INFORMATION TO USERS

This material was produced from a microfilm copy of tha original documentJ While the most advanced technological maans to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted.

The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you und< itand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction.

1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from die document photographed is "Missing Pagets)". If it was possible to obtain the nissing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent | This may have necessitated cutting thru an imaga and duplicating aqjjacent pages to insure you complete continuity.

2. Whan an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black nark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame.

3. Whan a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite methixl in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner o f a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing op until complete.

4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be madu from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charga by uniting the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pagas you wish reproduced.

5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pejps may have indistinct print. Filmed as racaivad. •

X«rox Univoralty Microfilms soo North zooto Road . ' Ann Aibor. Mlehloan 4aiOS 73- 18,914

KINNAIRD, Gloria Wherry Dougherty, 1931- IDENTIFICATION OF RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN i ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE CHARACTERISTICS, j INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS, AND WORK- | RELATED ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIORS OF SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGISTS.

The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1973 | Education, psychology ) University Microfilms. A XEROX Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan

THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED. IDENTIFICATION OF RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE CHARACTERISTICS, INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS, AND WORK - RELATED ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIORS OF SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGISTS

DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University

By Gloria Wherry Dougherty Kinnaird, B.S., M.A. The Ohio State University 1973

Approved by

A dviser Department of Education ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

A special debt is owed to all those professional school psychologists whose participation made this pro­ ject possible. To a very special school psychologist and my supervisor, Dr. Damon Asbury, I owe thanks for his support and encouragement. In addition, an expression of heartfelt thanks to Nick Gallo - special consultant with the State Department of Ohio, for his guidance and suggestions regarding distribution of the questionnaires. Another debt is owed to ray brother-in-law, Dr. Lawrence K. Waters, Professor of Psychology, Ohio University, and to my dear father, Dr. Robert J. Wherry, Sr, Professor of Psychology, the Ohio State University, for advice concerning data handling and statistical analysis. A vote of thanks is also in order for my reading committee members, Dr. Anne Engin and Dr. Henry Angelino, for their help in planning and for their reading and advice in connection with the actual writing of the dissertation. I also would like to thank my husband, Richard, and my two sons, Douglas and Robert Dougherty, for their patience, understanding, and forebearance of the many inconveniences they encountered during the time of prepara­ tion, distribution, analysis, and writing of this disserta­ tio n . i i I am indebted to five colleagues and friends - Doris White, Donald Ball, Louise Dennis, Edward Matthews, and Roberta Segal for sharing with me both the golden moments of educational triumph and the difficult periods of graduate study. Finally, my greatest debt is owed to my adviser, Dr. Charles Huelsman. Through my years of graduate study his insightful analysis of research problems, his provid­ ing of a warm, supportive climate, and his excellent structuring of my doctoral program were a constant urce of inspiration and motivation.

i l l VITA

August 27> 1931 • • • • • Eorn-Lebannon, Tennessee 1953 ...... B.S. (Speech-Drama), The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1953-1954 ...... Continuity Director of WTVN-TV Station, Columbus, Ohio 1954 ...... Certification in Kindergarten through eighth grade 1956-1962 ...... Teacher, Columbus, Ohio. Taught kindergarten and second grades 1962-1964 ...... Teacher, Columbus, Ohio. Taught first and fourth grades 1963 •••••••••• M.A. in E ducation 1964-1965 •••••••• Intern School Psychologist, Columbus Public Schools, Columbus, Ohio 1965-1969 * Staff Psychologist, Columbus Public Schools, Columbus, Ohio 1969-P re s e n t •••••• Staff Psychologist and Coordina­ tor of Intern School Psychologists, Columbus Public Schools, Columbus, Ohio

iv TABLE OF COITTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS i i VITA iv LIST OF TABLES v i i CHAPTER I . INTRODUCTION 1 Statement of Problem Importance of Study I I . REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Definition of Organizational Climate Measurement of Organizational Climate Dimensions of Organizational Climate Organizational Climate, Job Attitudes and Job Performance Role Models in School Psychology Source I: Rational Survey of School Psychologists Source II: Rothman*s Review of the Role Literature Source III: Future Trends in Training Programs The Rothraan Study

I I I . METHODOLOGY 33 The Questions The Sample Instrumentation and Data Collection Coding and Scoring Procedures■ V aria b le s Organizational Climate Variables Personal-Biographic and Demographic Variables Job Perceptions Analysis of Data TABLE OF CONTESTS - Continued CHAPTER Page IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION...... 45 Q uestion 1 Evidence D iscussion Q uestion 2 Evidence D iscussion Q uestion 5 Evidence D iscussion Q uestion 4 Evidence D iscussion Q uestion 5 Evidence D iscussion Q uestion 6 Evidence D iscussion Q uestion 7 Evidence D iscussion V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS...... 112 APPENDIX A. QUESTIONNAIRE, BRIEFING AND DEBRIEFING LETTER ...... 120 B. ITEM SCORING PROCEDURES...... 126 C. SUBTEST SCORING PROCEDURES (V ariab le s) . . . 148 ‘ D. RESPONSE FREQUENCIES OF THE SCORED ITEMS . . 154 E. ROTATION OF ROTHMAIT' S FACTORS 1 AND 2 . . . 161 REFERENCES...... 165 v i LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE 1. Composite Variable R eliabilities ...... 57 2. Factor Analysis ...... 62 3. Factor I. Climate Modifiers 65 if. Factor IA» Intern Coordinator ...... 69 5* Factor IB, Mental Health Specialists • , • 71 6, Factor IC, Interns ...... 75 7, Factor II. Inner City Crisis Solvers • • • 77 8, Factor III. Learning-Behavior Change Agents 79 9, Variables Used for Factor Predictions . . . 93 10. Weights for Prediction of Factors and Multiple Correlations ...... 95 11. Composite Factor Score Correlations by F a c t o r ...... 101 12. D istrib u tio n o f P redicted Role Models • • • 105 13* Percentile Equivalent for Role Model Scores 106 lif. Role Model Assignments on Basis of Highest Percentile Equivalent ...... 108 15, Item Scoring Procedures - Appendix B . . . 137 16. Variables Scoring Procedures - Appendix C • lif9 17* Distribution of Item Responses - Appendix D 155

