DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 044 434 TM 000 152

AUTHOR Fietrofesa, John J.; Wurtz, Robert E.
TITLE The Edwards Personal Preference Schedule.
INSTITUTION Wayne State Univ., Detroit, Mich. Coll. of Education.
PUB DATE Mar 70
NOTE 16p.; Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Personnel Guidance Association, New
Orleans, Louisiana, March 1970
EDRS PRICE EDRS Price MF-$0.25 HC -'$0.90
DESCRIPTORS *Career Choice, Group Norms, Individual
Characteristics, Individual Needs, *Occupational
Guidance, *Personality Tests, Profile Evaluation,
*Psychological Needs, Rating Scales, Sex
Differences, Statistical Analysis, Statistical Data,
*Test Reliability, Test Validity, Vocational
Counseling
IDENTIFIERS *Edwards Personal Preference Schedule, EPPS
ABSTRACT
It has been hypothesized that personality needs have
a significant impact upon eventual occupational placement. The
Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS) was designed to provide
researchers in Career development with a quick and convenient measure
of a number of relatively independent personality variables, or
needs. It gauges 15 such needs and provides measures of test
consistency and profile stability. This study was designed to observe
normative differences between groups previously given the EPPS (and
reported in the research literature) and to ascertain if the £PPS
normative group it representative of any population. Data were
collected on previous studies, encompassing 24 male and 15 female
groups, which reported means and standard deviations of
sub-populations. Multiple t-tests were run through computer analysis.
The results suggest that the representativeness of the test manual
norm group and the sensitivity of the scales are questionable and
that further research on the schedule is warranted. Scale sensitivity
and differentiation are considered in more detailed in part II of the
paper. Autonomy, for both men and women, appears to contribute little
to differentiating among groups, and hence, any time a group is found
to differ from the norm on this scale, they can be said to be really
different. Problems related to such use of the EPPS and which require
further research are raised. (Author/PR)
4-
t41
4,
4'
48
C)
1.1,1
THE EDWARD3 VERSCHAL FREFERENCE SCHEDUIE

Normative aLLId or 1!cserrna cts

John J. Fietrofesa, Assistant Professor

Department of Guidance and Counseling, College of Education
Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan 48202

II. Scialsnaitlyitund:Differentiation

Robert E. Wertz, Professor

Department of Guidance and Counseling, College of Education
Wrgyne State University, Detroit, Michigan 48202

6111.111 In Of Mt Wm, f&vC &NA

&MOAN/
WOK( Of tbUCA11044
t43 DOCVbtMT 'US SEEM REIPPOOLX40
Mtn,' Al tort14113M PfileSON 0*
&&40062010& 0100MATWO Irf POWS Of
lilt* OA OfItifrd MHO 00 &Of &KU
Weft, flt PROW OS ft. Akt OM( I Of WV
CA hOof POS bOti Oft POLK!

AMA - u ORLEATO
Muth 25, 1970
 -2-

I. Normative and/or Non-Normative Aspects

A number of researchers in career develppment have turned their attention

to the impact and importance personality needs have upon eventual occupational
placement. People work to satisfy needs, and if this is so, occupational groups
should have common need patterns. One instrument designed as a research and
counseling instrument has been the Edwards Persona). Preference Schedule (EFTS)
which measures several relatively independent normal personality variables. The
EPPS has been used a good deal to cite the differentiated need patterns among
occupational groups. Yet, the EPPS has had little normative data accumulated,
for example, in comparison to the Strong.

The Problem

This study was designed to observe normative differences among the EPPS
and groups previously studied in the research data. The EFTS has had few
normative comparisons to date, and none to the extent of this study. The
study intends to raise the question, "Is the EPPS normative group representative
of any population?" If great numbers of differences occur among the EPPS norm
group and ell other groups, this may well indicate that the normative data are
non-representative of any population.

