AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF A SELF-RATING, SENTENCE COMPLETION

METHOD FOR EVALUATING MARITAL DIFFICULTIES

APPROVED:

(J / j

fjor Professor " J

Minor Professor

Dean of_ the Scnool of Education

Dean1 of the Graduate School

AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF A SELF-RATING, SENTENCE COMPLETION

METHOD FOR EVALUATING MARITAL DIFFICULTIES

THESIS

Presented to the Graduate Council of the

North Texas State University in Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

By

Martha Jane Walker, B.A.

Denton, Texas

August, 1969

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES iv

Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION 1 Presentation of the Problem Purpose of the Study Chapter Bibliography

II. RELATED RESEARCH 5

Chapter Bibliography

III. METHOD AND PROCEDURE 26

Subjects Procedure Chapter Bibliography

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 36

V. SUMMARY 50

APPENDICES 52

BIBLIOGRAPHY 60

i n

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

I. Comparison of Various Marriage Tests 20

II. Means, Standard Deviations, and t Value for Diagnosticians' and Husbands' Ratings of Marital Difficulty 36

III. Means, Standard Deviations, and t Value for Diagnosticians' and Wives' Ratings of Marital Difficulty 38

IV. Means, Standard Deviations, and t Value of Diagnosticians' and Counselees"7" Area Total Scores 39

V. Means, Standard Deviations, and t Value of Diagnosticians' and Counselees' Difference Scores 42

VI. Correlation Coefficients of Counselees' Scores, Area Scores, and Difference Scores with Diagnosticians' Ratings 44

VII. Chi-Square Analysis of Counselees' Scores, Area Scores, and Difference Scores with Counselors' Judgments 46

IV

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Presentation of the Problem

It hardly needs stating that there are numerous approaches

to marriage counseling. It is also obvious that there

probably is more than one type of difficulty in marriage. It

would therefore seem reasonable that diagnosing which kind of

marriage counseling would be best suited to any given type of

difficulty might be a problem long since resolved. A survey

of the literature shows diagnosis for marriage counseling to

be a field abounding with vagueness and inconsistencies.

Pollak states, "While family therapy has become a reality of

practice, family diagnosis has remained a postulate" (6,

p. 15). It could therefore be concluded that research in

diagnosis of marital difficulties is mandatory if other than

an erratic approach to marriage counseling is ever to be

attained (6, pp. 1-5).

Since psychologists have long relied on psychological

tests, it would therefore seem most reasonable that the

development of such tests would be extensive. Once again, a

survey of the literature shows this not to be the case. The

Sixth Mental Measurements Yearbook shows only seven tests for

diagnosing marital difficulty (3). Test developers have long

discussed the advantages and disadvantages of projective

tests versus objectively scored tests. Multiple choice

rating scales are among those commonly offering the most

reliability and practicality (2, pp

allowing great individual variation

low reliability but are much better

variations (1* 5)- The instrument

attempts to combine the advantages

in essence a simple, objectively sc

and self-rating test.

Purpose of the

The purpose of this study is t

method of diagnosing marital diffic

noted that this is an exploratory i

possibility of developing a particu

diagnosis rather than a specific te

method consists of a series of rela

the subject completes and then rate

difficulty. This method was chosen

the advantages of reliability offer

. 19-23)/ while tests

are considered to have

suited to tap individual

used in this investigation

of both approaches. It is

ored/ sentence-completion

Study

o explore a possible

ulties. It should be

nvestigation into the

lar method for marital

st for such diagnosis. This

ted sentence stems which

s as to their degree of

as an attempt to combine

ed by self-rating and

individual interpretations multiple choice systems with those

which are inherent in projective methods (2, pp. 19-22,

54-57; 4).

It is hypothesized that when using a self-rating,

sentence-completion test oriented toward marriage difficulties,

clients' self ratings will be more in accordance with their

counselor's rating than will be such ratings of other trained

professionals. Self-rating, sentence-completion test is

operationally defined as a sentence stem which the clients

complete and then make a "much," "some," "little," or "none"

rating of the marital difficulties projected in that sen-

tence. Marriage difficulties are operationally defined as

the sum of the scores on the seventeen subtest areas which

constitute the experimental Polyfactor Test of Marital

Difficulties. Counselor is operationally defined as the

psychologist or psychiatrist both marriage partners were

seeing for marriage counseling at the time of testing.

Client is operationally defined as a person who has volun-

tarily come to a psychiatrist or a psychologist for marriage

counseling and who was given the Polyfactor Test of Marital

Difficulties. The term client and subject will be used

interchangeably throughout the remainder of this investi-

gation. Trained professional is operationally defined as

those people who are involved in the field of mental health

and have had experience in using the Polyfactor Test of

Marital Difficulties and who acted as judges in this investi-

gation.

CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Abt, Lawrence Edwin and Leopold Bellak, editors, Pro-jective Psychology, 3rd edition, New York, Grove Press, Inc., 1959.

2. Bonney, Merl E. and Richard S. Hampleman, Personal-Social Evaluation Techniques, Washington, D.C., The Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1962.

3. Buros, Oscar Krisen, editor, The Sixth Mental Measure-ments Yearbook, Highland Park, New Jersey, The Gryphon Press, 1965.

4. Cronbach, Lee J., Essentials of Psychological Testing, 2nd edition, New York, Harper and Brothers, 196 0.

5. Freeman, Frank S., Theory and Practice of Psychological Testing, 3rd edition, New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1962.

6. Greene, Bernard L., The Psychotherapies of Marital Dis-harmony , New York, The Free Press, 1965.

CHAPTER II

RELATED RESEARCH

Diagnosing the difficulties in marriage for the purposes

of making accurate predictions and planning successful

treatment is a goal with which few would argue. It is also

one which many have sought after. As early as 1920

scientific studies using questionnaires were being attempted,

aimed at predicting the success or failure of marriage. By

1939 such efforts had grown so large that reviews of research

were appearing in professional literature (27, p. 307).

Since this study pertained to the feasibility of a

method of testing marriages, the review of the literature

has been confined to the factors pertinent only to this

concept in marital diagnosis. No attempt was made at pro-

viding a comprehensive review of current marriage tests in

usage or the areas they attempt to measure, since that kind

of research deals with elements outside the range of the

present study.

It has been observed that tests of marital factors are

used as tools in many marriage counseling centers and psychi-

atric hospitals by psychologists, psychiatrists, social

workers, and a host of other people doing marriage counseling,

as well as in research projects (25). Skidmore and McPhee •

6

(25) have shown the practical use of such tests. They also

list the objections that many authorities give for such

measuring devices. They cite Terman and Wallin as stating

that " . . . prediction tests as yet offer very uncertain

guidance . . . in the determination of one's chances for

marital happiness unless the score is either well above or

well below average" {25, p. 122). Terman and Wallin (25),

however, stand against marriage tests when they affirm that

competent counselors using marriage test results can perform

in a superior manner to those who operate without the

objective standardized evidence provided by such instruments.

Some professionals doing marriage counseling have been

dissatisfied with the current tests available, finding them

to lack sufficient advantages of both objective and pro-

jective techniques offered in other areas of psychodiagnosis

(7). The lack of effective marital tests has also been

stressed by Mathews and Mihanovich (20). Thus, it can be

seen that many professionals see a distinct need for

developing better techniques of testing the factors involved

in marriage. Even Ellis has stated "that effective marriage

prediction tests would have enormous practical value is

indubitable" (10, p. 710).

Many authorities have found that marriage tests are of

dubious prognostic value (28). This is particularly true of

objective tests when compared with projective tests. In the

discussion following Adams' article on evaluating marriage

prediction tests, the following statements were presented:

. . . if the last twenty-five years of clinical psychological practice have demonstrated anything, they have clearly shown that paper and pencil personality inventories, when scored in the con-ventional manner recommended by the distributors of these instruments, are far inferior, as diagnostic instruments, to clinical interviews with various types of patients and clients. So ineffectual, in fact, have such personality inventories proved in practice that projective techniques of personality diagnosis—such as the Rorschach, Thematic Apper-ception, and Draw a Person Tests—have very largely replaced them in the contemporary clinical psycholo-gists's diagnostic battery (2, p. 56).

Thus, the desire for projective techniques in analyzing

marital factors is seen to be quite strong.

Although most professionals involved in marriage

counseling recognize the need for research and the development

of tests for use in marriage diagnosis, there are those who

disagree with the testing approach to marriage problems.

Harper (2) even goes so far as to state that the counselor

should rely strictly on his diagnostic and artistic ability

as a therapist rather than use marriage tests; however, most

counselors recognize and acknowledge the good that such tests

would do.