vii

* 1

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

There has been considerable emphasis in recent research on the accountability of school psychologists in terms of-role, function, and effectiveness. However, little emphasis has been placed on the job attitudes (e.g. satisfactions, need fulfillment, job involvement) of this professional group or their perceptions of their work setting beyond the "role-function-ef fectiveness" orientation. Industrial/organisational psychologists have for many years studied such subjective returns from the work situation as satisfaction and need fulfillment for a variety of work groups. More recently, these concepts have been incorporated into a broader organizational context so that the influence on these variables of both organizational and personal characteristics could be studied. Particular emphasis has been placed on the perceptions of "organizational climate" and their rela­ tionship to job-related attitudes. Halpin (1966) has drawn the analogy that what personality is to the individual, organizational climate is to the organization. Also, some recent research has added the role of individual character­ i s t i c s to th a t of work clim ate. None of th e research 2 involving organizational climate and personal character­ istics and their relationships to job attitudes has focused on school psychology*

Statement of Problem

The purpose of the present project was to explore the relationships among organizational climate character­ istics, selected individual (bio-demographic) character­ istics, and the work-related attitudes and self-perceived behaviors of fulltime practicing school psychologists. In order to achieve the above purpose, the study seeks to answer the following series of questions: 1. V/hat are the characteristics of a sample of school psychologists as shown by their responses to individual questionnaire items? 2. now reliable are the variables used in this study which consisted of multiple item scales adopted from earlier research studies and of those combinations of two or more question­ naire items combined by the test experts? 3* How many and what kinds of patterns of back­ ground, beliefs, and behaviors, indicating different role models of school psychologists, emerge from a study of the interrelations among the three types of variables (organiza­ tional climate, bio-demographic, and job perceptions) investigated in the study? 4. For each of the role models discovered, as a result of question 3> bow important are each of the three types of variables and how do they interact to form a particular role model? 5* How well can each role model be predicted using either only background (climate and bio­ demographic) variables or only job perception variables, and which kind of variable w ill predict the role model more adequately? 6. Hov; well do predictions based upon one kind of data agree with those made on the basis of the other kind of data? Do they support each other? Do they supplement each other? Can or should one type of prediction be used along, or should they always be used in conjunction with one another? 7* What is the distribution of school psychologists (according to their predicted factor scores) in each of the identified role models?

The study is not intended as a definitive answer to what is the desirable climate-personal-work setting characteristic mix# Rather, the research is exploratory and may point primarily to suggestions for more intensive study# First, no attempt can be made to measure all relevant organizational or work climate characteristics. Several scales are available but do not measure totally over-lapping aspects of climate. At this point, the use of one of the more researched scales, covering several aspects of work climate, provides the beginning steps in measuring organizational or work climate characteristics. Secondly, coverage of all relevant personal (bio-demographic) characteristics would be an almost overwhelming task. However, even lim iting these areas to relatively few selected items of information is a step in this direction. The collection of the two above types of information hopefully will supplement some of the data obtained in the Ohio School Psychologist Association accountability studies

(1972). k Inrportance of Study

School psychology is a growing field with indica­ tions of continued growth. It is important to study the interaction of work environment characteristics, individual characteristics, and job attitudes and self-professed job behaviors to assess what relationship organization and individual characteristics have to the satisfactions and motivations of school psychologists. This information is important in its own rights as an addition to the informa­ tion collected in the accountability studies. Also, if organizational and individual characteristics are related to the satisfactions, motivations, and behaviors of school psychologists, this information could be used to effect change in work climate characteristics to improve the attitudes of school psychologists about their work and work-related behavior. Additionally, such information perhaps could be used in the placement of school psychologists (e.g. by placing a school psychologist in a compatible work climate setting, satisfaction and motivation of the psychol­ ogist might be increased). While the author*s' interest is primarily focused on the school psychologist, the study should have broader implications to the field of organizational research in terms of the effects of climate and individual characteris­ tics on a variety of reactions to the work situation.. 5

. CHAPTER I I REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

School psychologists have primarily viewed the work situation in terras of self-report studies dealing with perceptions of role and function. With one exception (Rothman, 1972) no time studies are found in the school psychology literature. In contrast, industrial/organiza­ tional psychologists have for many years studied such subjective returns from the work situation as satisfaction and need fulfillment for a variety of work groups. Recently these concepts have been incorporated into a broader organizational context so that the influence on these variables of both organizational climate and personal characteristics could be studied. Therefore, there was a need to review the concept of organizational climate and a need to summarize the current literature regarding role models and training programs in school psychology. The first section of this chapter deals with the definition of organizational climate; the second discusses its measurement; the third reviews studies dealing with the dimensions of climate; the fourth discusses relation­ ships between organizational climate and job attitudes and performance; the fifth reviews current, perceived and future role models in school psychology, and the sixth surveys trends in the training programs of school psychol­ o g is ts .