The Edwards Personal Preference Schedule

Oenerel PAckground. The EFTS is designed to provide a quick and convenient

measure of a number of relatively independent personality needs. In addition to
gauging fifteen such personality needs, the test also provides measures of
test consistency and profile stability. The Ens consists of 210 pairs of
items in a forced- ehoiced format to be answered in ayes or no manner. Fifteen
pairs of items are repeated to reveal a consistency score. The results of the
EPTS present the relative strength of competing needs rather thAn the absolute
strength of any one need. The EPPS is founded in the so-called "normal" per-
sonality rather than in the pathological personality. This becomes a distinct
advantage of the EPPS since it permits a wider usage of the test,

Norms of the EPPS. The effectime use of any test necessitates the inclusion
T unorsrassolEiiThigh and low scores of individuals or groups might be observed.
The norms of the EPIS appear to have been substantiated through the research
of other authors. Allen and Dallek (1957, p. 151 did not find any significant
differences in the needs of their local sample and the standarditatioii group,
indicating that the norms of the EPPS overcame regional differences. Supporting
the use of separate male and female norms, Sate and Allen (1961, p. 195) in a
study of 157 males and 79 females at the University of Miami discovered "substan-
tial sex variable differences in addition to population mean differences in the
regional and normative groups." Separate.norms must also be used for psychia-
tric) patients (0auron, 1965, pp. 194-196).

Intercorrelations of the EPPS Scales. The intercorrelations among the EPIS

scales, slowing dependence or independence of each of the variables, have re-
ceived much attention from Allen (1957), who attempted initially to ascertain
the extent to which the intercorrelations for a second college population would
be similar to the intercorrelations in the test manual. Differences were attributed
 -3_

to the size and heterogeneity of the two college populations. Affiliation and
nurturance, order and endurance and order and deference were positively correlated
while deference and autonomy and intraception and succorance were negatively
correlated.
Ina follow-up study, Allen (1958, pp. 591-597) described the intercorrela-
tions among the EPPS scales. The writer suggested the following patterns from
the varous positive and negative correlations, i.e., the scales found in each
pattern seemed to be related:

Pattern 1 Pattern 2

Aggression Affiliation
Autonomy Hurturance
Heterosexual Order
Dominance Abasement
bchibition Succorance
Deference
Intraception

Patterns 1 an0 2 were not mutually exclusive but were clearly defined. Common
to both sides were the needs of achievement, change and endurance. Pattern 1
variables assumed an "outgoingness" and social responsiveness. The need for
aggression indicates an involvement with people that is without warmth and
understanding. The Pattern 1 variables also expressed independence and
extroversiveness.
Pattern 2 indicates respect and consideration for and personal dependency
upon others. This pastern included affiliative needs or close interpersonal
attachments in addition to a conformity with societal expectations. Tne need
for intraception and nurturance reflected a need for such activities as analyzing
the motives clf oneself and others. An intrapunitiveness was present as
evidenced by the need for abasement.

Method

Data were collected on previous studies which utilized the EFTS and
reported means and standard deviations of sub - populations. The final number
encompassed 24 male and 15 female groups. (See Apr.endix A). Daltiple t-tests
were run through ecaputer analysis, since sufficient data were not present to
resort to analysis of variance. Recognizing the ipsative nature of the Ens, in
other words, a change upon one scale fortes change on another, the investigators
utilised the one per cent level of significance.

Limitations of the Study

One should be aware of the following limitations of this study:

1. Colleges have different admissions and retention policies. Scores
of college samples may simply reflect differences based upon these
selective criteria.
2. Several of the reported studies used an age cutoff point, whereas
others did not.
3, In at least one study, a lam consisteneyseore was used to exclude
individuals. In addition, other studies did not even bother to
include the consistency score.
 -4-

4. In acme cases we may be comparing groups that should not be compared,

e.g., the neuropsychiatric group and the norm group.

