theoretical,
Agreeable* .
Dominant • .
• 65
. 55
. IS
. 67
Subject 30
Thia subject shows no preference for a particular type
of activity. Her preferences for all activities are within
the average range. Her percentile scores are as foilowe:
Sociable . • > • « 46
Practical. .
Theoretical.
Agreeable# .
Dominant « «
. 76
. 39
. 21
* 87
40
Subject 31
This subject shows a high, preference for activities of a
dominant nature• Her preferences for the other activities
ars as follows:
Sociable . . . . . . 36
Practical* . . . . 79 :
Iheoret ical• • • . 7o
Agreeable* . . . . 24
Dominant 88
Subject 52
This subject shows a high preference for activities of
a practical nature. Her preferences for other activities
are within the average range* Her percentil scores are as
follows:
Sociable # . * . . 40
Practical. » . . . 96
Theoretical. . . . 87
Agreeable. . . . . 65
Dominant . . . . . 24
Subject 35
This subject shows a high preference for activities of
a dominant nature and a low preference for activities of a
practical and agreeable nature. Her percentile scores are
as follows:
41
Sociable SG
Practical. . . . . 5
•Theoretical, . • . 25
Agreeable.. . • • . 1
Dominant . . . . . 99
Subject 34
This subject shows a high preference for activities of
a social and practical nature• Her preference® for other
activities are within the average range* Her percentile
scores are as follows:
Sociable . . . . . 92
Practical. . . . . 92
Theoretical. . . . 69
Agreeable# . . , . 24
Dominant • . . . . 52
Subject 35
This subject shows a high preference for activities of
a dominant nature and a low preference for activities of an
agreeable nature. Her scores on the other activities are
within the average range and are as follows!
Sociable 37
Practical. . . . . 77
Theoretical. . . . 35
Agreeable. . . . . 12
Dominant . . . . . 82
42
Subject 36
Shis subject shows © low preference for activities of
an agreeable nature* Her scores on the other activities are
within the average range and are as follow*:
Sociable « 51
Practical. • . » • 65
theoretical. « » , 23
Agreeable* . . . . IS
Dominant • 24
Subject 37
'This subject shows a low preference for activities of
an agreeable nature* Her scores on the other activities are
within the average range and are as follows:
Sociable . . . . . 68
Practical* . . . . 24
Theoretical. , • # 43
Agreeable* . . . » 5
Dominant • 52
Subject 38
This subject shows no preference for a particular type
of activity. Her scores all cluster around, the fiftieth
percentile and are as follows:
Sociable . . . . . 75
Practical, . * * , 80
Theoretical. . . • 27
43
Agreeable, „ , . . 27
Dominant • . • » . 65
Subject 39
This subject shows a high preference for activities of
a practical and theoretical nature and a low preference for
activities of a sociable or agreeable nature. Her score for
activities of a dominant nature is within th® average range#
Her percentile score© are as followss
Sociable « , « • , V
Practical,
Theoretical
Agreeable,
Dominant •
• as
. 83
• 0
. 58
Subject 40
This subject shows a high preference for activities of
a practical natur«» Her scores on all other activities are
within the average range and are as follows:
Sociable . . . . . 68
•Practical. . .
i'heoretical# •
Agreeable « .
Dominant » . .
» 85
. 31
. 43
. 46
Subject 41
This subject shows a high preference for activities of
a dominant nature and a low preference for activities of a
44
social nature* Her scores on other activities are within
the average range and. are as follows:
Sociable . . . . . 5
fract ical• . . * . 72
Theoretical* . . , 34
Agreeable. * . . . 60
Dominant . . . . . 85
Subject 42
This subject shows a high, preference for activities of
a sociable, practical, and dominant nature* Her scores for
activities of a theoretical and agreeable nature are within
the average range. Her percentile scores are as follows:
Sociable . . . . . 33
Practical•- . . . . 91
Theoretical. . » . 73
Agreeable, . . . . 55
Dominant . . . . . 85
Subject 43
This subject snows a high preference for activities of
a dominant nature and a low preference for activities of a
theoretical nature. Her scores on the other activities are
within the average range. Her percentile scores are as
foilo»as
Sociable . . . . . 58
Practical. . . . . 77
45
Theoretical. . • . 5
Agreeable, , 45
Dominant . . . » , 91
Subject 44
This subject shows a high preference for activities of
a dominant nature and a low preference for activities of a
practical, theoretical, and. agreeable nature. Her preference
for activities of a sociable nature Is within the average
range. Her percentile scores are as follows:
Sociable . . . . . 75
Practical. .