Not only is there recognition of the need for practical

marriage tests by most professionals, but there are several

studies which show that this need can be and is being met

(4). Moreover, both Stewart (2) and Burgess (4) provide

8

evidence that success or failure in marriage can be measured

statistically.

There has been a great deal of discussion concerning

the validity and reliability of marriage tests. Terman and

Wallin have concluded that ". . .at present there is no

completely satisfactory outside criterion for checking on

the validity of either marriage prediction tests or marital

happiness tests" (28, p. 502). Albert Ellis (2) also recog-

nized the lack of sufficient validity and reliability of

marriage tests and, therefore, discouraged their use with

individuals. He felt, however, that there is sufficient

evidence of validity and reliability on some of the marriage

tests to warrant continuing research projects with these

tests and also for using them for group screening purposes.

After studying the validity and reliability of several

marriage tests, Locke and Wallace (17) constructed a short

marital-adjustment and a short marriage prediction test by

selecting questions from various other marriage tests. They

hypothesized that ". . .by using only the most basic or

fundamental items the length of marital-adjustment and pre-

diction tests might be reduced without any appreciable loss

in reliability and validity" (17, p. 251). Results of their

study showed that there was no significant loss of validity

or reliability using the shorter tests. Locke and Wallace,

therefore, conclude that the same degree of accuracy can be

obtained in much less time by using the shorter marital

adjustment and marriage prediction tests as by using the

longer tests.

Length is only one of the factors bearing on the pre-

cision of marriage tests. A review of the literature

concerning ten marriage tests yielded the following con-

clusions concerning validity: one test had poor validity

{27, p. 318); three tests showed fair validity (27, p. 309;

19, p. 9; 14, pp. 2-5); three tests reported good validity

(11, p. 13; 18, pp. 4-8; 27, p. 310); one test had very good

validity (27> p. 313); and two tests gave insufficient

information to determine validity (27, pp. 314-317, 322).

Information from the same sources led to the following

conclusions concerning reliability: one test had poor

reliability (27, p. 319); four tests showed fair reliability

(14, pp. 2-5; 19, pp. 6-9; 27, pp. 311, 322); two tests

reported good reliability (11, p. 13; 18, pp. 4-8); two tests

had very good reliability (27, pp. 309, 313); and one test

gave insufficient information to determine reliability

(27, pp. 314-317).

The preceding review shows a definite need for improve-

ment of both validity and reliability in the great majority

of marriage tests; however, Terman and Wallin (28) suggest

that marriage tests can still serve useful purposes if they

help in any way to predict or determine marital problems.

10

The Polyfactor, as stated previously, incorporates the

rating scale method of testing. A rating scale has been

defined as

. . . a special kind of check list in which the items or characteristics checked must be rated quantitatively according to the degree of presence or absence of a trait, the degree of perfection of a skill, or the degree of completion of a task (3, p. 19).

Although rating scales have been rather subjective, they have

had great value in those areas which lack sufficient objective

measurements in that they have resulted in more objective

evaluations than have unsystematized impressions. In

addition, it was noted that scales can be easily adapted to

the project or problem at hand and they can be used in a

variety of ways including one person rating another person,

a person rating himself, or people rating each other (3,

p. 21). Rating scales, however, should be used with caution.

Through research dealing with the rating scale method of

testing, it was found that the following facts should be

known by those using rating scales:

a. Raters tend to rate their own sex high on desirable traits and low on undesirable ones.

b. Men are more lenient raters than women. c. Two ratings by the same rater are no more valid

than one . . . d. Self-ratings tend to be high on desirable

traits and low on undesirable ones. e. In doing self-ratings, superior people tend

to underestimate, and inferior people over-estimate, themselves. Inferior people are less accurate in their self-ratings (13, p. 163).

11

The following problem should also be taken into account when

dealing with marriage tests involving rating scales:

. . . scales prepared by individuals are generally not as good as those prepared by groups . . . ; items are frequently not clearly defined; frequently those who judge are not competent to judge some of the items included; many raters tend to rate too high, too low, or to avoid extreme ratings altogether (3, p. 23).

Burgess and Cottrell (5) utilized the rating scale method to

develop a marital prediction test. They had subjects rate

their marriage on a five-point scale from "very happy" to

"very unhappy." One rating was done by each of the marriage

partners, and one rating was done by an outsider who was

well acquainted with the couple. In regard to validity and

reliability of this method, they stated that their results

showed that the rating scale was both reliable and valid in

discriminating between good and poor adjustment in marriage.

The Polyfactor also incorporates the sentence-completion

technique in an attempt to determine marital difficulty;

therefore, literature concerning the efficiency of sentence-

completion tests, emphasizing validity and reliability, was

reviewed and evaluated. The major premise of sentence-

completion tests is that

. . . each subject will project various aspects of himself into his completed sentences. The extent to which his responses actually do reflect his attitudes, fears, or desires depends primarily upon his spontaneity and his willingness to cooperate wholeheartedly with the examiner and the test situation (3, p. 54). !

12

This statement suggests that the validity and reliability of

sentence-completion tests would be somewhat difficult to

measure with great accuracy because the attitude of the

client toward the examiner must be considered. Rohde (22),

however, pointed out that the sentence-completion method of

testing had a distinct advantage which would tend to increase

validity and reliability of responses in that responses

revealed " . . . latent needs, sentiments, feelings, and

attitudes which the subject would be unwilling or unable to

recognize or to expressin direct communication" (22, p. 169).

Rohde further stated that validity-would not be jeopardized

if a subject did not "tell the truth" because latent or

repressed feelings would emerge regardless of whether the

subject was "telling the truth" or not. A review of four

relatively well-known sentence-completion tests and the

development of these tests led to the conclusion that all

four had sufficient validity and reliability to merit the

use of the sentence completion method in diagnostic testing

(22, 23, 24, 26).

Other advantages of the sentence-completion method which

would apply to marriage tests have included amenability to

group administration, simplicity of administration, time-

saving administration and scoring or analysis, and flexi-

bility of sentences used (24). Although the sentence-

completion tests have been rather simple to administer,

13

making administration by nontrained personnel feasible,

there have been those who felt that only the well-trained

and thoroughly experienced clinician had the necessary skill

to interpret or analyze sentence-completion tests (1, p. 367;

22). Rohde (22) has stated, however, that there have been

some professionals, lesser trained in test interpretation,

such as teachers and guidance workers, who have been fairly

successful in analyzing sentence-completion tests. Their

analyses, however, lacked the depth of the analyses of the

trained clinicians.

The Polyfactor test investigated in this study has

combined both a relatively objective method of testing, the

rating scale, and a projective method of testing, the

sentence-completion test; therefore, it has incorporated the

major assumptions, advantages, and disadvantages of both

methods. In general, objective methods of testing have been

better standardized, less difficult to score, more valid and

reliable, and easier to treat statistically (9/ pp. 442-444).

The major assumption said to underlie projective testing

has been stated by Morris:

. . . given a stimulus that allows freedom of association, the individual will draw upon his own background of experience, wishes, needs, conflicts, and so on, in organizing and constructing his response insofar as he is willing and able to cooperate in the activity proposed (21, p. 518).

I

The strongest disadvantage of projective methods had been

found to be the lack of conclusive evidence of validity and

14

reliability. Most studies have shown validity and reli-

ability of projective tests to be very low (3, p. 48). In

spite of such evidence, however, a great many psychologists

have considered projective techniques to be . . their best

tools for gaining insights into the total personality

dynamics of the individual" (3, p. 48).

Marriage tests have been used for various purposes. One

of these purposes is to discriminate between those who have

a happy marriage and those who are having marriage diffi-

culties. Research done by Mathews and Minanovich (20) showed

that those who had happy marriages did not have the same

problems as those who had unhappy marriages, and that those

in unhappy marriages had many more problems than those in

happy marriages. Their data suggested that marriage tests

should include questions which identify the problems of both

types of marriages.

Marriage tests are also needed to determine success or

failure in marriage. Burgess (4) has stated that knowledge

of how to determine probable success or failure in marriage

has become more and more important. He suggested that this

goal could be reached by encouraging further research in

marriage testing and by requiring more training for marriage

counselors in the use and interpretation of marriage tests

(4). Another factor which relates both to training and

predictive use of marriage tests is mentioned by Cookerly and

Foster. They say,

15

Anything which would help determine who is most and least likely to be helped by marriage counseling would come as a great boon to those of us who are doing such counseling. The case load is often staggering and the screening and initial exploratory work done with couples who really will not bene-ficially use marriage counseling is quite wasteful. Hence, tests which would ferret out the wasters of time and help us reach the ones who could really benefit from marriage counseling would be welcomed with great joy (7).