Findings

In the comparison of the means of the various male groups, 10 of the 24

male groups had fewer overall significant differences than the norm group. The
most representative group of all the remaining groups was Jackson's elementary
teachers with only 37 significant differences. In contrast the FOB norm
group of males had 117 significant comparisons out of a possible 330. Thirty-
five per cent of all comparisons of the male norm group, then, were significant
at the .01 level. Scale sensitivity differed a great deal also in norm group
comparisons, e.g., 14 of the 23 comparisons upon Autonomy were significant.
(See Tables 1 and 2).
Similar results were observed in the comparisons of the female groups.
Seven out of the fifteen female groups had fewer significant scores at the .01
level out of a possible 195 comparisons. Forty-one per cent of the comparisons
of female groups were significant difference out of a possible 14 on Abasement
while only 1 comparison was significant on the Autonomy scale.
Tables 3 and 4 make possible some comparisons of apparently similar groups
by putting total number of differences for these relatively common groups in one
column. This in turn allows ready identification of these groups. Even then
it is evident that the like groups differ in comparisons among all groups. For
example, among the rale college samples, differences range from 81 to 142. The
female college samples do not show these great differences. On the other hand,
the female high school students have differences extending from 65 to 103. It
is apparent then, that the EPIS is not consistently discriminating among like
groups.

Conclusions

In conclusion, one could simply raise some vestion about the representative-
ness of the test manual norm group of the EPIS and also the sensitivity of
several of its scales.

II. Scale Sensitite.ty and Differentiation

As Pietrofesa pointed out in Part I, "Normative and/or Non-Normative Aspects,

the various scales of the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule did not contri-
bute equally to differentiating the norm group from other populations. This
will be eonsid,dred further in this paper and then sore consideration will be
given to the sensitivity of the scales, or the relative contributions of the
scales, in differentiating among all populations. Finally, some points raised
by both papers will be rentioned.
Noted earlier vet the fact that when the Edwar;'s male College Norm Group
was compared with all other studies, there were 117 statistically significant
differences, at the one per cent level. Reference to Table 1 indicates that
about 30 percent of these differences were contributed by just three scales,
 -5-

Endurance, Achievement and Abasement. Parenthetically it should be noted that

computers that accept language instructions cannot distinguish between end, and
End.as an abbreviation for Endurance. Hence, Edwards' END appears here as
WR.
Of these three scales, only one, Abasement is asnooiated with one of the
Allen (1968) patterns, (Pattern II). Achievement and Endurance were common to
both his patterns. In Table 5 can be found (column a) the rank order of the
scales in terms of number of differences form the norm group. At the bottom
of the listing is Autonomy. With 23 comparisons possible, there was only one
group which differed from the norm group on this scale.
With the females, the situation is somewhat different. Again, three
scales accounted for somewhat mire than 30 percent of the significant differences
but Abasement is the only scale contributing many differences with both sexes.
All of the three highly contributuing females scales, Abasement, Affiliation
and Deference, are found in Allen's Pattern IX. Cannon to both sexes is the
minor contribution of Autonomy, again with only one significant difference.
In Table 6 are the rank order contribution of differences for females. A
Comparison of the first columns of Tables 5 and 6 indicates quite clearly that
1. autonomy contributes little for both sexes,
2. atasement contributes many differences,
3. several scales contribute quite differently by sex, pa ticularly
change and intraception.
Turning to the differentiation among all studies, rather than from the
Edwards norm group, further differences are found. In Tables 5 and 6 are the
data to which reference will now be made. In the third column of these tables
are the total number of differences, by scale, among all the groups. For
men, the total of such differences is 1,370. Just about ten percent of these
differences are contributed by Dominance. The others of the top three contri-
butions based upon thirty percent are Intraception and Abasement. Only the
latter, ABA, was one of the top three in distinguishing the norm group from all
others. Endurance, the leading scale in the number of differences from the
norm group, is among the middle of the listing in differences among all groups.
Said differently, the norm group differs most often from the other groups on
Endurance, while all the groups differ most among themselves on Dominance. In
terms of rank order of contribution, Endurance and Dominance reversed their
relative positions.
Autoncry WAS consistent, remaining at the bottom of the list. The 28
significant differences on this scale are misleading, however, for 22 of these
differences were contributed by one group.
With the female groups, there is greater consistency whether comparison
are from the norm group or among all groups. Abasement, Deference and Order
are the three leading contributors of differences among all the groups. Of
these, the first two were found among the top contributors of differences from
the norm group. Order and affiliation approximately reversed petitions, when
changing from omparisons with the norm to among all groups. Unlike the male
population, the scales with the greatest number of differences for females,
whether comparisons are from the norm group or among all groups, are in Allen's
Pattern
The last four columns of Tables 5 and 6 are included as en indicator of
dispersion of differences among groups, as well as the direction of these MS;
fereneee, to what extent are the number of differences attributable to a few
extremely divergent groups. Achievement ald Deference for the men (Table 5),
while both having 118 differences, did not accumulate these differences in
 -6-