Theoretical.
Agreeable, .
Dominant , •
. 4
. 15
. 4
. 84
Subject 45
This subject shows a high preference for activities of
a practical nature and a low preference for activities of a
dominant nature. Her scores on the other activities cluster
around the fiftieth percentile.* Her percentile scores are
as follows*
Soc iable 65
Practical, .
Theoretics!,
Agreeable# .
Dominant , »
90
47
65
5
48
Subject 4©
This subject shows a high preference for activities
of a dominant nature and a low preference for activities
of a practical and agreeable nature. Her preference scores
for activities of a aoclabia and thaora11cal nature ara
within the average rang©. Ear percentile scores ara as
follows:
Sociable . . . . . 29
Practical. . . . . 11
Ilieoretical. . . . 31
Agreeable, » . . . 11
Dominant . . . . . 98
Subject 47
Siis subject shows no preference for a particular type
of activity. Her scores all cluster around the fiftieth
percentile and are as follows!
Sociable . . « . . 2b
Practical. . . . . 32
Theoretical. . . . 35
Agreeable, . . . . 27
Dominant » . . . * 42
Subject 48
This subject shows a low preference for activities of
a practical and agreeable nature. Her preferences for
activities of a sociable, theoretical, and dominant nature
47
are within the average range# Her percentile scores are as
follows:
Sociable . . . . . 54
Practical. • . . . 13
Theoretical. . . . 47
Agreeable. . . . . 12
Dominant . . . . . 56
Subject 49
This subject shows a low preference for activities of
a practical nature. Her preference for all other activities
are within the average range. Her percentile scores are as
followss
Sociable . . . . . 66
Practical. . . . » 2
Theoretical. . . . 47
Agreeable . . . . £4
Dominant * . . . . 58
Subject 50
This subject shows a 1 jw preference for activities of
a sociable and agreeable nature. Her preference for activi-
ties of a practical, theoreticalt and dominant nature are
within the average range* Her percentile scores are a®
follows:
Sociable . . . . . 16
Practical, . . . . 41
48
Theoretical. . . . 60
Agreeable* t , , , 5
Dominant » . • , • 50
In order to better present comparisons of the individual
scores, a summary Is presented In Table 3:
TABLE' 3
RANGE OP INDIVIDUAL PREFERENCE SCORES ON THE FIVE ACTIVITIES OF THE KUDER PREFERENCE RECORD-PERSONAL
Subject Social Practical Theoretical Agreeable Dominant
1 75 91 76 53 71 2 58 55 51 55 47 3 32 94 83 9 33 4 71 92 69 55 28 5 100 1 44 0 85 6 71 89 95 22 63 7 58 35 73 30 82 8 94 64 10 30 63 9 36 67 43 12 67
10 50 13 39 25 63 11 65 42 4 25 18 12 75 52 73 12 63 13 45 95 83 97 1 14 74 10 60 45 85 15 57 84 79 85 46 16 7 32 23 1 24 17 1 99 64 12 6 18 72 9 52 8 92 19 57 71 64 13 67 20 84 1 45 4 52 21 57 52 14 18 42 22 16 60 48 4 71 23 1 95 39 4 49 24 50 65 26 36 63 25 71 80 77 15 75 26 15 92 43 6 46 27 55 15 38 1 84 28 62 52 39 14 ' 52 29 50 65 55 18 67
49
TABLE 5—Continued
Subject Social Practical Theoretical Agreeable Dominant
30 46 76 39 21 67 SI 36 79 76 24 88 32 46 96 87 65 24 33 66 5 25 1 99 34 92 92 69 24 52 35 37 35 12 82 36 51 65 23 15 24 37 68 24 43 J** o 52 38 75 60 27 27 63 39 7 82 83 0 58 40 68 85 31 43 46 41 3 72 64 60 85 42 83 91 73 55 85 43 58 77 5 45 91 44 75 4 15 4 84 45 65 90 47 65 5 46 29 11 31 11 96 47 26 32 35 27 42 48 54 13 47 12 56 49 66 2 47 24 38 50 16 41 60 5 50
Kesulta for the total group showing the deviations from
the norma In the rive areas of the Kuder Preference Record-
Personal are,presented in Table 4#
so
lABLs €
mm ifeirimums i^jiSb m»,xm»?m&MM, Ali) ;UELS IS fHS W-M1SS?!M,S S M S SCHOOL m
wists Af saisssvuju# m x M
Percentile Social Practical Theoretical Agreeable Dominant
•
/ \ / \
\ / \ / \ I / \ I
50th / t /
\ V \ \ \
I / /
i \ i SOth \ i \ i \
\ / \ l •l \ \
l 1
\ l 1 \ l 1
\ / \ / \ / \
/ \ / \ / \ /
V 20th
— Subjects
CHAPTER I?