Definition of Organizational Climate

The environment in which a person operates is widely accepted as a potent influence on his behavior. However* only recently has any really concerted effort been directed at investigating the psychological environment of organiza­ tions, or the effect of that environment, on the attitudes and behaviors of persons working in the organization. This psychological environment or atmosphere of an organization has generally been referred to as organizational climate. Gilmer (1966) credits Gillerman (I960) with the intro­ duction of the problem of organizational climate into the industrial psychology literature, although the general climate concept had been informally viewed by persons from several disciplines for centuries. While the concept of organizational climate is widely used, the definition of this concept is somewhat difficult to specify. Halpin (1966)"has drawn the analogy that " ...personality is to the individual what Organiza­ tional Climate is to the organization'* (p. 131)• Others have attempted more precise delineations of the concept. Gilmer (1966) states, "By climate we mean those character­ istics that distinguish the organization from other organ­ izations and that influence the behavior of people in the organization'1 (p. 57) • Definitions of climate by Taguiri (1968) and Litwin and Stringer (1968) reiterate its influence on members behavior but stress in addition, that climate consists of measurable properties of the organiza­ tion and that these properties must be perceived by the organization members. Taguiri (1968) defines organizational climate as, "...a relatively enduring quality of the in­ ternal environment of an organization that (a) is experi­ enced by its members, (b) influences their behavior, and (c) can be described in terms of the values of a particular set of characteristics (or attributes) of the organization" (p. 27). Litwin and Stringer ( 1968) propose that, "the term organizational climate refers to a set of measurable properties of the work environment, perceived directly or indirectly by the people who live and work in this envir­ onment and assumed to influence their motivation and be­ havior" (p* 1). Forehand and Gilmer (1964) have suggested three ways in which the organizational environment may actually influence member behavior: (a) by definition of the stimuli which impinge upon the individual in his work rc?le, (b) by placing constraints upon the freedom of the individual (such structurally imposed constraints may be either deleterious or facilitative to performance), and (c) by controlling reward and punishment contingencies (behavior-reinf or cement contingencies). After a review of the conceptions and definitions of organizational climate, Campbell, Dunnette, Lawler, and Weick (1970) suggest a definition of climate, "...as a set of attributes specific to a particular organization that may be induced from the v/ay that organization deals with its members and its environment. For the individual member within the organization, climate takes the form of a set of attitudes and expectancies which describe the organization in terms of both static characteristics (such as degree of autonomy) and behavior-outcome and outcome-out come contingencies" (p. 390). They go on to emphasize that, "...The crucial elements are the individuals perceptions of the relevant stimuli, constraints, and reinforcement contingencies that govern his job behavior" (p. 390)* The definition of organizational climate given by Li tv/in and Stringer (1968) (p. 7) is sufficient for the purpose of the study. The definition encompasses the critical element of an individuals perception of the environment.

Measurement of Organizational Climate

Most researchers who have developed measures of organizational climate have adopted the "employee percep­ tion" approach so that almost all of the scales are based on employee ratings of various aspects of the organizational setting. Several of the organizational climate measures are specific to particular work groups: Ilalpin- and Crofts (1963)~school personnel, Schneider and B artlett (1968)- insurance agents, Schneider and Hall (1972)-priests, and Thornton ( 1969)-office workers* More generally applicable measures have been developed by House and Dizzo (1972), Litv/in and Stringer (1968), Margulies (1965>)-an adaptation of the Halpin-Crofts scale, and Pritchard and Karasick (1972)* The number of facets of climate and the particular aspects of climate measured vary widely among these scales. The newer scales, as would be expected, have had less research done with them. Of the scales mentioned above, the one by Litv/in and Stringer (1968) has probably had the greatest amount of study (see Litv/in and Stringer, 1968; Meyer, 1967» 1969; Waters, Poach, and Batlis, 1972).

Dimensions of Organizational Climate

Several studies have used factor analytic procedures to isolate the dimensions or aspects of organizational climate. Thornton (1969) factored the responses of female university office personnel to 64- items describing their office settings. Five factors were obtained: (1) High pressure supervision (2) Stultifying versus challenging environment (3) Distant versus close work relations (4) Pleasant versus crowded working conditions (3) Efficiency and clarity of purpose.

The responses of management personnel concerning their perceptions of the climate in their offices in lif3 sales offices of two insurance companies were factor analyzed by Schneider and Bartlett ( 1968). 10 • Six factors emerged: (1) Managerial support (2) Managerial structure (3) Concern for new employees (4) Intra-agency conflict (5) Agent independence (6) General satisfaction# Four factors were reported from an analysis of the responses of Diocesan priests to 35 "climate1’ items by Schneider and Hall (1972): (1) Superior effectiveness (2) Supportive autonomy (3) Work challenge (4) Personal acceptance# The factor analysis of the eight scales of the Halpin and Crofts Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire for a large number of school personnel was. reported by Halpin (1966). He adopted the three factor solution as providing the best description of the factors tapped by the eight scales. The three factors were: (1) Social needs (2) E s p rit (3) Social control The fifty items in the Litv/in and Stringer organiza­ tional climate scale for 350 General Electric professional and clerical employees were factored by Meyer (1968). He found six dimensions as opposed to the nine a priori aspects scored on the scale. These six dimensions were: (1) Constraining conformity (2) Responsibility (3) Standards <>> Reward (3) Organizational clarity (6) Friendly, team spirit. 11 Finally, Waters, Roach, and Eatlis (1972) factored 22 scales taken from the Margulies (1965) adaptation of the Halpin and Crofts (1965) questionnaire, the Litv/in and Stringer (1968) climate measure, and one by House and Rizzo (1972) for 105 radio/tv employees. They reported five factors or dimensions represented by the 22 scales: (1) Effective organisational structure (2) Work autonomy versus encumbered by nonproductive a c t i v i t i e s (5) Close impersonal supervision (/f) Open challenging environment (5) Employee centered orientation A reviev/ of some of the studies on dimensions of climate and an attempted synthesis was given by Campbell, Dunnette, Lawler, and Weick (1970). The factors they viewed as recurring in various studies were: (1) Individual autonomy (2) The degree of structure imposed upon the position (3) Reward orientation (lf) Consideration, warmth, and support The consistent finding of relatively few dimensions of organizational climate should make measurement easier, but as Campbell et al (1970) note, "...the relatively small number of factors which were found implies that a great deal of environmental variation remains to be uncovered" (p* 594) • Also, it should be pointed out that these studies did not attempt to consider systematically either personal characteristics or more objectively measured organizational characteristics (e.g. size, setting, function, etc.). One exception, Schneider and Bartlett 01970), 12 compared the agreement between managers of agencies and agent descriptions on the six dimensions they had found in an earlier factor analysis (Schneider and Bartlett, 1968)• The agreement between managers and their agents was very low. Within a given level, such as agents in the same office, the agreement on the dimensions was high. A more extensive consideration of environmental variables, only partially related to psychological climate, has been attempted by Findikyan and Sells (1965)* They used an instrument originally developed by Hemphill and Westie (1950) for describing small group environments. The 150 items in the scale were administered to 967 students in 60 campus organizations. Factor analysis of the items resulted in 22 factors. Many of the factors found in the climate analysis were found in the Findikyan and Sells (1965) results, but a number of other dimensions with different types of referents were also found. It would seem important in future studies of the dimensions of the psychological climate of organizations to include other personal and organizational data to improve understanding of the psychological climate dimensions and to broaden the scope of environmental aspects considered.