the same way. Approximately half of the differences on Deference can be at-
tributed to four groups, each of which was significantly higher than at least
14 other groups on this scale.
In connection with this, it should be pointed out that the Edwards College
Norm Group contributed three of the entries to this portion of Tables 5 and 6.
Of these, significance may attach to only one, Endurance for the men, where
the norm group is lower than at least L other studies. The eight or more
differences for the females on Abasement and Affiliation are in both directions
and hence may only be reflecting differences of other groups from the mean.
At this point customarily one should turn to a section lableled
"Conclusions." Here, because of the mass and confusion of the data, it must be
in the singular and followed by some questions.
First, the conclusion: Autonomy, for both men and women contributes
little to differentiating among groups, and hence, any time a group is found
to differ from the norm on this scale, they can be said to be really different.
Now the questions.
Would the finding that a college population differs from the Edwards
college norm group moan anything? Moro specifically, would differences for men
on Endurance have any significance?
The existence of separate norms by sex indicate that Edwards found
significant differences between men and women. The data here suggest that there
are also differences by sex in the way groups differ from the normative population.
Are the norm groups comparable samples by sex from a cowmen population or did
some sort of bias enter into the original sampling? Or do men and women differ
in the way they differ?
The differences between men and women on the contributions of the
various scales raise, or at least suggest, a question about Allen's findings
on patterns, particularly since his population was one of the groups reported
here. At the very least, one could question whether his pterns are applicable
to both men a:Al.:omen.
While the data call into question the Edwards college population as A
normative group, an even larger question is raised: can there be a college
norm group without use of a random sample stratified on more variables than
has been customary? Curricular major and geographical .egion seem to be
factors.
Age may well be another factor compounding the problem, and a factor to
be controlled in the consideration of a normative population. Alihough not
considered specifically in this paper. age seems to be inversely related to
the number of differences between d population and the other groups. This is
suggested by the decrease in the number of differences a!, one monves from high
school students to college students. to counselors. That is the relationship
of age scores on the Edwards 1,16? Or is there another factor operating
that appears to look line growth?
Finally, we voald note that the Edwards Personal Preference Sehedale has
been widely used as a research instrument. Perhaps, however, the Edwards is
en instrument on which more research needs to be done?
 References

. .

Allen, R. M. "An Analysis of Edwards Personal Preference Schedule Inter-

correlations for a Local College Population." Journal of Educational
Research, 1958, 51, 591-597.

Allen, R. 14. "Edwards Personal Preference Schedule Intercorrelations of Two

Groups." The Psychologicel Record, 1957, 7, 87.
. I
Allen, R. M. and J. I. Dallek, "A Normative Study of the Edwards' Personal
Preference Schedule." Journal or laRho1ogy, 1957, 43, 151-154.
1

Edwards, A. L. Edwards Personal Preference Schedule. New York: The Psy-

chological Corporation, 1959.

Gauron, E. "Changes in Edwards Personal Preference Schedule Needs with Age

and Psychiatric Status," Journal of Clinical Psycholov, 1965, 21, 194-196.