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN T1IE Y/ECHSLER-BELLEVOE INTELLIGENCE
SCALE, FORI! I, AMD THE KUDER PREFERENCE
RECORD-PERSONAL
In order to ascertain relationships between the Wechsler-
Bellevue Intelligence Scale, Form I} and the Jtuder Preference
RecoJPd-Personal, the Pearson Coefficient of Correlation was
computed from a acattergram., The Wechsler Full Scale l.i*.
was correlated with each of the five areas of the Kuder Pre-
ference Record.
Scores measuring preferences for personal activities of
a sociable nature ranged from one to one hundred with a mean
of 60.4. A correlation of /.06 was found between Sociable
and Full Scale I.Q.
Scores measuring preferences for personal activities
of a practical nature ranged from one to ninety-nine with a
mean of 60.4. A correlation of -.13 was found between
Practical and the Full Scale 1,(4,
Scores measuring preferences for personal activities
of a theoretical nature ranged from four to ninety-five with
a mean of 45.2. A correlation of /.10 was found between
Theoretical and the Full Scale I.Q.
51
52
Scores measuring preferences for personal activities
of an agreeable nature ranged from zero to ninety-seven with
a mean of 25.6. A correlation of —•06 was found, between
Agreeable and the Full Seal® I*ft.
Scores measuring preferences for personal activities
of a dominant nature rangea from one to ninoty-nine with a
mean of 57*7* A correlation of -*57 was found between Domin-
ant and the Full Scale I.Q. Those r-eaulta are summarized in
Table 5.
TABLis 5
SUMMARY OP PI1DIIGS 011 TUB WECHSI^-ESLLEVUE Iimi«IGSHOE SCALE AND THE XHDii* PBEFEREUCJS EECOIiD-PEHSONAL
r Mean Median S. D.
Full Scale I.C*. 8 8 . 2 89.5 1 5 . 2
Social /»OS .. 60.4 56.1 2 5 . 2
Practical -.13 59.8 65.8 3 2 . 5
Theoretical y . i o 4 5 . 2 4 6 . 5 22.5
Agreeable - .06 25 .6 1 8 . 3 2 3 . 2
Dominant -.37 57.7 5 9 . 5 2 4 . 6
Inspection of the correlations reveals no significant
differences between the tfechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale
and the Euder Preference Records-Personal# In only one area#
Dominant, was there a correlation that could not be accounted
for by chance.
53
It was felt that comparisons by mental levels would prove
more significant. In order to make these comparisons, the
subjects were grouped on the basis of individual test results
according to Wechsler's groupings: Bright Normal (111-119);
Normal (91-110); Dull Normal (80-90); Borderline {66-79);
Mentally Defective (65 and below) • Only three subjects vrere
classified in the bright normal and mentally defective groups;
therefore these two groups were not considered. Correlations
by mental levels are presented in Sable 6»
TABLE 6
SUMMARY OF DATA ON TEB WSOHSLiSR-BSIiaWE INTELLIGENCE SCALE AND THE KUD&R PRiiPERllGfi RSCORD-PEHSONAL
ACCORDING TO MENTAL LEVELS
Social Practical Theoretical Agreeable Dominant
Dull Normal -#09 -*07 -•28 -.OS -.40
Normal -•16 -.25 -.61 -.02 -.49
Borderline -.05 <
-.41 -.22 -.31 —.04
CHAPTER V
SUGARY AMP JQIICLUSIONS
Summary of findings
In the study of the relationships between the Wecfasler-
Bellevue Intelligence Scale* Form Ii and the Kuder Preference
Record-Personal, as determined by an examination of fifty
subjects in the Gainesville State School for Girls at
Gainesville, Texas, the findings are as followss
1» Results of the administration of the Wechsler-
Bellevue Intelligence Scale placed 6 per cent of the subjects
at the Bright Normal level, 44 por cent at the Horraal level,
22 per cent at the Dull Normal level, 22 per cent at the
Borderline level, and 6 per csnt at the Defective level.