Organizational Climate. Job Attitudes, and Job Performance

Three types of studies have focused on the relation­ ship of organizational climate and either, or both, job ■ 13 attitudes and job performance. The three types of studies are: (1) experimental manipulation of climate, (2) comparison of intact groups who differ on some re­ levant dimensions, and (3) correlational studies# Three studies have attempted to experimentally manipulate organizational climate. Frederiksen (1966) had 260 middle managers work through an In-Basket test designed to simulate the job of chief of the field service division of the Department of Commerce in a western state# Four combinations designed to create different climates were employed. One treatment had to do with the pre­ valence of rules and regulations. Half of the managers were told, through instructions and in-basket materials, that the department encouraged new ideas, innovation, and creative problem solving# They v/ere told rules did exist but could be disregarded if they got in the way. The other half were told that a substantial set of rules and regulations had been built up over the years and were not to be violated except under extreme circumstances, A second experimental factor was concerned with the closeness of supervision. The managers were told either that the organization preferred subordinates' work to be closely monitored or that subordinates should be allowed to work out details for themselves. The two experimental factors described above were combined to form a 2 x 2 design. Data were obtained on In-Basket performance (productivity), various test scores, and biographical predictors* The dependent variable v;as the predictability of In-Basket performance by the tests and biographical data. Four conclusions were: (1) predictability was higher under the innovative climate (climate was a moderator of the relationship between individual characteristics and performance), (2) performance was more predictable for managers who worked in a consistent climate (innovative and loose supervision or rules oriented and close super­ vision) than for those who had to operate in an inconsist­ ent climate (innovative-close supervision, rules oriented- loose supervision), (3) inconsistent climates had a negative effect on productivity, and ( L\.) managers employed different work methods under different climate conditions. Three simulated companies that were asked to compete in a realistic, competitive market were set up by Li twin and Stringer (1968). Three different climates were created: (1) an authoritarian-structured firm, (2) a democratic- friendly firm, and (3) an achieving firm. The orientation of the "president" of each firm was the means by which the climates were created. -A significant aspect of the study was the marked effect the different leadership styles had in creating distinct climates as measured on six scales of an earlier version of the Litwin and Stringer climate measure. Also, subjects in the achieving climate were most productive, but those in the democratic-friendly firm were highest in level of satisfaction. In another manipulation of climate study, Meyer ( 1969) reported to sales managers the climate of each of their offices and discussed ways in which actions could be taken to improve the climate of each office. Three approach­ es to initiating changes by managers were used: (1) manager was asked to develop written action plans for change, (2) manager did not develop written plans but was asked to take action to change his office's climate, and (3) manager was only given feedback and was not asked to do anything. In general, the offices of managers in the first two groups did show better climate conditions after about a 6-raonth interval, while the offices of those managers who were not asked to make changes showed 110 consistent climate improve­ ment. Although each of these studies has obvious limitations, they do suggest that: climate does affect performance and satisfaction; climate can be experimentally manipulated; and oii-the-o'ob management can induce climate changes. Additionally, the negative effects of inconsistent climate aspects would seem important to follow-up. Differences in climates between outstanding and average sales offices were investigated by Meyer (1967). Relevant to the present review, it was found that out­ standing sales offices had climate profiles which were higher on all of the six dimensions measured. Managers of outstanding offices: (1) set higher standards,’ (2) worked 16 with and were influenced more by their salesmen, (3) were less critical, and (If) gave more non-monetary rewards. A study by Andrews (196?) not only used the existing group contrast approach, but also pointed to the interactive effects of personal and organisational climate variables. He examined the effect of congruence of organizational and individual values on managerial advancement in two Mexican firms which provided a clear contrast in value orientation. One firm was judged to be highly achievement-oriented, progressive, expansion-minded, and economically successful; while the second company was judged to be much more con­ servative, less achievement-oriented, more oriented toward power structures, and less successful. All top level managers in the two companies were measured on need for achievement and need for power using the TAT, and success was measured by the number of promotions and salary in­ creases a manager had received during the past four years. It was found that advancement was greater for those managers who had motivational needs congruent with the judged values of the organization for whom they worked. Correlational studies by Friedlander and Margulies (1969)» Pritchard and Karasick (1972), and Waters, Poach, and Batlis (1972) have also shown positive relationships between climate and job attitude and/or behavioral variables. Friedlander and Margulies (1969) administered Margulies1 (1965) adaptation of Halpin and Crofts (1963) question­ naire and a three-area job satisfaction measure developed by 17 Friedlander (1963)* They found several high relationships between the eight climate scales and three satisfaction areas (only climate scales of aloofness by management and production emphasis did not correlate with the satisfaction areas). Also, it was found that the correlations we re higher between climate dimensions and given satisfaction areas for persons who reported that satisfaction area was important to them. As part of a study by Pritchard and Karasick (1972) , a multidimensional climate measure was correlated with both performance and satisfaction measures for managerial personnel. Using either the work unit or individuals as the basis of analysis, climate dimensions were rather strongly related to both performance and satisfaction variables. The relationships for satisfaction were generally much larger than for performance when individuals were used as the unit of analysis. For the work unit analysis, high effectiveness units were characterized by low structure and decision centralization and high status polarization and flexibility. High satisfaction units were characterized by high structure and decision centralization and low status polarization. Here, the climate conditions that characterized high effectiveness and high satisfaction units were not the same. In fact, they were almost oppo­ sites. Some limited evidence was found for climate and individual needs (as measured by the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule) interacting to influence satisfaction . 18 and performance. Correlations between factor scores on five climate factors and several job attitude indices for radio/tv employees were obtained by Waters, Roach, and Batlis (1972). Employee-centered orientation factor scores correlated significantly with all job-attitude measures. This factor and a faQtor called effective organizational structure related particularly highly to satisfaction with inter­ personal relationships on the job and opportunity, for advancement. A work autonomy factor was especially related to a measure of job involvement, and a factor emphasizing the openess and challenge of the work environment was most highly correlated with satisfaction with "intrinsic" aspects of the job and with a measure of intrinsic motivation. Scores on a close impersonal supervision factor were unrelated to any of the job attitudes. These five climate dimensions show differential correlations with various job attitudes. These results suggest that certain employee attitudes may be influenced differentially by different aspects of the psychological climate of the organization. The studies cited in this section are those most directly pertinent to the effects of organizational climate on job perceptions. -However, the large body of leadership and managerial style literature (from such soiirces as Fiedler (1967)* the Ohio State leadership studies (e.g. Fleishman, 1953; Fleishman and Harris, 1962; Stogdill and 19 Coons, 1997)* and the Michigan leadership studies (e.g. Katz, Maccoby, and Morse, 1990; Katz, Maccoby, Gurin, and Floor, I 99I)] indicates that leader style may influence both attitudes and behavior. Since managerial style does seem to play a major role in the determination of organiza­ tional climate (note the procedures for manipulating climate in the Frederiksen, Litwin and Stringer, and Meyer studies), leadership literature is at least tangentially relevant in the consideration of organisational climate. Also, studies by Berlew and Hall (I 9 6 4, 1966) and Peres (1966) are often cited in discussions of organiza­ tional climate (e.g. Campbell et al, 1970)• Overall, these studies indicate that initial job challenge is an important variable in later job performance. To the extent that initial job challenge is considered as a company expecta­ tion of the employee, these studies are also tangentially relevant in a review of psychological organizational climate, even though they cover only one quite specific asp ect. None-the-less, it is felt that the most pertinent and directly relevant data is obtained from the studies that were cited in greater detail. These studies clearly suggest that organizational climate does influence job attitudes and performance, but at present such studies are too few to provide a very complete picture. 20 Role Models in School Psycliollogy