Satz, P. and 11, M. Allen. "Study of the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule:
Regional Normative Approach." Journal of Social Nthologyl 1961,
53, 195-198.
 TABLE 1
MALE GROUP DIFFERENCES BY SCALE WITH
THE EPPS NORM GROUP

?
Ig 0 1 N Ru § 0 1 i 6
41 M

* * * * * * 7
1 *

* * * 3
2

* * * * * * * 8
3

* 11
4 2

* * * * * I * * I 9
5

* * * A * 1 7
6

* * * * * 5
7

* 1
8

A * * * 4
9

10 * * * * * * * * * I * 12

* * * A * * 9
11 it

it * * 4
12 0

* * * I it * 6
13

A 1
14

* * * * 4
15

0 * * A gt
16

17 Nora

18 DELETE

19 * A A Or * * A 7

& * 2
20

* * A * * * 6
21

A A A * * A * 7
22

* A * * A 5
22

* * 4
24 *

Total 11 9 9 5 1 8 9 7 8 11 S 4 14 10 6 117
 TABLE 2

FEMALE GROUP DIFFERENCES BY SCALE WITH

THE EPPS NORM GROUP

'4oN§OptdgNil
1 * * * * A * A * * * 10

2 * * op * * 5

3 4 * 4 * * * 6

4 * * * 3

5 4 * * 4 * * * * 11

6 * * * 4 4

1 * * * * 4

8 * * * 4 4

9 * * * * 4 * * 4 8

10 Mb=
11 DELETE

* * * 4 * * * 9
12 *

13 * * * * 4

14 * * * * * * * * g

15 * * * * 4

4 8 7 4 1 8 4 4 6 9 3 7 6 6 3 80
 g
TABLE 3

TOTAL DIFFERENCES BY SCALE AMONG

ro
0
In
4f)
k
o
r-4
'
VV
o
4.4
g
r4
4-1
tt

N'§
ALL KALE GROUPS to 12) vi 44
ri
OegM, g
CI vi
el P :=1

a 0o 8

1 19 7 14 2 1 14 20 9 10 7 6 6 16 10 2 143

2 5 11 7 5 3 3 10 1. 8 7 4 4 4 10 1 83

3 18 7 10 1 1 2 13 5 18 8 15 10 19 4 6 137

4 11 10 8 5 3 4 7 3 9 10 4 5 6 9 8 '102

5 8 14 9 19 22 4 7 2 17 12 5 1 10 9 3 142 142

6 12 14 11 8 4 10 10 6 9 9 10 4 9 9 9 134 134

7 8 14 12 5 1 4 10 5 9 9 3 3 8 10 2 103

8 4 8 3. 1 1 1 2 0 6 5 1 1 2 2 0 35

9 9 8 13 3 1 6 9 6 17 14 4 6 7 10 5 118 net 118

10 10 13 13 6 1 7 11. 14 19 16 17 9 10 17 8 171 . 171

11 10 14 15 7 1 3 9 2 19 16 18 3 13 19 8 157 157

12 9 9 13 3 1 6 11 4 9 11., 3 2 8 13 8 110 110

13 10 14 16 10 3 3 7 2 15 12 7 1 14 6 8 128

14 8 7 7 3 1 3 7 3 10 B 2 1 6 8 7 81 81

15 10 13 7 8 1 7 10 5 10 10 8 5 9 10 7 120 120

16 3 0 8 1 1 20 17 15 7 8 1 8 6 2 10 107 107

17 '1. 9 9 5 1 8 9 7 11 5 4 14 10 6 117

18

19 16 10 9 16 1 10 19 10 18 14 S 18 9 9 10 174 , 74

20 5 8 5 1 1 3 15 1 9 8 4 3 4 5 3 75 75

21 21 11 12 7 1 7 14 11 17 15 3 8 10 12 15 164 164

22 1.3 9 10 4 1 7 8 4 18 17 9 3 5 6 12 126 126

23 13 11 7 4 3 19 9 5 9 8 3 9 7 10 7 124 124

24 3 13 3 1 1 3 15 2 7 12 3 0 4 2 13 82 82
 TABLE 4
5
TOTAL DIFFERENCES BY SCALE
r0
5
AMONG ALL FEMALE GROUPS 0 o
4) 5 H
g
tn cl 0
ill 41)
1i ni A
16
8
FC
O
1-4
0 4 il
U V)
0
U PI
'V
rtl