2. For the entire cirotip the mean of the Full Scale
I»Q» was 88.2; the mean of the Verbal I.Q« was 03*0; and the
mean of the Performance I„%. was 96,0.
3» Results of the administration of the Kuder Preference
Record-Personal revealed a wide deviation from the norms in
three areas: Practical, Agreeable, and Dominant.
4» Correlations showed no significant relationships
between the Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale, Form I,and
the Kuder Preference Record—Personal•
54
55
5, When subjects were grouped on the basis of Individual
teat results according to Yiechsler'• mental level*, correla-
tions repealed no significant relationships between the two
scales*
Conclusions
An analysis of the data included in this investigation
leads to the following conclusionst
There are no significant relationships between the
Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale, Form I, and the Kuder
Preference Record-Personalj therefore, botli types of data
are necessary for adequate prognosis# fhese data indicate
that evidence of lack of interests in certain areas may give
important clues for vocational counseling.
•v \i * > IV.
WECHSLER-BELLEVUE INTELLIGENCE SCALE RECORD
FOR ADOLESCENTS AND ADULTS FORM I N A M E .
0CCUP._
PLACE OF EXAM.
-AGE_
..EXAM. BY
_EDUC._
-NAT-
-DATE O F EXAM.. -NO. .
_B1RTHDATE_ . C O L O R .
-PREVIOUS EXAM.
TABLE OF WEIGHTED SCORESf
m RAW SCORE "O
Equ
ival
ent
Wei
ght*
S
core
Info
rmat
ion
Co
mp
reh
ensi
on
Dig
it S
pan
Ari
thm
etic
M O
Hi JO E
CO Vo
cab
ula
ry
Pic
ture
A
rran
gem
ent
Pic
ture
C
om
ple
tio
n
Blo
cic
Des
ign
Ob
ject
Ass
embl
y
Dig
it
Sym
bol
Eq
uiv
alen
t W
eigh
t*
Sco
re
18 25 20 14 23-24 41-42 2 0 + 3 8 + 18 17 24 19 17 13 21-22 39-40 20 38 26 17 16 23 18 16 12 20 37-38 19 35-37 25 66-67 16 15 21-22 17 11 19 35-36 18 15 33-34 24 62-65 15 14 20 16 15 17-18 32-34 16-17 14 30-32 23 57-61 14 13 18-19 15 14 • 10 16 29-31 15 13 28-29 22 53-56 13 12 17 14 9 15 27-28 14 12 25-27 20-21 49-52 12
II 15-16 12-1? 13 13-14 25-26 12-13 23-24 19 45-48 11 10 13-14 II 12 8 12 22-24 11 II 20-22 18 41-44 10 9 12 10 II 7 11 20-21 10 10 18-19 17 37-40 9 8 10-11 9 9-10 17-19 9 9 16-17 16 33-36 8 7 9 8 10 6 8 15-16 7-8 8 13-15 14-15 29-32 7 6 7-8 7 9 5 7 12-14 6 7 11-12 13 24-28 6
5 6 5-6 5-6 10-11 5 8-10 12 20-23 5 4 4-5 4 8 4 4 7-9 4 6 6-7 10-11 16-19 4 3 2-3 3 7 3 3 5-6 2-3 5 3-5 9 12-15 3 2 1 2 6 1-2 3-4 1 4 1-2 8 8-11 2 1 0 I 2 0 1-2 0 3 0 7 4-7 1 0 0 5 I 0 2 5-6 0-3 0
SUMMARY
TEST R.S. WT.S.