There have been some researchers in the area of marriage

testing who feel that it is only through a multiphasic type

of test that a comprehensive and accurate analysis of a

marriage could be obtained. Corsini (8) has stated that

marital happiness depends to a great extent on the similarity

of the personalities of the marriage partners; therefore, a

marriage evaluation should be based on numerous factors,

including such things as personality, background, and simi-

larity. It has been suggested by Locke and Williamson (16)

that factor analysis of interrelated variables would be the

most effective means of evaluating marital adjustment. They

state that

Marital adjustment is an adaptation between husband and wife to the point where there is companionship, agreement on basic values, affectional intimacy, accommodation, euphoria, and certain other un-identified factors. Studies should be made to discover the unidentified factors in marital adjustment and to validate these by comparing sub-scores with independent criteria (16, p. 569).

Improving the efficiency and the economy of time in

marriage counseling can of course be applied to premarital

counseling. Premarital tests for the purpose of counseling

16

and marriage prediction are being used more and more exten-

sively. Skidmore and McPhee (25) have found such tests very

useful in establishing rapport in counseling and in pointing

out specific attitudes and patterns of behavior which would

be unfavorable to success in marriage as revealed by responses

to individual items on the tests.

Prediction tests have also been used to better determine

the success or failure of already existing marriages. In

using tests for this purpose, however, it is important to

consider the length of time a couple has been married, since

a longer period of time is required to adjust to some areas

in marriage than other areas. For example, results of

research done by Landis (15) showed that adjustment in the

area of sex relations takes longer than adjustment in any

other area.

Most tests used for the purpose of marriage prediction

are directive in nature. Frumkin advocates that a disguised-

structured indirect test or questionnaire would be more

valid because " . . . such an instrument (a) is not open to

the intruding variables to which direct scales are open; (b)

it provides an instrument which is easier to administer and

easier to score" (12). Adams (2) agreed with Frumkin in

that he felt indirect test items minimize deception; however,

he questioned the validity of any test of marriage prediction,

whether it be direct or indirect. He stated that "Too

17

little research has been done on factors relating to marital

success to state with any assurance just what qualities or

traits should be included in any instrument purportedly

predicting the outcome of marriage" (2, p. 55). Because of

the questionable validity of prediction tests, no conclusions

concerning the outcome of a marriage should be reached

without the use of the personal interview (2).

For some marriage counselors one of the primary purposes

of marriage tests has been to aid them in determining what

would be the most beneficial treatment plan for the couple

in question. In evaluating a marriage, both partners must

be considered; therefore, those tests or studies

. . . which evaluate marital happiness in terms of the characteristics of one individual without con-sidering the partner appear to be inadequate and represent a naive point of view, entirely discounting the factor of interaction. The couple is a group, and the happiness of either can hardly be considered without taking into account the other person (8, p. 240).

Several supposedly competent counselors have found that by

using both the test evidence and the clinical evidence of

both partners they could make a more adequate treatment plan

than if they relied on the clinical evidence alone (28).

Ellis, however, in a discussion of Adams' views, discounts

the use of marriage tests by marriage counselors in that he

feels they have no practical value for attaining the goals

desired (2).

18

There are, of course, both advantages and disadvantages

to using existing marriage tests. Some of the advantages as

stated by Burgess are

1. Couples testify that filling out a schedule has a therapeutic and educational effect. It makes them realize the factors to be considered in a successful marriage.

2. Time is saved for counselor and the person counseled by eliminating certain points that then need not be covered in an interview.

3. The schedules may locate problems that might be overlooked if there were only one or two interviews.

4. The schedules seem to reduce, as compared at least to short interviews, the personal and social equation of the interviewer. Each interviewer has a theoretical frame of reference which he is likely to overstress in his analysis of a case.

5. The prediction that may be made from the schedule tends to put the interviewer on his guard against his intuitive prognosis.

6. The predictive schedule may serve as a desirable screening device, picking out the persons or couples whose lower scores indicate their special need of one or more interviews, and setting aside those whose high scores show that they do not need much interviewing (6, p. 54).

Burgess also states three disadvantages of marriage tests:

1. The results of the tests of an individual couple ar^ evaluated by comparing them with mass statistical findings of large groups of couples.

2. Statistical prediction does not take into con-sideration the dynamic factors of the marriage which could be discovered in the clinical interview.

3. For nondirective counselors, results of marriage tests would tend to lead to a directive type of counseling in dealing with a couple following testing (6, p. 55).

After reviewing both the advantages and the disadvantages of

marriage tests, Burgess supports the use of such tests by

stating,

19

In every study that has been made, not only in the marriage field but in other areas, when sta-tistical prediction is compared with clinical prognosis it appears that a clinical prediction takes much more time, has never been shown to be superior, and has even been shown to be inferior to predictions from schedules (6# p. 55).

Albert Ellis disagrees with Burgess after evaluating the

advantages and the disadvantages of marriage tests. He

states that validity coefficients

. . . are certainly high enough to warrant continued experimentation with this kind of testing instrument; but, as yet, they are far from being sufficiently high to have much practical value in predicting the marital adjustment of normal individuals (10, p. 718).

Therefore, he discourages the use of marriage tests for

individual marriage counseling.

Since this was a method study, a small sampling of

various tests in diagnosing marital factors was conducted to

review other methods and related factors. Table I reviews

this sample. The table lists various marriage tests which

were reviewed and gives pertinent information concerning each

test. The table consists of ten columns, the first column

giving a descriptive name of the test being considered. The

following nine columns deal with basic information about each

individual test. Column two gives a brief description of

the method of testing; column three briefly states the

purpose of the test; column four gives the number of subjects

used in the development or the study of the test; column five

shows the mean age of the subjects; column six states the

20

TABLE I

COMPARISON OF VARIOUS MARRIAGE TESTS

Descriptive Name of Test

Method Purpose

Davis Schedule Anonymous To compare sex life questionnaire and and marital 5 pt. rating scale happiness

Burgess & Cottrell Anonymous To measure marital Marital questionnaire and happiness Happiness Scale rating scale

Benard's Scale for Anonymous To measure marital Marital questionnaire and happiness Happiness adj. checklist

Hamilton's Psychiatric To measure marital Interview interview success

Dickinson's Clinical To compare sex life Clinical Inter- (medical) and marital view (Medical) interview happiness

Terman's Marital Anonymous Find predictors of Happiness questionnaire marital Schedule

1 happiness

Marriage Adjustment Projective Guidance Sentence sentence counseling Completion Survey completion

Marital Roles Rank ordering for Exploring marital Inventory husband and wife problems

Marriage Adjust- Objective husband- Exploring marital ment Inventory wife checklist problems

Multiphasic Mari- Objective yes-no Guidance in tal Inventory choices marriage counseling

Polyfactor Combined rating & Discovering areas sentence completion of marital problems

21

TABLE I—Continued

Number of

Subjects

Mean Age

Years of

Marriage

Time in

Taking

Speed in

Grading Valid Reliable

1000 38.3 ? 120 min.

? Fairly good

Very good

1052 25.1 : 1 to 6 ? Good Fair

252 ? ? 90 min.

Fairly long

Very good

Very good

200 36 ? 8 hrs. Very long

?

900* 32 ? ? ? Poor Poor

1584

t

37.2 11.4 2 1/2 hrs.

Very long

? Fair

137 36 11 100 min.

1 hr. Fair Fair

208 38 11 20 min.

45 min.

Fair Fair

237 36 ? 80 min.

20 min.

Good Good

303

66 *Snh-

41

31.2

10

17.2 * A a l l •£• y-v

1 1/2 hrs.

45 min.

1 hr.

15-30 min.

Good

?

Good

Very good

22

average length of marriage of the subjects; column seven

reports the approximate length of time required to take the

test; column eight reports the approximate length of time it

takes to score the test; column nine gives the reported

validity or judged validity of each test; and column ten

shows the reported or judged reliability of each test.

Each row in Table I reports the column information on

each test individually. The last row includes the same data

for the Polyfactor for the purpose of comparison. Although

there are two tests which use the rating scale method and

one other test which uses the sentence completion method, the

Polyfactor was the only test which combined the two methods.

There was only one other test which did not require more

time to take than the Polyfactor; however, the validity and

reliability of that test was only fair. Only one other test

compared with the Polyfactor in the short amount of time it

took to score, and the very good reliability of the Poly-

factor was matched by only one other test. Thus, the

Polyfactor can be seen to possess advantages over this fairly

random sampling of other marriage tests; hence, the method

of the Polyfactor can be supposed to possess certain

possible elements which are likely to be superior to other

marriage tests.

CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Abt, Lawrence Edwin and Leopold Bellak, editors. Projective Psychology, 3rd edition, New York, Grove Press, Inc., 1959.

2. Adams, Clifford R., "Evaluating Marriage Prediction Tests," Marriage and Family Living, XII {Spring, 1950), 55-58.

^3. Bonney, Merl E. and Richard S. Hampleman, Personal-Social Evaluation Techniques, Washington, D.C., The Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1962.

4. Burgess, Ernest W. , "Prediction Factors in the Success or Failure of Marriage," Marriage and Family Living, I (January, 1939), 1-3.

5. and Leonard S. Cottrell, Jr., "The prediction of Adjustment in Marriage," American Sociological Review, I (October, 1936) , 740-743.

6. ^ , "The Value and Limitations of Marriage Prediction Tests," Marriage and Family Living, XII (Spririg, 1950), 54-55.

"~7. Cookerly, J. Richard and William E. Foster, Manual for the Polyfactor Test for Marital Difficulties, unpub-lished test manual, Psychological Services Center, Fort Worth, Texas, September, 1967.

8. Corsini, Raymond J., "Multiple Predictors of Marital Happiness," Marriage and Family Living, XVIII (August, 1956), 240-242.

9. Cronbach, Lee J., Essentials of Psychological Testing, 2nd edition, New York, Harper and Row, 1949.

10. Ellis, Albert, "The Value of Marriage Prediction Tests," American Sociological Review, XIII (December, 1948) , 710-718.

11. El Senoussi, Ahmed, The El Senoussi Multiphasic Marital Inventory, Manual, Beverly Hills, California, Western Psychological Services, 1963.

24

12. Frumkin, Robert M., "The Kirkpatrick Scale of Family Interests as an Instrument for the Indirect Assessmei,^ of Marital Adjustment," Marriage and Family Living, XV (February, 1953), 35-37.

x13. Hahn, Milton E. and Malcolm S. MacLean, General Clinical Counseling in Educational Institutions, New York,

_ McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1950.

14. Hurvitz, Nathan, Marital Roles Inventory Manual, Manual, Beverly Hills, California, Western Psychological Services, 1961.

15. Landis, Judson T., "Length of Time Required to Achieve Adjustment in Marriage," American Sociological Review, XI (December, 1946), 666-677.

f

16. Locke, Harvey J. and Robert C. Williamson, "Marital Adjustment: A Factor Analysis Study," American Sociological Review, XXIII (October, 1958), 562-569.

i

17. and Karl M. Wallace, "Short Marital-Adjustment and Prediction Tests: Their Reliability and Validity," Marriage and Family Living, XXI (August, 1959) ,, 251-255.

18. Manson, Morse P. and Arthur Lerner, The Marriage Adjust-ment Inventory, Manual, Beverly Hills, California, Western Psychological Services, 1962.

^19. and Arthur Lerner, The Marriage Adjustment Sentence Completion Survey, Manual, Beverly Hills, California, Western Psychological Services, 1962.

""20. Mathews, Vincent D. and Clement S. Mihanovich, "New Orientations on Marital Maladjustment," Marriage and Family Living, XXV (August, 1963), 300-304.(faty

21. Morris, Woodrow W., An Introduction to Projective Techniques, edited by Harold H. Anderson and Gladys L. Anderson, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall Inc., 1951.

^ 22. Rohde, Amanda R., "Explorations in Personality by the Sentence Completion Method," Journal of Applied Psychology, XXX (April, 1946), 169-181.

23. Rotter, Julian B. and Benjamin Willerman, "The Incom-plete Sentences Test as a Method of Studying Personality," Journal of Consulting Psychology, XI (January-February, 1948), 43-48.

25

24. Rotter, Julian B. and Janet E. Rafferty, The Rotter Incomplete Sentences Blank, College Form, Manual, New York, The Psychological Corporation, 1950.

25. Skidmore, Rex A. and William M. McPhee, "The Comparative Use of the California Test of Personality and the Burgess-Cottrell-Wallin Schedule in Predicting Marital Adjustment," Marriage and Family Living, XIII (August, 1951), 121-124.

26. Tendler, A. D., "A Preliminary Report on a Test for Emotional Insight," Journal of Applied Psychology, XIV (March, 1931), 122-136.

27. Terman, Lewis M. and Winifred B. Johnson, "Methodology and Results of Recent Studies in Marital Adjustment," American Sociological Review, IV (June, 1939), 307-324.

28. and Paul Wallin, "The Validity of Marriage Prediction and Marital Adjustment Tests," American Sociological Review, XIV (August, 1949), 497-504.

CHAPTER III

METHOD AND PROCEDURE

Subjects

The subjects in this investigation were sixty-six

individuals making up thirty-three married couples, all of

whom were beginning marriage counseling with a psychiatrist

or psychologist. These psychiatrists and psychologists

worked in a Southwestern metropolitan city in a psychiatric

out-patient clinic and a related psychological services

center, both of which are divisions of a privately sponsored

neuropsychiatric center and hospital. Other studies have

shown that this center serves the whole range of the socio-

economic continuum in close approximation of their

proportionate existence in this city (5, p. 31).

The subjects represented a fairly wide distribution

among the socioeconomic status continuum, partly due to

recent liberalizations in insurance payments for marriage

counseling. Since previous research established that the

center serves a representative sample of the city's metro-

politan area population, the population in this study is

therefore considered to be fairly representational of the

people seeking assistance who live in this not atypical

American city in the Southwestern United States (6, pp. 113-

268).

27

The ages of the thirty-three male subjects ranged from

twenty-two to fifty-one, with a mean age of 32.75 years.

Ages of the thirty-three female subjects ranged from twenty

to forty-nine, with a mean age of 29.54 years. The mean

length of marriage for all thirty-three couples was 17.2

years.

Procedure

Each subject was seated at a desk in one of two similar

testing rooms. He was given a pencil and the Polyfactor Test

for Marital Difficulties (See Appendix A), the first page of

which asked for information concerning the subject (full name,

age, length of marriage, current marital status, number of

marriages, and age and sex of children), followed by the

test instructions.

Instructions

All items must be completed

Step 1'—Finish each sentence that has been started with whatever you wish to say. Do not leave any of the sentence stems incomplete or blank. Leaving any of the sentence stems incomplete or blank invalidates sections of the survey and this makes other sentences which you have completed much less useful,.

Step 2—Answer item 86 with a brief paragraph or list.

Step 3—Read what you have written for each sentence, one sentence at a time. As you do this, make a judgement of how much difficulty this sentence represents in your marriage.

You will make this judgement by circling one of

28

the 4 capital letters found in front of each sentence (M, S, L, N). The letters and the amount of difficulty they stand for are as follows:

M—much difficulty S—some difficulty L—little difficulty N—no difficulty

Again every sentence must receive a judgement. No sentence should be left unjudged, since any sentence without one of the 4 preceding letters circled invalidates an entire section of this survey. Therefore, you must make some judgment for each sentence.

Review -

1. Finish each sentence 2. Answer question 86 3. Judge every sentence with one of the 4 letters

After you have finished this survey check over your answers and see that nothing has been left blank or incomplete (1, p. 3).

Since Item 86 has no relationship to the specific

method of testing being studied, it was excluded from

discussion in this study. The husband and wife were seated

in different testing rooms in order to prevent one from

influencing the other. The subjects were given no time limit

for completing the test. After both husband and wife

completed the Polyfactor test, it was scored by the standard

instructions given by the test authors.

Each "M" (representing much difficulty) which has been circled by the client is scored 3 points. Each "S" (representing some difficulty) which has been circled by the client is scored 2 points. Each "L" (representing little difficulty) which has been circled by the client is scored 1 point. Each ":-J" (representing no difficulty) v.-hich has been circled by the client is scored 0 points. Each sentence left unjudged by the client is scored 1 point.

29

More than one sentence in a test factor area left unjudged invalidates the score for that area. More than four sentences left unjudged by the client invalidates the entire test. Each of the 17 test factor areas are tested for by 5 sentence stems. To arrive at each area total score the husband's and the wife's score on their respective sentences representing that area are summed. To arrive at the area difference score the lower score of the husband's and the wife's individual scores on that area is subtracted from the higher. The husband's and the wife's scores are individually summed to arrive at the husband's total and the wife's total scores and these are then summed to arrive at the test total score. The sum of the area total scores should equal the test total score and thus provides an arithmatical check on the scoring. The area difference scores are summed to provide the total difference score (1, p. 5).