1 6 8 11 13 12 5 3 8 6 8 4 7 8 8 4, 111

2 2 9 6 5 4 5 3 2 1 9 0 8 8 7 1 70

5 10 11 6 4 7 3 4 7 11 2 6 8 8 3 95

4 5 7 5 3 1 2 3 5 4 8 3 6 4 8 1 65 65 65

5 2 9 13 8 7 4 S 4 11 8 10 8 8 9 4 113

6 3 2 4 1 3 7 3 2 5 8 9 1 6 5 0' 65 65

76 5 5 2 3 5 4 1 6 9 4 6 4 8 0 68 68

8 2 5 5 5 3 5 4 3 6 8 4 6 6 3 70 70 70

9 6 7 5 5 3 6 8 6 6 7 4 5 S: 5 4 06 86 86
10 5 7 7 4 1 8 4 4 6 9 3 7 6 6 3 80

11 DELETED

12 10 5 5 7 4 11 9 5 7 6 8 7 8 6 5 103 103

13 2 6 4 5 7 8 12 6 6 9 2 5 2 5 1 80 80

14 10 8 12 5 4 5 3 3 6 8 5 6 7 6 .7 95 95

15 0 6 3 1 1 2 4 - 11 1 9 4 8 4 1 0 55 55
 TABLE 5
DIFFERENCES BY SCALE (MALE)

Rank order Number of studies with 14 or more

of # of signif. significant differences (01 per cent)
differences and direction.

From Among Sig. diffs.

Scale Norm All Total *X. Total Hi her Lower 1 Both
ACH 2.5 4.5 118 23 4 2 2. 1

DEF 7 4.5 118 23 5 4 1

ORD 7 6 110 22 3 3

EXH 12.5 12 63 12 2 1 1

AUT 15 15 28 06 1 1

AFF 7 10 77 15 3 1 2

INT 4.5 2.5 124 25 6 3 2 1

SUC 11 13 61 12 2 1 1

DOM 10 1 139 28 9 2 4 3

ABA 2.5 2.5 124 25 6 4 1

NUR 12.5 11 70 14 3 2 1

CHG 14 14 57 11 1 1

DUR** 1 8 100 20 4 3 1+

HET 4.5 7 101 20 2 2

AGG 12 9 79 16 1 1 1

Total: 1,370

*of 506 differences possible (22x23).

**ENDurance in manual.

+includes norm group

 TABLE G
DIFFERENCES BY SCALE (FEMALE)

Rank order Number of studies with 8 or more

of # of signif. significant differences (01 per cent)
differences. and direction.
From Among Sig. diffs.
Scale Norm All Total % * Total Hi her .ow -r of

ACH 9 11.5 32 18 2 1 1

DEF 3 2.5 48 ! 26 5 3 1 1

ORD 5 2.5 48 26 4 1 1 2

EXH 11 9.5 35 19 2 2

AUT 15 14 28 15 1 1

AFF 2 7 40 22 2 2+

INT 11 9.5 35 19 4 1 2 1

SUC 11 11.5 32 18 2 - - 2

DOM 7.5 8 39 21 1 1

ABA 1 1 59 32 13 3 5 5+

NLR 13.5 13 31 17 3 2 - 1

CHG 5 6 43 24 3 - 2 1

DUR 7.5 4 45 25 6 4 1 1

HET 5 5 44 24 6 1 5

AGG 13.5 15 21 12 0

Total: 580

*of 182 differences possible (14 x 13)

+includes norm group.

 APPENDIX A

Male Groups

1. (Engineers) Gray, James T. "Needs and Values in Three Occupations."

Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1963, 42, 238-244.

2. (Teachers) Ibid.

3. (Accountants) Ibid.

4. (College Counselees) Merrill, Reed M. and Louise B. Heathers. "The

Relation of the Mi2I to the Edwards prsroinal Sclgduillear a
College Counseling Center Sample." c;'ilfozejs:11.1
1936, 20, 310-314.

5. (Southern Negroes) Grossack, Martin M. "Some Personality Characteristics

of Southern Negro Students." Journal of Social Psychology, 1957) 46)
1254.51.