INFORMATION
COMPREHENSION
DIGIT SPAN
ARITHMETIC
SIMILARITIES
(VOCABULARY) ( ) ( )
VERBAL SCORE*
P. ARRANGEMENT
P. COMPLETION
BLOCK DESIGN
OBJECT ASSEMBLY
DIGIT SYMBOL
PERFORMANCE SCORE*
TOTAL SCORE
'Proration is necessary if four or six Verbal tests are given or four Performance tests.
VERBAL S C A L E 1 Q .
P E R F O R M S C A I f 1 Q .
FULL SCALE I.Q.
tClinicians who wish to draw a "psychograph" on the above table may do so by connecting the appropriate raw scores; however, one must recognize the relative unreliability of these subtest scores when they are thus treated.
TEST ANALYSIS AND OBSERVATIONS
5 0
|. INFORMATION Score
(PRESIDENT)
1 BEFORE
2 THERMOMETER
3 RUBBER
4 LONDON
5 PINTS
6 WEEKS
7 ITALY
8 JAPAN
9 HEIGHT
10 PLANE
II BRAZIL
12 PARIS
13 HEART
14 HAMLET
15 POPULATION
16 WASHINGTON
17 POLE
18 EGYPT
19 H. FINN
20 VATICAN
21 KORAN
22 FAUST
23 H. CORPUS
24 ETHNOLOGY
25 APOCRYPHA
2 . COMPREHENSION Score
1 ENVELOPE
2 THEATER
3 BAD COMPANY
4 TAXES
5 SHOES
6 LAND IN CITY
7 FOREST
8 LAWS
9 MARRIAGE
10 DEAF
3, DIGITS FORWARD
5, 8, 2
6, 9, 4
6, 4, 3, 9
7, 2, 8, 6
4, 2, 7, 3, I
7, 5, 8, 3, 6
6, I, 9, 4, 7, 3
3, 9, 2, 4, 8, 7
5, 9, I, 7, 4, 2, 8
4, I, 7, 9, 3, 8. 6
5, 8, I, 9, 2, 6, 4, 7
3, 8, 2, 9, 5, I, 7, 4
2, 7, 5, 8, 6, 2, 5, 8, 4
7, I, 3, 9, 4, 2, 5, 6, 8
DIGITS BACKWARD
6, 2, 9
4, I, 5
3, 2, 7. 9
4, 9, 6, 8
I. 5, 2, 8, 6
6, I, 8, 4, 3
5, 3, 9, 4, I, 8
7, 2, 4, 8, 5, 6
8, I, 2, 9, 3, 6, 5
4, 7, 3, 9, I, 2, 8
9, 4, 3. 7, 6, 2, 5, 8
7, 2, 8, I, 9, 6, 5, 3
4. ARITh METIC T RorW SC. T RorW SC.
1 (15") 6 (30") 2 (15") 7 (60") 3 (15") 8 (60") 4 (30") 9 (120") 5 (30") 10 (120")
5. SIMILARITIES Score
1 ORANGE —BANANA
2 COAT — DRESS
3 DOG —LION
4 WAGON — BICYCLE
5 PAPER—RADIO
6 AIR —WATER
7 WOOD —ALCOHOL
8 EYE—EAR
9 EGG —SEED
10 POEM —STATUE
II PRAISE—PUNISHMENT
12 FLY —TREE
VOCABULARY 5A. Score
I APPLE
2 DONKEY
3 JOIN
4 DIAMOND
5 NUISANCE
6 FUR
7 CUSHION
8 SHILLING
9 GAMBLE
10 BACON
II NAIL
12 CEDAR
13 TINT
14 ARMORY
15 FABLE
16 BRIM
17 GUILLOTINE
18 PLURAL
19 SECLUDE
20 NITROGLYCERINE
21 STANZA
22 MICROSCOPE
23 VESPER
24 BELFRY
25 RECEDE
26 AFFLICTION
27 PEWTER
28 BALLAST
29 CATACOMB
30 SPANGLE
31 ESPIONAGE
32 IMMINENT
33 MANTIS
34 HARA-KIRI
35 CHATTEL
36 DILATORY
37 AMANUENSIS
38 PROSELYTE
39 MOIETY
40 ASEPTIC
41 FLOUT
42 TRADUCE
RT. Vt RT. TOTAL
60
1V101 •la ZI\ •JL*
L £ 9 P S I 9 Z L £ S P 6 S 9 P I £ 8 Z 6 I s Z 9 .