Each area can be given a total marital difficulty score

of 15 points for each marriage partner and a maximum score

of 30 points for each couple. Thus, a maximum score of 510

for a couple and 255 for an individual is possible.

The area scores of both husband and wife were then

transferred to the standard Polyfactor graph in order to

obtain a marriage difficulty profile (See Appendix B). The

graph consisted of seven columns. The first column was

titled "Areas of Difficulty" under which were listed the

seventeen test factor areas and the numbers of the sentences

which related to measuring that test factor. The second

column was designated as "No Difficulty" and contained the

digit 0. The next three columns consisted of five pro-

gressively higher digits titled (1) "Little Difficulty/'

30

digits 1-5; (2) "Some Difficulty," digits 6-10; (3) "Much

Difficulty," digits 11-15. There next followed a column

designated as "Area Total" score, which contained the sum of

the total points given to an area by both husband and wife.

This was followed by a column called "Difference Score,"

which contained the score determined by the difference

between the scores given by the husband and wife in each area

of marital difficulty.

The original tests for all sixty-six subjects were then

given to a group of five professionals in mental health and

related fields, of whom had had more than one year but not

more than five years experience in both diagnostic and

counseling situations and who can thus be considered to be

in their novitiate stage of professional practice. All of

these diagnosticians were somewhat familiar with the Poly-

factor Test for Marital Difficulties, having used it at least

once in their own practice. Using such novitiates to judge

the test was purposeful. Since the Polyfactor is a rela-

tively newly developed device, anyone who utilizes it would

have to familiarize himself with it and would also be less

familiar with this instrument than with those tests he has

used previously; therefore, at first, he would be considered

a novice in the use of this type of instrument.

On every page of each subject's test the letters M (much

difficulty), S (some difficulty), L (little difficulty), and

31

N (no difficulty), which the subject had already marked, were

covered with a strip of paper on which was printed the

unmarked letters M, S, L, N. This was done in order to

simulate the normal judging of the test by enabling the

diagnostician to read and judge the sentences completed by

the subject. It also prevented the diagnostician from

knowing how the subject originally rated his own sentences.

The five diagnosticians did not score all sixty-six

tests., Since the purpose of this study was to explore a

sentence-completion, self-rating method of analyzing marriage

situations, it was decided that approximating as nearly as

possible the ways in which this method would be used in an

actual clinical setting would be more desirable than

attempting to test the reliability of the actual instrument

itself. In such a setting it would be rare, if it occurred

at all, that any one practicing psychodiagnostician would

score sixty-six Polyfactors in one sitting or even have that

many couples available for starting marriage counseling at

one time. It is also obvious that in actual clinical

situations marriage counselors would not spend such long

periods of time as would be demanded by the scoring of sixty-

six sentence-completion tests, each being eighty-five items

long. Thus, it was decided that simulating the practitioner's

reality rather than the experimenter's would be the desired

action. Hence, no diagnostician scored more than seven sets

32

of Polyfactors in the time allotted for this task. The five

diagnosticians participating in this study averaged four

hours to score the tests given them. It might also be added

that in the actual clinical situation several counselors

would seldom be scoring the same test. For these reasons no

two diagnosticians rated the same tests.

Three diagnosticians were given seven sets (tests of

both marriage partners) of the Polyfactor tests, and two

diagnosticians were given six sets of tests. The sets of

tests given to the diagnosticians to rate were arranged in

such a way that each diagnostician.rated the husband's test

every other time and, therefore, automatically rated the

wife's test every other time. This was done in order to

prevent the statements written by one sex from unduly

influencing the judgment of the statements written by the

opposite sex.

The diagnosticians were then given instructions for

rating the tests (See Appendix C). In actuality, the diag-

nosticians rescored the statements written by each subject as

to the amount of difficulty the diagnostician felt each

statement caused in the subject's marriage.

The diagnostician's ratings of the difficulty each

statement presented in the subject's marriage were then

scored, using the same point system used in tabulating the

subjects' ratings of their own statements. The total number

33

of points for each area was obtained and then transferred to

a graph identical to the one used for the subject couples.

A marriage difficulty profile was then made for both the

husband and wife, according to the judge's ratings of their

statements. Total column scores and sums for the area total

score column and the difference score column on the diag-

nosticians' graphs were obtained and recorded on the graph.

When this part of the procedure was completed, the

scores of each set of the tests were represented by two

graphs, one graph showing the couple's difficulty rating of

their marriage and another showing-the diagnostician's

difficulty rating of the couple's marriage.

A Fisher's t test and a Pearson r were done between the

couples' ratings and the diagnosticians' ratings on total

scores for males, total scores for females, total area

scores, and total difference scores (7, pp. 121-158). The

t tests were computed to test for the difference between the

diagnosticians' ratings and the counselees' ratings. The

correlations were computed to determine the amount of

relationship between the counselees' and the diagnosticians'

ratings of marital difficulty reflected in the Polyfactor

sentence-completion task items.

In order to test the hypothesis of this study, it was

necessary at this point to have each couple1s marriage

counselor make a judgment as to which graph, the subjects'

34

or the diagnostician's, was closer to the actual marriage

situation as he saw it. To obtain this judgment, the marriage

counselor for each couple was shown both graphs in an ABBA

sequence (8, pp. 229-233) to compensate for series effects.

Names of the diagnosticians were covered to prevent bias

effects. The counselor was then given a counselor rating

sheet (See Appendix D) and a list of instructions for rating

the graphs (See Appendix E). These instructions were also

read to the counselor, and parts of the graph referred to in

the instructions were pointed out to the counselor as the

instructions were read. The number of checks in column A and

column B were totaled for the four profile judgments (males,

females, area total score, and difference score) made by the

counselors.

A chi square was used to test for the independence of

the counselors' estimates of accuracy reflected in the diag-

nosticians' and the counselees' ratings, using the total

number of checks in column A and B for each of the four

profile areas (4, pp. 228-256).

CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Cookerly, J. Richard and William E. Foster, Manual for the Polyfactor Test for Marital Difficulties, un-published test manual, Psychological Services Center, Fort Worth, Texas, September, 1967.

2. Cronbach, Lee J., Essentials of Psychological Testing, 2nd edition, New York, Harper and Brothers, 1960.

3. Freeman, Frank S., Theory and Practice of Psychological Testing, 3rd edition, New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1962.

4. Fuilford, J. P., Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Education, New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., ,1956.

5. Johnson, James E. et al., "Who Do We Serve?" unpublished manuscript, Psychological Services Center, Fort Worth, Texas, January, 1967.

6. Talbert, Robert H., Cowtown—Metropolis, Fort Worth, Leo Potishman Foundation, Texas Christian University, 1956.

7. Underwood, Benton J. et al., Elementary Statistics, New York, Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1954.

8. Woodworth, Robert S., Experimental Psychology, New York, H. Holt and Company, 1938.

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

«

Included in Table II is the mean of the diagnosticians'

ratings of the degree of difficulty in the marriages. These

ratings were made by the diagnosticians reading and then

judging the completed sentences of the husbands on a four-

point rating scale. It can be seen that the diagnosticians'

mean rating was approximately 145 points out of a possible

255 points, with a standard deviation of approximately 36

points. This is compared to the husbands' mean self-rating

of approximately 108 points, with a standard deviation of 55

points. This means that the diagnosticians' average judgment

was approximately 37 points higher than the husbands' self-

ratings. This comparison of the husbands' and the

TABLE II

MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, AND t VALUE FOR DIAGNOSTICIANS' AND HUSBANDS' RATINGS OF

MARITAL DIFFICULTY

Group 1* Mean

Group 1 S. D.

Group 2** Mean

Group 2 S.D. t

Signifi-cance

144.636 35.722 107.787 55.126 4.702 .001

**Group 2 = Husbands

37

diagnosticians' judgments has a t-value of 4.7, which is

significant at the .001 level. This is interpreted as

meaning that the husbands and the diagnosticians are measured

as demonstrating a considerable disagreement with regard to

how much difficulty they judge to be represented by the

sentence completions. Thus, it might be assumed that the

diagnosticians tend to give a much higher rating to the

amount of difficulty involved in the marriage than do the

husbands.

Table III also includes the mean of the diagnosticians'

ratings of the degree of difficulty in the marriages. These

ratings were made by the diagnosticians reading and then

judging the completed sentences of the wives, also using the

four-point scale. It can be seen that the diagnosticians'

mean rating was approximately 154 points, with a standard

deviation of slightly more than 33 points. This was compared

to the wives' mean self-rating of approximately 139 points,

with a standard deviation of about 48 points. This com-

parison shows that the diagnosticians' average judgment was

only about 15 points higher than the wives' ratings. This

comparison of the wives' and the diagnosticians' judgments

has a t-value of 1.9, which was not significant. This is

interpreted as meaning that the wives and diagnosticians were

in approximate agreement as to the amount of difficulty they

judged to be represented by the sentence completions.