6. (College Men) Blum, Stuart H. "The Desire for Security: an Element in the
Vocational Choice of College Men." JoIrne...ofEdtuestl, 1961,
$2, 317-321.

7. (High School Teachers) Jackson, Philip W. and Egon G. Guba. "The Need
Structure of In-service Teachers, an Occupational Analysis." School Review,
1957, 65, 176-192.

8. (Elementary School Teachers) Ibid.

9. (Entering College Freshman) Tisdale, John R. "Comparison of Edwards

Personal Preference Schedule Data for Three Groups." Psychological Record,
1965, 15 203-210.
I

10. (Psychiatric Patients) Gauron, E. F. "Changes in Edwards Personal

Preference Schedule Needs with Age and Psychiatric Status." Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 1965, 21, 194-196.

11. (Neuropsychiatric Sample) Newman, J. and G. J. Wischner. "The Performance

of an Hospitalized Neuropsychiatric Sample on the Edwards Personal Preference
Schedule.' Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1960, 16, 99-100.

12. (College Sample) Satz, Paul and Robert M. Allen. "A Study of the EFTS:
Regional Normative Approach." Journal ofiBocial Psychology, 1961, 53,
195 -198.

13. (Prison Inmates) Bernberg, Raymond E. "An Analysis of the Responses of a

Male Prison Population to the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule."
_journa3.___:_st_Gerlerallol, 1960, 62, 319-324.
14, (Education Students) Pietrofesa, J. J. "A Comparison of College Student
Entering Different Academic Majors." Coral Gables, Florida: University
of Miami, 1971. Doctoral Dissertation.
. .

15. (Education Students) Wurtz, R. E. Entering Teacher Education Students;

Selected Characteristics. Detroit: Wayne State University, 1969. Mimeo.
.

16. (Counselors) Asa, L. F. "Interview Behavior and Counselor Personality

Variables." cl___...tcationsmICounselorEldSusiorrvii, 1967, 6, 326-330.

17. (EFTS Norms) Edwards, A. L. Edwards Personal Preference Schedule. New

York: Psychological Corporation, 1954.
11,

18. (College Students) Allen, R. M. and J. I. Dallek. "A Normative Study of

the Edward's tersonal Preference Schedule." jomlnal of Psychology, 1957,
43, 151-154.

19. (High School Students) Klett, C. J. "Performance of High School Students

on the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule." Journal of Cons
Psyehology, 1957, 21, 68-72.
. .

20. (Counselor Trainees) Pietrofesa, J. J. "Personality Needs of Ccunselor-

Trainees." Detroit: Wayne State University, 1970. Mimeo.
11

21. (High School Students) Pietrofesa, J. J. "Personality Needs of High School

Students." Miami Springs, Florida: Miami Springs High School, 1967. Mimeo.

22. (Law students) Pietrofesa. "A Comparison..." Op. Cit.

23. (Medical Students) Ibid.

24. (Counselors) Roemnich, H. "The Need Structure of Public School Counselors."

Journal of Educational Research, 1967, 61,24-26.

Female Groups

1. (Southern Negroes) Grossack.

2. (High School Teachers) Jackson. Op. Cit.

3. (Elementary School Teachers) Ibid.

4. (Entering College Freshmen) Tisdale. Op.At.

5. (Neuropsychiatric Patients) Gauron. Op. Cit.

6. (College Students) Zuckerman, M. "The Validity of the EFTS in the Measure-

ment of Dependency-Rebelliousness." Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1958,
14, 379-382.

7. (College Samples) Satz and Allen. Op4AL.

 -3-

0. (Education Students) Pietrofesa. "A Comparison..." Op. Cit.

9. (Education Students) Wurtz. Op. Cit.

1C. (EPFS Norms) Edwards. Op. Cit.,

11. (College Students) Allen and Pallek. '91! Cit.

12. (High School Students) Klett. Op. Cit.

13. (Counselors) Pietrofesa. "Counselor Trainees..." Op. Cit.

14. (High School Students) Pietrofesa. "High Student Needs: gasit.

15. (Counselors) Roemnich. Op. Cit.