Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 10 views

    Scores On The 16 Personality Factor Ques

    Uploaded by

    sachin40.indore

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Scores On The 16 Personality Factor Ques

    Uploaded by

    sachin40.indore
    10 views3 pages

    Original Title

    Scores_on_the_16_Personality_Factor_Ques

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    10 views3 pages

    Scores On The 16 Personality Factor Ques

    Uploaded by

    sachin40.indore

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 3

    Psycho[ogicalReports, 1994, 75, 348-350.

    O Psychological Reports 1994

    SCORES O N T H E 16 PERSONALITY FACTOR QUESTIONNAIRE


    AND SUCCESS IN COLLEGE CALCULUS '

    MICHAEL F. SHAUGHNESSY, JODY STOCKARD, JACK MOORE


    Eastern New Mexico University

    CAROLE SIEGEL
    PhiLadeIphia Colkge of Pharmacy and Science

    Summary.-This study explored the association of scores for 94 pharmacy majors


    on the 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire and success in college calculus courses as
    defined by final grade. In a simple regression two factors (G and A) were sigdicant
    of success in this exploratory study. Relevance to teaching and research is
    noted.

    Certain personality variables are viewed as salient to academic success


    and to mathematical success in particular (Odom & Shaughnessy, 1989;
    Ham & Shaughnessy, 1992). Keimowitz and Ansbacher (1960) utilized the
    California Personality Inventory to identify personality variables relevant to
    success in arithmetic. Feinberg and Halperin (1978) noted both affective and
    cognitive correlates of success in college statistics.
    In the present study the 16 P F was administered to college students
    enrolled in Calculus I, 11, and 111 to identify personological variables which
    contribute to or predict success, as measured by students' final grade in the
    courses.
    Method.-Pharmacy majors (N = 94) enrolled in Calculus I, 11, and I11
    served as subjects. There were 52 women (average age 18.9 yr.) and 42 men
    (average age 20.9 yr.). There were 75 students in Calculus I, 5 in Calculus
    11, and 14 in Calculus 111.
    The 16 PF Questionnaire, Form C of 105 items was administered dur-
    ing class to assess 16 specific personality factors; see Table 1 below for the
    list, factor analytically derived to reflect the major trait dimensions of human
    personahty comprehensively from young adulthood (17 years) to later matu-
    rity (30 years) (Cattell, Eber, & Tatsuoka, 1970).
    Results.-The means and standard deviations for the 16 factors are pro-
    vided in Table 1. Two personality variables were significant predictors of
    success measured as the final calculus course grade (on a 5-point scale where
    A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1, and F = 0). A SAS multiple regression procedure
    adopting an exploratory liberal p of .10 yielded Factor G (conscientious, con-
    forming, moralistic, staid, rule-bound) as a significant predictor of success in

    'Send requests for reprints to Dr. M. F. Shaughnessy, Eastern New Mexico University, Portales,
    New Mexico 88130.
    CALCULUS AND 16 PF SCORES 349
    TABLE 1
    D E S C ~ OOFN 16 PF FACTORS,
    MFANSAND STANDARD
    DEVIATIONS MAJORS
    FOR94 PHARMACY

    Factor Capsule Description M SD


    A Aloof vs warm, outgoing 5.1 2.0
    B Less intelligent vs more intelligent 5.3 2.0
    C Emotional immaturity vs emotional maturity 4.7 2.0
    E Submissive, humble vs dominant, assertive 6.0 2.1
    F Glum, sober vs enthusiastic 5.6 1.8
    G Casual, expedient vs conscientious, responsible 5.3 1.7
    H Timid, shy vs adventurous, spontaneous 5.4 1.8
    I Tough minded, realistic vs sensitive 5.0 1.8
    L Trustful, adaptable vs suspicious, self-opinionated 6.1 1.8
    M Conventional, practical vs eccentric, imaginative 4.7 1.9
    N Simple, unsophisticated vs sophisticated 5.4 1.9
    0 Confident, unanxious vs insecure, anxious 5.5 1.6
    Q1 Conservative, cautious vs experimenting 5.7 1.7
    Q2 Group dependent, follower vs self-sufficient 5.6 1.8
    Q3 Uncontrolled, weak willed vs self-controlled 4.6 1.5
    Q4 Stable, relaxed vs tense, restless 5.3 1.7
    *Copyright 1960, 1973, 1982, 1984 by the Institute for Personahty and Ability Testing, Inc.
    (Reproduced by permission)