38

TABLE III

MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, AND t VALUE FOR DIAGNOSTICIANS' AND WIVES' RATIONS OF

MARITAL DIFFICULTY

Group 1* Group 1 Group 2** Group 2 Signifi-Mean S.D. Mean S.D. t cance

153.666 33.154 138.757 48.374 1.929 N.S.

**Group 2 = Wives

In comparing Tables II and III, it was seen that the

diagnosticians tend to score the sentences in a manner more

in accord with the wives than the husbands. Furthermore, the

husbands' ratings are shown to have been considerably lower

than the wives' or the diagnosticians'. This might be inter-

preted as meaning that wives and diagnosticians will tend to

agree with each other as to the amount of difficulty involved

in the marriage when measured with the method of testing

utilized in this study. It was further interpreted that,

when using this method, husbands' judgments will tend to

report much less difficulty than would be the wives' or

diagnosticians'.

Table IV includes the mean of the diagnosticians'

ratings of the amount of difficulty reflected by the combined

sentence completions of both partners. It can be seen that

the diagnosticians' mean rating was approximately 298 points

39

out of the possible 510 points possible when considering the

combined scores of both husband and wife. The standard

deviation for the diagnosticians was approximately 65 points.

This is compared to the combined husbands' and wives' ratings

of approximately 243 points, with a standard deviation of

about 87 points. This shows that the diagnosticians' mean

judgment was about 55 points higher than were the combined

husbands' and wives' ratings. The-comparison of the diag-

nosticians' and the combined husbands' and wives' ratings

has a t-value of 4.3, which is significant at the .001 level.

This is interpreted as meaning that the combined husbands'

and wives' ratings, when compared with the diagnosticians'

ratings, are in pronounced disagreement as to how much

difficulty they judge to be represented by the sentence

completions. Thus, it seems that the diagnosticians' total

area ratings tend to reflect a greater amount of difficulty

TABLE IV

MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, AND t VALUE OP DIAGNOSTICIANS' AND COUNSELEES' AREA TOTAL SCORES

Group 1* Group 1 Group 2** Group 2 Signifi-Mean S.D. Mean S.D. t cance

298.203 64.881 243.484 87.027 4.379 . 001

**Group 2 = Counselees

40

involved in the marriage than do the husbands' and wives1

combined total area ratings.

In comparing Tables, II, III, and IV, it was seen that

the diagnosticians' ratings for husbands and for husbands and

wives combined but not for wives alone, are considerably

dissimilar to the counselees1 ratings. It was also seen

that the diagnosticians' ratings tend to be generally higher

than the counselees" ratings. Although the diagnosticians'

ratings were found to be higher than the wives' ratings, the

difference between the wives' and the diagnosticians' ratings

was not statistically significant.. This may be interpreted

as meaning one of two things. Either there is a possibility

that this method of assessing marital difficulty tends to

yield overratings on the part of the diagnostician or under-

ratings stemming from the counselees' ratings. It is noted

that the wives' scores taken apart from the other scores do

not by themselves lead to these two possibilities.

Table V contains the results of the t-test data for the

difference scores which were a measurement of the difference

between the ratings of the husbands' completions and the

ratings of the wives' completions. This table includes the

mean of the difference scores derived from the diagnosticians'

ratings, i_.e_. / the difference between the diagnosticians'

ratings of the husbands' completions and the wives' com-

pletions. This difference score is another measure of the

41

amount of difficulty involved in the marriage. It can be

seen that the mean difference score as derived from the

diagnosticians' ratings was approximately 42 points, with a

standard deviation of about 9 points. This is compared to

the dounselees' difference scores, which resulted in a mean

of approximately 65 points and a standard deviation of almost

26 points. The mean difference between counselees' and

diagnosticians' difference scores was -22.6 points, which

had a t-value of -5.1. This is significant far beyond the

.001 level and may be interpreted as showing the diag-

nosticians' and the counselees' ratings to be in a state of

pronounced disagreement as to how much difference exists

between the husbands' and wives' responses. When compared

to the counselees themselves, the diagnosticians' ratings

yielded results which can be interpreted in one of two ways.

Either the diagnosticians markedly underrated the amount of

difference between wives' and husbands' ratings of difficulty

or the wives' and husbands' difference scores reflect an

overrating of difficulty. In any case these results show the

diagnosticians' and the counselees' ratings to be in a state

of pronounced disagreement as to how great the difference

was between the husbands' and the wives' scores. It was

also noted that the diagnosticians markedly underrated the

amount of difference between how the wives and husbands view

the marital difficulties. Since these results show such a

42

TABLE V

MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, AND t VALUE OF DIAGNOSTICIANS' AND COUNSELEES' DIFFERENCE SCORES

Group 1* Group 1 Group 2** Group 2 Signifi-Mean S.D. Mean S.D. t cance

42.151

* r ! v w .

8.988

U 1 = n-i

64.757 25.915 -5.109 .001

**Group 2 = Counselees

marked dissimilarity between the diagnosticians' and the

counselees' difference scores, it was felt that this

difference score may offer one of the greatest advantages in

this method of testing marital difficulties.

Tables II through V primarily contain results which are

related to t-tests. As was stated in the methodology

chapter, the t-tests were computed to test for the difference

between the diagnosticians' ratings and the counselees'

ratings. It was seen that the diagnosticians' ratings of

husbands' responses, ratings of combined husbands' and wives'

responses, and the resultant diagnosticians' difference

scores tend to be considerable different from those of the

counselees'. It was also found that the diagnosticians'

ratings of the wives' responses and the wives' ratings of

their own responses were not significantly different.

Correlations were computed to determine the amount of

relationship between the counselees' and the diagnosticians'

43

ratings of marital difficulty. It can be seen in Table VI

that there was an r-value of .59, significant at the .01

level between the husbands' self-rating scores and the diag-

nosticians' rating scores. This was interpreted as meaning

that there was a moderate relationship between how the

diagnosticians and the husbands rated the husbands' completed

sentences. It can be seen in the same table that there is

an r-value of .47, significant at the .01 level between

the wives' and the diagnosticians' ratings. This is inter-

preted as meaning that there is a small but definite relation-

ship between how the diagnosticians and the wives judge and

score the wives' responses.

It can also be seen in Table VI that the combined

husbands' and wives' scores, -i.e., the area total scores of

the counselees, and the combined diagnosticians' ratings of

the husbands' and wives' responses, i,.e., the area total

scores of the diagnosticians' ratings of the husbands' and

wives' completed sentences, has an r-value of almost .60,

significant at the .01 level. This was interpreted as meaning

that there was a moderate relationship between the diagnos-

ticians' combined total area scores and the counselees'

combined total area scores.

In addition, it can be seen in Table VI that there was

a nonsignificant r-value of .27 when the counselees' and the

diagnosticians' resulting difference scores were compared.

44

TABLE VI

CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS OF COUNSELEES' SCORES, AREA SCORES, AND DIFFERENCE SCORES WITH

DIAGNOSTICIANS' RATINGS

Treatment of Statistics Husbands'

Scores Wives' Scores

Area Scores

Difference Scores

r-value .596 .476 .599 .270

Significance of r .01 .01 .01 N.S.

This suggested that there was no relationship between the

difference scores stemming from the diagnosticians' ratings

and the difference scores stemming from the counselees1

ratings. This may be interpreted as suggesting that there

was no demonstrable relationship between how the diagnos-

ticians' scores reflect marital difficulties and how the

counselees' scores reflect difficulties. This finding may

be seen as supporting the concept that the difference scores

may be of the greatest value when using this method of

testing.

Table VII contains the results of the chi square test

for independence of the counselors' estimates of accuracy of

the diagnosticians' ratings and the counselors- estimates of

accuracy of the counselees' self-ratings. It can be seen in

the table that there was a nonsignificant chi square value

of .60 relating to the way the diagnosticians and the husbands

rated the husbands' responses. This suggested that there is

45

no significant difference between the two groups in regard

to how the counselor judges their accuracy in relation to

how they rate husbands' responses; therefore, the diagnos-

ticians and husbands were seen to be equally accurate in

their ability to rate the sentence completion responses

which indicated marital difficulty.