In contrast with the sections discussed previously, this section deals with the more typical kinds of research in the role and function of school psychologists. A summary of the findings of the research dealing with the actual practice of school psychology and of the research ‘on perceived role functions permits comparison with the research findings in this study. Two major sources, which have summarized both present and perceived role functions, are found in a national survey of school psycho­ logists undertaken by Farling and Hoedt (1971), and in Rothman's (1972) review of role literature. A third major source dealing with future trends in the models and train­ ing programs of school psychologists is reviewed for the reader. Finally, a review of the Rothman study is presented. In the order stated above, a cursory review of each of the three major sources follows:

Source I: National Survey of School Psychologists Although the need to evaluate the prevailing role of the school psychologist was a major issue at both the Thayer Conference of 1954 (Cutts, 1955) and the Bethesda Conference of 1964 (Bardon, 1965)» it was not until February of 1970 that a national survey of school psycho­ logists involving 3*158 participants was initiated. This was the first national collection of facts pertaining to the role of the school psychologist. (In order to see 21 both regional and national trends it is recommended the reader look at the original publication)* The review gives the following information: (1) bio-demographic characteristics* (2) current roles, (3) ideal roles, and OiO final recommendations. The national survey used the following parameters as controls: professional memberships, primary employer, highest degree earned, teaching experience, size of student enrollment, and political location of the school system

(p. 79). Major bio-demosranhic findings were as follows (pp. 80-83): 1. seventy-three per cent of the psychologists listed their primary employer as a school system 2. approximately 71 per cent of the respondents were 35 years of age or older 3* the per cent of male and female respondents were 59 end 1+0 respectively breakdown of data by the political location of school systems indicated that the percent of males to females is closest in city school system s 5* multiple certification is almost as common as muLtipie p ro fe s s io n a l membership p a tte rn s 6. related information concerning formal and in­ formal training of the participants suggested they are a highly educated professional group 7. seventy-six per cent of the sample indicated attendance of at least one continuing profession­ al development program consisting of three or more related meetings, and 22 8. majority of the pupil/psychologist ratios are in excess of one psychologist for every 2,000 students with a high-percentage of respondents indicating ratios between 1-2,000 and 1-5,000. There was a commonality regarding current role and function of school psychologists throughout the country. This practice of school psychology involved the following