CO
I P 8 S 6 I 8 Z L £ 9 P S 8 Z L S £ 9 L Z p S I
CO
9 P I £ Z S £ Z P I Z £ I Z I £ S £ P Z I £ I Z ajdureg
— X V o n "i IZ 1/1 —
6 8 L 9 s p £ Z* , * I isai loams usia #0I
6. PICTURE ARRANGEMENT T ORDER SC.
1 HOUSE (|"J
2 HOLD UP (!•)
3 ELEVATOR (1')
4 FLIRT (2')
5 TAXI (2")
6 FISH (2*J
8. BLOCKS
CARD T AC. SC. CARD T AC. SC.
1 (75") 5 (150") 2 (75") 6(150") 3 (75") 7(195") 4(75")
7. PICTURE COMPLETION
1 NOSE 9 HAND
2 MUSTACHE 10 WATER
3 EAR I I ARM — IMAGE
4 DIAMOND 12 TIE
5 LEG 13 BASE THREAD
6 TAIL 14 EYEBROW
7 STACKS 15 SHADOW
8 KNOB
9. OBJECT ASSEMBLY
OBJECTS T PLACE SCORE
MAN (21)
PROFILE |3')
HAND (3')
FOR CALCULATING DETERIORATION (see Measurement of Adult Intelligence, Chapter VI)
"HOLD" TESTS
INFORMATION
VOCABULARY
P.COMPLETION
OBJECT ASSEMBLY
SUM
Score "DON'T HOLD" TESTS
DIGIT SPAN
ARITHMETIC
BLOCK DESIGN
DIGIT SYMBOL
SUM
Score
"HOLD".
CORRECTION.
% OF LOSS (Deterioration)
-"DON'T HOLD" VHOLD"_
% LOSS
AMI- AGE. . S I X . Print Last First Initial M or F
GROUP. DAT! OF TEST
P R O F I L E S H E E T for the
KUDER PREFERENCE RECORD-PERSONAL Form A
MEN and WOMEN
DIRECTIONS FOR PROFILING
REPRODUCTION BY ANY MEANS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
APPENDIX B
1. Copy the V-Score from the back page of your answer pad in the box at the right. If your V-Score is 45 or less, there is some reason for doubting the value of your answers, and your other scores may not be very accurate. If your V-Score is 53 or more?
you may not have understood the directions, since 52 is the highest possible score. If your score is not between 46 and 52, inclusive, you should see your adviser. He will probably recom-mend that you read the directions again, and then that you fill out the blank a second time, being careful to follow the direc-tions exactly and to give sincere replies.
If your V-Score is between 46 and 52, inclusive, go ahead with the following directions.
2. Copy the scores A through E in the spaces at the top of the profile chart. Under "SOCIABLE" find the number which is the same as the score at the top. Use the numbers under M if you are a man and the numbers under F if you are a woman. Draw a line through this number from one side to the other of the column under SOCIABLE. Do the same thing for the scores at the top of each of the other columns. If a score is larger than any number in the column, draw a line across the top of the column; if it is smaller, draw a line across the bottom.
With your pencil blacken the entire space between the lines you have dr^wn and the bottom of the chart. The result is your profile for the Kuder Preference Record—Personal.
The five scores represent the following preference areas: A. SOCIABLE—preference for taking the lead and being in the
center of activities involving people.
3.
4.
B.
C.
PRACTICAL—preference for dealing with practical prob-lems and everyday affairs rather than interest in imaginary or glamorous activities."
THEORETICAL-and speculating.
-preference for thinking, philosophizing,
D. AGREEABLE!—preference for pleasant anci smooth per-sonal relations which are free from conflict.
E. DOMINANT—preference for activities involving the use of authority and power.
5. If your score in a column is near the top, it means that you have much greater preferences in the area than most men (or women). If your score in a column is near the bottom, it means your preferences are much lower than those of most men (or women). If your score in a column is near the middle, it means that you have about an average preference for that activity.