Table VII contains a chi square value of 13.94, signifi-

cant at the .001 level relating to wives* scores. This

result confirms the concept that the counselor sees the

diagnosticians and the wives differing significantly in the

way they rate the wives' responses. This finding suggested

that there is a rather profound difference between the way

the wives evaluate their own responses and the way the diag-

nosticians rate the same responses, as judged by the counselor.

Wives and diagnosticians can, therefore, be considered

independent groups. This was not the case with husbands and

diagnosticians. The marriage counselors' judgments which

resulted in a chi square value significant at the .001 level

were predominantly in favor of the wives' ratings being the

more accurate. This may be interpreted as meaning that the

wives' ratings of their completed sentences resulted in

considerably better estimations of marital difficulty than

did the diagnosticians' ratings.

In addition, Table VII contains a chi square value of

7.11,significant at the .01 level for treatment of area

TABLE VII

CHI-SQUARE ANALYSIS OF COUNSELEES' SCORES, AREA SCORES, AND DIFFERENCE SCORES

WITH COUNSELORS' JUDGMENTS

46

Treatment of Statistics Husbands'

Scores Wives1

Scores Area Scores

Difference Scores

value .60 13.94 7.112 64.02

Significance of N.S. .001 .01 .001

scores. This result confirmed the concept that, according

to the judgment of the marriage counselors, the diagnosticians

and the counselees also differed significantly in the way

they rated the counselees' completed sentences. .This finding

suggested that there was a noted difference, according to

the marriage counselors, between the way counselees evaluate

their own responses and the way a diagnostician rates the

same responses. Counselees and diagnosticians may therefore

be considered independent groups, as were the wives and

diagnosticians. The marriage counselors judged the counselees'

area total scores as being more accurate than the diagnos-

ticians' area total scores. Since the significance of the

chi square value for treatment of area scores was .01 and

the significance of the chi square value for treatment of

the wives' scores was .001, it was concluded that the area

scores may not be quite as useful as the wives' scores when

using this test method.

47

Table VII also contains a chi square value of 64.02,

significant at the .001 level, as a result of the treatment

of the difference scores which were derived from the ratings

of the counselees and the ratings of the diagnosticians.

This result confirmed the concept that, in the judgment of

the counselors, the diagnosticians and the counselees

differed significantly, in the way they rate the completed

sentences of the counselees. This-finding suggested that

there was a noted difference between the way the counselees

evaluated their own responses and the way a diagnostician

evaluated the same responses. Counselees and diagnosticians

may therefore be considered independent groups when evaluated

in terms of their resulting difference scores. The marriage

counselors judged the counselees" difference scores as being

more accurate than the diagnosticians'. From this it may be

concluded that the counselees1 difference scores were more

useful than the diagnosticians' difference scores when using

this method of assessing marital difficulty. Since the sig-

nificance of the chi square value for the treatment of the

difference scores was actually far beyond the .001 level, it

was concluded that this difference score factor may offer

the most useful element in this method of testing for marital

difficulty. Also since the marriage counselors saw the

counselees as being far more accurate, their derived difference

scores were considered to be pronouncedly more useful than

diagnosticians' derived difference scores.

48

In summary, when using the polyfactor method, the pre-

dominance of the t-test results were interpreted as suggesting

that counselees and diagnosticians tend to be significantly

different in relation to how much difference they see exists

in a marriage. The correlations suggested, however, that

there were moderate relationships between the counselees' and

the diagnosticians' ratings for all but the difference score

factor, which was considered the most important element of

this testing method. The chi square analyses showed that

in the counselors' judgment the diagnosticians and the coun-

selees tended to be significantly independent of each' other

and that the counselees tended to be more in agreement with

the marriage counselor than with the diagnostician. This was

interpreted as suggesting that the counselees' self-ratings

on sentence completion items were more accurate than were

diagnosticians' ratings when measuring marital difficulty by

this method.

In conclusion, these results were interpreted as pre-

dominantly supporting the hypothesis of this study that when

using a self-rating, sentence-completion test oriented toward

marital difficulties, clients' self-ratings will be more in

accordance with their counselor's ratings than will the

rating of other trained professionals. The results of this

study supported the contention that the self-rating of

finished sentence-completion items was not only a fruitful

49

method of testing for a couple's marital difficulties, but

also one which was probably superior to having a trained

professional attempt to diagnose the difficulty reflected in

the couple's sentence-completion responses. Of course, this

method of testing would allow for the professional's inter-

pretation of the projective elements of the test and thus

would not exclude this element from being a possible method

of forming additional interpretations of the data. Since

this test method included both projective and objective

elements, and since it was easy to administer, score, and

apparently easy to interpret with some accuracy, it was con-

cluded that this approach did indeed offer a superior method

of testing for marital difficulties; however, considerable

further research is needed to affirm this conclusion and

make an instrument of certain practical use, utilizing the

objective-projective, self-rating, sentence-completion

format.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY

The purpose of this study was to explore a new method

of diagnosing marital difficulties involving client-rated,

sentence-completion items. To conduct this study, sixty-six

subjects all entering marriage counseling were administered

the experimental Polyfactor Test for Marital Difficulties.

This test contained eighty-five sentence stems to be com-

pleted by the client and then rated by the client as to how

much marital difficulty was reflected in each sentence,

utilizing a four-point rating scale. From these ratings,

four sets of scores were derived: husband's scores, wife's

scores, area total scores, and difference scores. The

clients' scores were placed on a graph for each couple which

contains seventeen subfactors or area subtests. Five pro-

fessionals, trained in psychodiagnostics, then rated the

completed sentence items for degree of marital difficulty,

utilizing the same four-point scale, and these were also

graphed. A Fisher's t-test and a Pearson r were conducted

between the couples' and the diagnosticians' ratings.

Following this, each couple's marriage counselor made

judgments as to which graph, the clients' or the diagnos-

tician's, was more accurate in depicting the actual marriage

51

situation. A chi square analysis was used to test for the

independence of the counselors' two ratings of each set of

Polyfactor test scores.

The results indicated that the counselees1 ratings of

their own completed sentences resulted in graphs of marital

difficulties which were in significantly greater agreement

with the marriage counselor's view of the marriage than with

the diagnostician's view of the marriage diagnosed from the

same completed sentences. Moreover, the wives' scores and

the difference scores showing the disparagement between the

husband's and wife's scores were shown to be the most"useful

(.001 level of significance) in analyzing the marriage, but

it was also shown that the area total scores and the husbands'

scores were fairly useful apart from the other scores.

It was concluded that the results of this study sup-

ported the contention that the self-rating of finished

sentence-completion items is a fruitful method of testing

for marriage difficulties and that this method also contains

advantages over the other types of marriage testing reviewed.

Thus, it was also concluded that this study indicates that

further research on this method of diagnosing marital

difficulties is certainly merited. It was suggested that

such research aim at confirming the findings of this study

and at bringing about the development of instruments using

this self-rating, sentence-completion format which would have

definite practical use.

APPENDIX A

PARTIAL SAMPLE OF THE POLYFACTOR TEST

FOR MARITAL DIFFICULTIES*

M S L N 1. Our honeymoon was

M S L N 2. The place we live in is

M S L N 3. My spouse's education

M S L N 4. Our hobbies are

M S L N 5. Our health

M S L N 6. Our marriage is

M s L N 7. A marriage should not be

M s L N 8. The best thing about marriage is

M s L N 9. The worst thing about marriage is

M s L N 10. In marriage

•Reproduced by permission of the test authors

5 2

APPENDIX B

THE POLYFACTORS GRAPH OF MARITAL DIFFICULTIES

CLIENT'S NAME COUNSELOR DATE

Husband x—x Wife o—o

Areas of Difficulty

0 Little Difficulty

Some Difficulty

Much Difficulty AT DF

Areas of Difficulty

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 IS Sc Sc

Validity (1 - 5) 1. General Marriage (6 - 10) 2. Love (11-15) 3. Compatibility (16-20) 4. Sex (21-25) 5. Spouse (26-30) 6. Self (31-35) 7. Actualizatior (36-40) 8. Children (41-45) 9. Money (46-50) 10. Religion (51-55) 11. Need Fulfillment (56-60) 12. Communicatior (61-65) 13. Others (66-70) 14. External Pressure (71-75) 15.

54

APPENDIX B—Continued

Areas of Difficulty

3 Little Difficulty

Some Difficulty

Much Difficulty

AT DF Areas of Difficulty

3 Little Difficulty

Some Difficulty

Much Difficulty Sc Sc

Areas of Difficulty

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Motivation (76-80) 16. Future (81-85) 17.