(p . 8 3 ): 1. individual examination 2. preparation of written reports, and 3. parent-teacher conferences. Desirable activities in a projection of the ideal role and function were reported.as the areas of counseling, behavioral management and consultation (p. 83)* Information relating to emerging change in role and function was unclear (p. 83)* Final recommendations gleaned through this massive survey of over three thousand school psychologists were as follows (p. 8/f)i 1. That a comprehensive program of in-service work­ shop training of school psychologists be planned by the profession and implemented by federal and state governments through such a vehicle as the Educational Professional Development Act, in order to provide further development of the critical skills identified in the survey. 2. That a national effort by professional school psychologists associations be made to examine the current and future role and function of the school psychologist in terms of anticipated educational and mental health needs of students. 3* That.a national program for manpower recruitment and training be designed by the profession and supported by federal funding to redue.e the apparent professional shortage in school psychology as revealed in the high psychologist-student service ratios. 23 if. That a national program on inter-state recipro­ city regarding licensing and certification of school psychologists be formulated by national professional groups in conjunction v/ith state departments of education. 3* That national training and accreditation standards and guidelines be developed to pro­ vide for the most efficient and effective production and practice of school psychologists.

Source II; Rothman's Review of the Role Literature Moving from a national survey of school psycholog­ ists, an excellent review of the literature is the second major source of information regarding role and function (Rothman, 1972). (1) Theoretical role models, (2) current role models, and (3) perceived role functions are critically rev ie w e d . Summarizing from a lengthy chronology reviewing the literature of theoretical role descriptions jcutts, 1 9 5 5; M clntire, 1959-p* 1; Seattle Public Schools, 1960-p. 1; Cassell, I960, p. 23; Lants, 1960-p. 47; O'Shea, I 96O- p. 287; Itkin, 1966; Johnson, Steffler, Edelfelt, 1961- p. 138; University of Miami, 1962-p. 1; Liaison Committee Report to the Executive Board of the California Association of School Psychologists and Psychometrists, 1962-p. 4; Richmond Public Schools, 1963* p« l! Montgomery, 1963-P* 8; Mink, 1963-P* 1; Fuchel, 1964-p* 4; Magary, 1967-p» 341; Farling and Iloedt, 1971; Silverman, 1969; as quoted in Rot liman (1972)] . Four emerging basic role commitments were identified. Three of the four roles were ‘grounded in 2h actual day-to-day practice. The remaining role was that of an intern coordinator. Succintly stated were brief descriptions of each role. (Rothman, 1972 p. 13il*f). 1. Psychometrician - administration and interpreta­ tion of individual and group tests. 2. Consultant - general consultation to parents, teachers, administrators and children . . . includes preventive, compensatory and thera­ peutic approaches focused upon the social- personal dynamics of the learning environment. Researcher - role is infrequently practiced and vaguely conceived . . . major responsibilities • • • data collection and implementation of both field research and applied research. k* Intern Coordinator - role is implied rather than suggested because no real consideration was given it . . . recognised a liaison was needed to coordinate university training programs with the field experience, internship and actual practice . . . suggested, in time, as part of the role of the practicing school psychologist but one' of a university based person. Examining the four role models, .Rothman stated it would be an impossible task to function as an expert in all four areas. Thus, there must be a functional model which utilizes a middle ground approach. IText Rothman reviewed the literature dealing with actual role and function and indeed did find that the research studies supported two of the four models suggested by review of the theory of role and function. The two supported models were psychometrician and consultant. Summarizing the current role and function research literature, it was found that the majority of the studies suggested that the school psychologist spends the major 25 portion of time engaged in the following two activities, 1# Individual child study 2, Consultation with parents, teachers and adminis­ trators (p. 25), It was also indicated that research should be part of the role expectation, but that it was seldom conducted in actual practice. There was no mention of responsibility for training or field experience for new psychologists as a role function until the Ohio .School Psychologists Association reports in 1963-64 (p. 25). Thus, both research and field experience models are seldom practiced by school psycholog­ ists, Both roles have been mentioned more frequently in the last ten years, revealing a possible shift in emphasis on role models. Rothman then concluded that in order to examine the actuality of role change or shift, it becomes necessary to measure time spent and range of activities engaged in by practicing school psychologists (p. 26). Reviewing five research studies on -perceived role functions involving school psychologists, teachers, admin­ istrators, school nurses and university faculty members, Rothman concluded that school psychologists strongly identified themselves with the role of education (academic problems, class placement problems and classroom manage­ ment problems), while teachers persisted in perceiving the psychologist in a clinical, psycho-social, and medical’ model (p. 33)* 26 In view of the national survey and Rothman's review of the literature on role models, there does appear to be an identity crisis, Rothman responded to these findings by conducting a time and motion study with 0 fulltime practicing school psychologists responding to a self- report questionnaire. The major findings of Rothmanfs study are summarized following the next discussion, future trends in the models and training programs of school psychologists.