6. For a more exact interpretation of your scores, refer to the percentile scale at the side of the chart. For example, if your mark in a column is exactly half way up, it will be even with the 50th percentile mark. This means your preferences in the area are about average. If your score is even with the 20th per-centile mark, it means that 20 per cent of men (or women) have lower preferences than you and 80 per cent have greater prefer-ences.
1. Your score is not a measure of ability, but rather shows how your preferences compare with those of others. Remember, too, that a high score is not necessarily better or worse than a low score. Some preferences are characteristic of people who enjoy
1 1 ••» * •
80 •
70 •
60 — =
50 •
30 •
10 •
6 1
u O
M
60
59
58
57
56
55
54
53 52
51
50
4 9
48
47
46
45
44
4 3
42
41
4 0
39
""38"
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
"W 29
28
27
26
25 24
- 2 3 -
22 21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
59
57
56
55
ss if 50
n 47
46
4 5
4 4
4 3
4 2
4 1
4 0
39
- 3 8 -
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29 28 27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
B
< u H-u <
M
65
64
63
62
61
60
59
58
57
56
55
54
53
52
. J>L 50
4 9
4 8
4 7
4 6
4 5
- 4 4 .
4 3
4 2
4 1
4 0
39 38
36
35
34
33
32 31 30
29 28 27 26
25
24
23
22
21
20
57
56
5 5
54
53
52
51
50
4 9
4 8
47
4 6
4 5
4 4
~43~
4 2
41
4 0
39
38
"37"
36
35
34
33
32
31
30 37
—29- '
28
27
26
25 24
23
22
21
20 19
18
17
16
15
< u
O IXI X
M
57
56
55
54
53
52
51
50
4 9 4 8 47
4 6
45
4 4
4 3
4 2
41
-40-39
38
37
36
35
34
- 3 3 -
32
31
30
29
28
JZ-26
25
24
23
22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10
9 8 7
56
55
54
53
52
51
50
4 9
4 8
47
46
45
44
4 3
-42"
4 1
4 0
39
38
37
"36" 35
34
33
32
3 1
30
""29"
2 8
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
16 15
GQ <
0 <
M
47
46
45
4 4
4 3
4 2
4 1
4 0
39
38
37
34
33
32
31
. 3 0
29
28
27
26 25
24
23
22
21
20 19 18
17 16 15
73
72
71
70
68
67
~ 6 ~ 6 ~
65
64
63
62
. 6 1 .
60
59
36
-35"j--55'
54
53
52
51
5 0
4 9
4 8
4 7
4 6
45
4 4
42
4 0
38
36
34 33 32
31
30
29
28
Z < z
I Q
M
71 70 69
68
67
66
65
64 63
62
61
60
59
58
57
56
55
54
53
52
51
50
4 9
4 8 4 7 46 4 5 44
43
4 2
4 1
4 0
39
38
37
"36"
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
It 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15
14
13 12 11 10
9 8 7 6
63
62
61
60
59
58
57
56 55 54 53
52 51
50
4 9
4 8
47
46 45
4 4
4 3
42
- 4 1 -
4 0
39 38 37 36 35 34
*33* 32 31 30 29
2? 26
21. 24
22
20
19
18
17
15
14
13
n m Z
90
80
rr— 60
Published by SCIENCE RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, 228 Sooth Wabash Aven.m A ki:—
BIELlOGRAFfflf
Books
Kuder, G* Frederic, Examiner Manual for The Ruder Record Personal, Chicago, Science Research Associates,
Wechsler, David, fhe Measurement of Adult Intelligence, . Baltimore, The Williams & WiXEins Company, 1944*
Articles
Adklns, D, C* and Kuder, G* P., *The Relation of Friiaary • Mental Abilities to Activity Preferences,* Psychoraetrlka,
V (1940), 251-262*
Pinch, F. B* and lemzek, C» L», wThe Relationships of the Bernreuter Personality Inventory to Scholastic Achieve— ment and Intelligence," School and Society, XXXVI (1932), 594-596*
Segel, D« and Br in tie, S. L., "The Relation of Occupational Interest Scores as Measured by the Strong Interest -Blank to Achievement Test Results and College Harks la Certain College Subject Groups,* Journal of Educational Research, XXVII (1934), 442-445. ,
62