    c a l c u l u s for t h i s s a m p l e . F a c t o r G s u g g e s t s a high scorer is " e x a c t i n g in c h a r -


    a c t e r . . . persevering, r e s p o n s i b l e . . . usually c o n s c i e n t i o u s " (IPAT Staff,
    1991, p. 26).
    TABLE 2
    FORWARD
    SELECTION
    PROCEDURE
    FORDEPENDENT
    VARIABLE
    Y
    Step 1 Variable A Entered R 2 = 0.070
    df SS MS F P
    Regression 1 9.93 9.93 6.95 .01
    Error 92 131.44 1.43
    Variable Parameter SE Type I1
    Estimate SS
    Intercept 3.588 ,339 160.07 112.04 .0001
    6.95 .O 1
    Step 2 Variable G Entered
    df 5s MS
    Regression 2 14.28 7.14 5.11 ,008
    Error 91 127.09 1.40
    Total 93
    Variable Parameter SE Type I1
    Estimate SS
    Intercept 2.993 ,475 55.32 39.60 ,0001
    Factor A -0.173 ,061 11.04 7.90 ,006
    Factor G 0.121 ,069 4.35 3.12 .08
    Note.-No other variable met the .10 significance level for entry into the model.
    350 M. F. SHAUGHNESSY, ET A L .

    In mathematics in general, and calculus in particular, one must have a


    good deal of patience and persistence to solve complex, intricate problems.
    Individuals without much patience and those having a low frustration toler-
    ance would have some trouble in higher order mathematics and be more
    likely to drop out of classes or withdraw when difficulties arise. The rele-
    vance of actorA as a predictor variable is less clear, particularly with re-
    spect to calculus, although it was statistically significant in the multiple re-
    gression.
    Siege1 and Shaughnessy (1992) reported preliminary findings on the role
    of personality in success in calculus. This study supported that work includ-
    ing the idea that responsibility is a major factor in calculus and other math-
    ematical topics. The persistence and perseverance (as indirectly measured by
    Factor G) characteristic of an individual may contribute substantidy to suc-
    cess in calculus and perhaps in other numerical fields. Developing conscien-
    tiousness may aid students' performance. Researchers may want to include a
    measure of intelligence to clarify these preliminary or exploratory findings.
    REFERENCES
    CATELL,,R. B., EBER, H. W., & TATSUOKA,M. M. (1970) Handbook for the Sixteen
    Personality Factor Questionnaire. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability
    Testing.
    FEMBERG, L. B., & HALPERIN,S. (1978) Affective and cognitive correlates of course perform-
    ance in introductory statistics. 1ournal of. Experimental Education, 46, 11-18.
    -

    H m , S., & SFIAUGHNESSY, M. F. (1992) Personality and scientific promise. Psychological Re-
    .ports,- 70,- 971-975.
    IPAT STAFF.(1991) Administrator's manual for the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire. Cham-
    paign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.
    KEIMOWITZ,R. I., & ANSBACHER, H. L. (1960) Personality and mathematical achievement.
    Journal of Individual Psychology, 16, 84-87.
    ODOM,J., & SHAUGHNESSY, M. F. (1989) Personality and mathematical achievement. Psycho-
    logical Reports, 65, 1195-1201.
    SIEGEL,C., & SHAUGHNESSY, M. F. (1992) Personality of college students in calculus courses.
    Psychological Reports, 71, 1309-1310.

    Accepted July T, 1994

    You might also like