Source III: Future Trends in Training Programs In an academic paper (Patros, 1970) which surveyed trends in the models and training programs of school psychologists from 1956-1970, these future role trends were identified, 1, Helping schools become more effective in achieving the objectives in education for all students (p, 16): a, emphasis on in-service training and con­ sultation with the school staff b, embrace the whole school system, not just the exceptional child 2, More data-oriented and more responsibility in curriculum development for the total school: a, involved in working with teachers to develop operational educational objectives and to evaluate behavioral changes b* emphasis on the use of technology for small groups 3* Concepts of mental health w ill be more clearly defined within the context of the school com­ munity (p, 17): a, help develop favorable self-concepts, posi­ tive and self-assured attitudes within students 27 /f# Greater cooperation with community agencies: a# seriously disturbed child will be referred to clinics and professionals outside the sch o o l b. emphasis on behavioral management techniques utilized in the classroom 5. Development of individualized learning environ­ ments for each student: a# results in a merging of the various profession­ al experts in a closer coordinated pattern o f work A summary of conclusions regarding the trends in training programs includes: 1. Public mandate for education indicates the schools are responsible for vocational develop­ ment and the mental health of its students. 2. The model for the school psychologist of the 1970's is multi-dimensional. 3* Movement in school psychology is one of pro­ fessional growth and maturity rather than radical change. If.' Emphasis is on closer assessment of the social and learning environment of the students. In another study (not reviewed by Patros) a researcher working with approximately one hundred school psychologists in an NDEA Institute during the Summer of 1967, found that the central functions (roles) of the participants included testing and report writing along with a wide variety of consultation and other activities (Barclay, 1971)* It was strongly recommended that school psychology training programs should develop specific courses and provide for observations in classroom learing (p . 280). 28 An article regarding the counselor's role as a consultant in organizational development (Murray and Schmuck, 1972) is relevant in developing new role models for school psychologists. While the counselor's role as an organizational specialist would remain with in a specific building, the school psychologist's parallel role would be working within a school district. Past and present role models have connected the school psychologist to the individual child in the cycle of referral, diagnosis, and written report. Lighthall (1969) suggests there are additional ways of functioning more effectively within a school system. He recommends the school psychologist address himself to the social unit of the school building which requires assessment of social interaction-of who communicates to tvhom about what, with what frequency and intensity and of the relationships among groups. Ultimately, a school psychologist working in this capacity would render assistance in two ways: 1. facilitating the group process of setting and reviewing priorities among problems to be worked on, and 2. assisting groups in working on high-priority problems (p. 7). Both of the last two role models have important implications for training programs. The Ohio State University school psychology training program, cognizant of these novel approaches, offered a course in organiza­ tional development during Spring quarter, 1972. 29 Today, personnel in many university training programs are carefully assessing their internship and practicum programs (Glair» 1971)* It is during the internship period that the novice obtains the skills he w ill later use on the Job# In an attempt to clarify how these exper­ iences were perceived, a survey was conducted with 108 universities and colleges through out the nation# Find­ ings were that school psychology training programs are still strongly tied to intelligence testing, personality assessment and child development. It was further stated there was little stress on educational content in train­ ing programs. Final recommendations for training pro­ grams were: 1. courses in curriculum development 2# exposure to classroom settings, and 3# prescriptive and therapeutic teaching# Present trends in school psychology, according to one w riter in the literature, move increasingly toward bringing available psychological knowledge to bear on group and system problems, including consultation with teachers and adm inistrators, and training others in improved techniques of behavioral analysis and control (Tomlinson, 1972) .

The Pothman Study Until 1972 there was nothing in the literature which looked at a definition of role by examining the daily 30 routine of the school psychologist (Rothman,. 1972)« This was the 'first study to define operationally role and function by factor analyzing the practice in order to arrive at a definition# Bio-demographic sample information, primary and secondary role responsibility, two higher order factors, and four prototypical role models derived from factor analysing the data are summarized below# Major bio-demographic findings were (p, 2 ): 1# of the forty participants, 60 per cent were male 2# age b r a c k e t o f 30 to 49 3* majority had teacher certification 4# majority were employed in a city system and generally functioned in a small system of 40,000 or less total school population 3# majority had been employed in the present system between 1-3 years and reported the total number of years as a school psychologist between 1 -5 y ears# The primary role responsibility seemed to be individual child study. The secondary role responsibility appeared to be emergency role responsibilities, consultation with parents, teachers and administrators# Generally, the sample supported professional organizations and engaged in various activities to further their personal professional growth. The Implication was one of diversification of role models into the traditional models of psychometrician and consultant, researcher and field experience worker, plus the suggestion of specialist 31 models or combination models geared to meet the needs of specific types of school systems (p. 3)* Emerging from Rothman^ data were two higher-order factors, Factor I and II, which led to suggestions of four prototypical role models (Factors 1, 2, 3> *f)* A summary of the two higher order factors and the four subfactors a r e : Factor I * The data indicated that the general Tendency was toward working outside the school system itself to facilitate quality service within the system (p. 3)* Factor II. The data tended to describe two con­ trasting role models. Psychologists falling toward the positive pole were male, engaged in research and broad contact with individuals from other professions within the school and community, and tended.to engage in indirect services rather than direct services. The opposite pole of the factor suggests a direct service oriented female psycho­ logist who provided broad school-community service, engaged in research, and whose primary commitment was to individual testing and parent couseling. Factor 1. Process oriented consultant model. The data suggested 'that the psychologists do little individual work with children, parents and teachers, but concentrate on work with larger middle groups who mediate services to a larger population. Factor 2. The veteran -psychologist in an under­ staffed system. The data suggested that the psychologists worked through school personnel to solve school problems and that there was included both the training of new psychologists and the retraining of experienced"psychologists. Factor 3. Crisis intervention and -professional training modelJ ' fj?heT date suggested that large city psychologists were most clearly distinguished by involvement in community crisis intervention, preparation of m aterials, and conduction of in-ser­ vice training for psychologists. V

