Discriminant Function Analysis of Probationary And Nohn-probationary Students' Measured Values. Personality Needs And Socio-economic Background Factors
Loading...
Date
1970
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
University of Agricultural Sciences GKVK, Bangalore
Abstract
Thomas, Russell Earle. Ph.D., Purdue University, January, 1970.
DISCRIMIHAHT FUNCTION ANALYSIS OF PROBATIONARY AND NON-PROBATIONARY
STUDENTS' MEASURED VALUES, PERSONALITY NEEDS, AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC
BACKGROUND FACTORS. Major Professor: Bruce Shertzer.
Using the multiple discriminant function analysis, this study
explored the quantifiable statistical differences in values, personality
needs, and socio-economic data among student and faculty groups.
Instruments employed in this investigation vere the Edvards Personal
Preference Schedule (EPPS), the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of Values
(AVL), the Brovn-Holtzman Survey of Study Habits and Attitudes (SSHA),
and a personally-developed questionnaire to collect socio-economic and
self-concept data.
The faculty sample included 23 engineering and l6 business instructors
from Tri-State College. The student sample (n=23?) was selected
through matching by academic major, class (i.e. freshman, sophomore,
etc.), and ability level as measured by the School and College Ability
Test. Thus, there were 6l engineering non-transfer non-probationary
and 60 engineering non-transfer probatlonai? students; 17 business nontransfer
non-probationary and 17 business non-transfer probationary
students; seven business transfer non-probationary and seven business
transfer probationary students; 17 engineering non-probationary twoyear
college transfers and 17 engineering probationtuiy two-year college
transfers; and I6 engineering non-probationary four-year college transfers
and 16 engineering probationary four-year college transfers. ^plojrlng the multiple discriminant function analysis, the data
vere analyzed in two sequences: first, the ten student and two faculty
groups and secondly, the ten student groups alone. Ho crosa-Talidatlon
group was established for either analysis because of the small numbers
is scoe subgroups.
In both aniOyses, the initial phases of the multiple discriminant
function emalysis yielded latent roots which indicated significant discrimination
between criterion groups. Using the centroid and standard
dcTlatlon values for those discrlminsmt functions yielding significant
discrimination between the criterion groups, figures were constructed
to proTlde visual illustration of the data. For the first analysis,
these illustrations suggested that the classification sequence of the
analysis would have been fruitless. The classification sequence conducted
in the second analysis, using the criterion sample resulted in a leurge
amount of mis-, double-, and triple-classification of criterion subjects.
The multiple overlap of centroid values for all student groups rendered
difficult any conclusive remarks about the dlscriminable groups.
The first discriminant function analysis involving the student and
faculty groups indicated that the engineering and business faculty were
dlserininable from the business probationary and non-probationary nontransfers
and the business probationary transfers based upon the EPPS
scales of Endurance, Order, Heterosexuality, Kurtxa-ance and Suecorance.
Thus, these faculty groups viewed themselves as being understanding,
persistent, orderly, sociable with women, and needing psychological
support. The student groups, among which there was considerable overlap,
Tieved themselves as primarily concerned about the utility of things
end personal power as shown by the AVL Economic and Political scales. n>e student and faculty groups vere not clearly distinguishable frcm
one another on the second and third dlscrlmlnp^t fXnctlons although
individual student groups vere distinct from others.
first discriminant function in the second imalysis revealed
that probationary and non-prohatlonary business transfers vere dlscrimlnable
from the eight other student groups based upon the receipt
of transfer business credit or no receipt of transfer credit. The
eight other student groups vere distinguishable on the basis of favoring,
not favoring, or being undecided about college attendance directly following
high school graduation. The second discriminant function in the
second analysis disclosed that engineering probationary and non-probationaiy
tvo-year college transfers vere differentiated from the other student
groups on the basis of the factors of number of older brothers and sisters,
year of classification, size of college previously attended, and
graduation from the last college attended. The other student groups
vere distinguishable from the engineering transfers on the basis of the
factors of birth order, number of scholastic dismissals from college,
receipt of transfer business credit and no receipt of transfer credit.
Thus, the empirical results clearly revealed that significant discrimination
vas taking place among the groups, but further examination of
the data through analysis indicated that no group vas free fron overlap
from another. The primary conclusion vas that the multiple discriminant
function analysis possessed utility as a tool for defining student groups
vhere the data are quantifiable.
Description
Discriminant Function Analysis of Probationary And Nohn-probationary Students' Measured Values. Personality Needs And Socio-economic Background Factors
Keywords
null
Citation
No. of references 88