HC Sc WC Sc TC Sc

Scoring

M = 3 points, much difficulty S = 2 points, some difficulty L = 1 point, little difficulty N = 0 points, no difficulty AT Sc = area total score DF Sc = difference score HC Sc = husband's column scores WC Sc = wife's column scores TC Sc = total column scores

APPENDIX C

DIAGNOSTICIANS' INSTRUCTIONS FOR RATING

COUNSELEES1 SENTENCES

All items must be completed.

Leaving any of the sentences unjudged invalidates

sections of the survey and this makes other sentences which

you have judged much less useful.

Read what has been written for each sentence, one

sentence at a time. As you do this, make a judgment of how

much difficulty this sentence represents in the marriage.

You will make this judgment by circling one of the four

capital letters found in front of each sentence (M, S, L,

N), which represent the following degrees of difficulty:

M—much difficulty

S—some difficulty

L—little difficulty

N—-no difficulty

Again every sentence must receive a judgment. No

sentence should be left unjudged since any sentence without

one of the four preceding letters circled invalidates an

entire section of this survey. Therefore, you must make some

judgment for each sentence.

56

After you have finished this survey, check over your

answers and see that nothing has been left blank or incom-

plete.

APPENDIX D

COUNSELOR RATING SHEET

Area Male

A B

Female Area Total Score

A B A B

Difference Score

B

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

Validity

General Marriage

Love

Compatibility

Sex

Spouse

Self

Actualization

Children

Money

Religion

Need Fulfillment

Communication

Others

External Pressure

16.

17.

18.

Motivation

Future

TOTAL GRAPH

57

APPENDIX E

COUNSELORS* INSTRUCTIONS FOR RATING

1. The counselor will look at the two graphs labeled A and B as they are placed before him.

2. The counselor will note the broken line connecting x's represents the male counselee's profile on the graph and the solid line connecting o's represents the female's profile on the graph.

3. The counselor is to judge which profile lines on the graph best represents the counselee's marital situation in relation to the area titles found to the left on the profile sheet.

4. This is done by placing a check under the capital letter A or the capital letter B in the column titled male, the column titled female, then under the column titled area total score (found in the first score column to the right of the profiles on the graph sheet), and finally, under the column titled difference score (found in the second score column to the right of the profiles on the graph).

NOTE: The difference score should also be observed by viewing the amount of distance on the graph between the male's score (x) and the female's score (o) for each of the 17 areas.

5. It should be noted that the first area titled validity represents the counselee's ability to be properly measured by this test. This score is most often a validity indicator for over-judgments, or in other words people who tend to magnify the statement of the amount of difficulty that they have.

6. At the end of the list of 17 areas under the double line is found a row for making judgments concerning the total graph, and this is handled somewhat differently than the preceding. Here the counselor is to look at the total configuration of four factors.

a. First, he should look at the configuration of the male's total profile on both sheets A and B (x—x) .

59

Then, he is to make a check on the rating sheet under A or B representing which of the two graphs and their related parts best represent the male's position in the total marriage situation.

b. The counselor should then look at the configuration of the female's total profile on both sheets A and B (o—o). Then, he is to make a check on the rating sheet under A or B representing which of the two graphs and their related parts best represent the female's position in the total marriage situation.

c. Now the counselor should look at the total con-figuration of both male and female lines taken as a whole, and he should judge which of the two profile sheets best represents the total marriage situation.

d. Last, the counselor should look at the configuration of the difference score pattern (amount of space between male and female scores in each area). This is done to judge which of the two difference score patterns, A or B, is the most useful in making diagnostic and prognostic evaluations for marriage counseling. The judgment is made by placing a check under either A or B in the far right column in row 18 of the rating sheet.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Abt, Lawrence Edwin and Leopold Bellah, editors, Projective Psychology, 3rd edition, New York, Grove Press, Inc., 1959.

Bonney, Merl E. and Richard S. Itampleman, Personal-Social Evaluation Techniques, Washington, D.C., The Center for Applied Research in Education,- Inc., 1962."

Buros, Oscar Krisen, editor, The Sixth Mental Measurements Yearbook, Highland Park, New Jersey, The Gryphon Press, 1965.

Cronbach, Lee J., Essentials of Psychological Testing, 2nd edition, New York, Harper and Brothers, 1960.

Freeman, Frank S., Theory and Practice of Psychological Testing, 3rd edition, New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1962.

Greene, Bernard L., The Psychotherapies of Marital Disharmony, New York, The Free Press, 1965.

Guilford, J.P., Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Education, New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1956.

Hahn, Milton E. and Malcolm S. MacLean, General Clinical Counseling in Educational Institutions, New York, McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1950.

Morris, Woodrow W., An Introduction to Projective Techniques, edited by Harold H. Anderson and Gladys L. Anderson, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall Inc., 1951.

Talbert, Robert H., Cowtown—Metropolis, Fort Worth, Leo Potishman Foundation, Texas Christian University, 1956.

Underwood, Benton J. et_ al_„ Elementary Statistics, New York, Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1954.

Woodworth, Robert S., Experimental Psychology, New York, H. Holt and Company, 1938.

60

61

Articles

Adams, Clifford R., "Evaluating Marriage Prediction Tests," Marriage and Family Living, XII (Spring, 1950), 55-58.

Burgess, Ernest W., "Prediction Factors in the Success or Failure of Marriage," Marriage and Family Living, I (January, 1939), 1-3.

and Leonard S. Cottrell, Jr., "The Pre-diction of Adjustment in Marriage," American Sociological Review, I (October, 1936), 740-743.

"The Values and Limitations of Marriage Prediction Tests," Marriage and Family Living, XII (Spring, 1950), 54-55.

Corsini, Raymond J., "Multiple Predictors of Marital Happiness," Marriage and Family Living, XVIII (August, 1956), 240-242.

Ellis, Albert, "The Value of Marriage Prediction Tests," American Sociological Review, XIII (December, 1948) , 710-718..

Frumkin, Robert M., "The Kirkpatrick Scale of Family Interests as an Instrument for the Indirect Assessment of Marital Adjustment," Marriage and Family Living, XV (February, 1953), 35-37.

Landis, Judson T., "Length of Time Required to Achieve Adjustment in Marriage," American Sociological Review, XI (December, 1946), 666-677.

Locke, Harvey J. and Robert C. Williamson, "Marital Adjust-ment: A Factor Analysis Study," American Sociological Review, XXIII (October, 1958), 562-569.

and Karl M. Wallace, "Short Marital-Adjustment and Prediction Tests: Their Reliability and Validity," Marriage and Family Living, XXI (August, 1959) , 251-255.

Mathews, Vincent D. and Clement S. Mihanovich, "New Orien-tations on Marital Maladjustment," Marriage and Family Living, XXV (August, 1963), 300-304.

Rohde, Amanda R., "Explorations in Personality by the Sentence Completion Method," Journal of Applied Psychology, XXX (April,. 1946), 169-181.

62

Rotter, Julian B. and Benjamin Willerman, "The Incomplete Sentences Test as a Method of Studying Personality," Journal of Consulting Psychology, XI (January-February, 1948), 43-48.

Skidmore, Rex A. and William M. McPhee, "The Comparative Use of the California Test of Personality and the Burgess-Cottrell-Wallin Schedule in Predicting Marital Adjustment," Marriage and Family Living, XIII (August, 1951), 121-124.

Tendler, A. D., "A Preliminary Report on a Test for Emotional Insight," Journal of Applied Psychology, XIV (March, 1931), 122-136.

Terman, Lewis M. and Winifred B. Johnson, "Methodology and Results of Recent Studies in Marital Adjustment," American Sociological Review, IV (June, 1939), 307-324.

and Paul Wallin, "The Validity of Marriage Prediction and Marital Adjustment Tests," American Sociological Review, XIV (August, 1949), 497-504.

Manuals

Hurvitz, Nathan, Marital Roles Inventory Manual, Beverly Hills, California, Western Psychological Services, 1961.

Manson, Morse P. and Arthur Lerner, The Marriage Adjustment Inventory, Beverly Hills, California, Western Psycho-logical Services, 1962.

and Arthur Lerner, The Marriage Adjustment Sentence Completion Survey, Beverly Hills, California, Western Psychological Services, 1962.

Rotter, Julian B. and Benjamin Willerman, The Rotter Incom-plete Sentences Blank, College Form, New York, The Psychological Corporation, 1950.

Unpublished Materials

Cookerly, J. Richard and William E. Foster, Manual for the Polyfactor Test for Marital Difficulties, unpublished test manual, Psychological Services Center, Fort Worth, Texas, September, 1967.

63

Johnson, James E. et al_., "Who Do We Serve?" unpublished manuscript, Psychological Services Center, Fort Worth, Texas, January, 1967.