32 F a c to r L, Research oreinted model* The data indicated thaiT primary role emphasis was on research activities and there was no involvement in testing, case follow-up, curriculum planning, or individual work with children, parents or teachers. Thus, the Rothman study looked at the role-identity issue through a new dimension "by examining daily logs of school psychologists. This was a step in the right direction . However, .one crucial element was s till missing in the evaluation of role models. The school psychologist, as Schein (1970) pointed out, works in some kind of an organization. As indicated in the first section of the chapter, organizational psycho­ logists have found that the roles of industrial workers are affected by their perceptions of organizational climate, job satisfactions and dissatisfactions, and by various aspects of their job setting. Consequently, representative measures of such variables are combined in the present study with the biographical, demographical, and job reported activities used earlier by the OSPA accountability studies, the national survey, and the Rothman study. It is hypothesized that the addition of this new set of dimen­ sions w ill result in a clearer understanding of some or all of the roles played by school psychologists. 33

CHAPTER I I I METHODOLOGY

The general design and procedures of the study are presented in this chapter* The study, an exploratory research .project, was conducted to identify the relation­ ships between certain organizational climate characteristics, selected bio-demographic characteristics, and job related attitudes and behaviors of practicing full-tim e school psychologists* The sections in this chapter present (1) seven questions to which the study is addressed, (2) the sample, (3) general instrumentation and actual data collection procedures, (A) the coding and scoring pro­ cedures, (5) the variables utilized in the study, and (6) the analysis of the data*

The Questions

The purpose of the research was to investigate actual day-to-day job perceptions and attitudes of practic­ ing school psychologists and their relationships to bio­ demographic characteristics, and perceptions ..of organiza­ tional climate. In order to achieve the above purpose, the study sought the answers to the following seven q u e s tio n s : 1. TVhat are the bio-demographic characteristics of the sample of 165 school psychologists as shown by their responses to the questionnaire items? How reliable are the variables used in this study, which consisted of multiple item scales adopted from earlier research studies and of those combinations of two or more questionnaire , items combined by the test experts? How many and what kind of patterns of background, beliefs, and behaviors, indicating different role models of school psychologists, emerge from a study of the interrelations among the three types of variables (organizational climate, bio-demo- graphic and job perception) investigated in this stu d y ? For each of the role models discovered as a result of question 3* how important are each of the three types of variables and how do they interact to form a particular role model? How well can each role model be predicted or identified using either only background (climate and bio-demographic) valuables or only job perception variables, and which kind of variable w ill predict the model more adequately? How well do predictions based upon one kind of data agree with those made on the basis of the other kind of data? Do they support each other? Do they supplement each other? Can or should 35 one type of prediction be used alone, or should they always be used in conjunction with one a n o th e r? 7* What is the distribution of school psychologists (according to their predicted factor scores) in each of the identified role models?

The Sample

The sample consisted of 165 full-tim e practicing school psychologists in Ohio who returned the research questionnaire within four weeks of its distribution. A total of 275 questionnaires were distributed to school psychologists in thirty-six school systems covering a wide range of sizes of systems and geographical distribu­ tion over the state. The 275 questionnaires were distributed in the following manner. A. Metropolitan Systems - 93 Cleveland (35)* Columbus (28), Cincinnati (30) B. Smaller Cities - 57 Dayton (19)» Lima (2), Akron (2), Newark (/f), Lancaster ( 5)1 Mansfield (2), Springfield (2), Canton (2), Medina (2), Urbana (2), Athens (3)i Marietta (2), Delaware (2), Bellevue (1), Chilicothe (1), Ironton (1), Celina (1), Galion (1), Gallipolis (1), Portsmouth (1), S idney (1) 36 C. Suburban County Systems - 70 Cincinnati (33)» Stark (22), Franklin (6), Southwestern (9) D. R u r a l County System s - 17 Fairfield (5)» Madison (5)» Delaware (1) Muskingham (2), Licking (3)> Scioto (1) E. Suburban City Systems -13 Greenhills (5)» Worthington (3)» Upper Arlington (2), W esterville (2), Whitehall (1) Another 25 questionnaires were distributed to members attending the Ohio School Psychologists Association Fall meeting in Akron, Ohio. The 165 respondents in the sample represented sixty per cent of the questionnaires distributed. The characteristics of the respondents are discussed in chapter four under question one.

Instrumentation and Data Collection

All school psychologists involved in the study were contacted either personally or by mail. A letter was sent to 275 Ohio school psychologists asking for their participation in a study to collect data pertaining to organizational climate and job-related attitudes of school psychologists. Enclosed in the letter was the Confidential Organi­ zational Climate and Job Attitude Questionnaire Booklet. 37 Included in the booklet were the following measure: (1) organizational climate, (2) job attitudes and self- rated job behaviors and job perceptions, and (3) biographic and demographic data# The general layout of the question­ naire was as follows: 1# Cover wage - an explanation (a) concerning what was being attempted through the questionnaire, (b) assurance that a ll information would be treated confidentially and interpreted as group data, and (c) a request to complete the question­ naire within a two week period. 2. Pages 1 through k - (a) the organizational climate s c a le s (5 0 items) by Li tv/in and Stringer (1968), Plus (b) 10 items on job attitudes (e.g. job involvement and intrinsic motivation) by Lawler and Hall (1970). 3» Pages 5 and 5 - (a) 3k items regarding self- rated job' "behaviors. Page 7 - (a) 18 items by Friedlander (1963) measuring job attitudes (e.g. interpersonal relationships, task-involved self-realization, and recognizable signs of advancement. 5* Pae:e 8 - (a) items measuring job attitudes (e.g. job satisfaction - higher-order need satisfaction or fulfillm ent in areas of autonomy and self-actualization) by Lawler and Hall (1970). 6. Pages 9 through 13 - (a) biographic and demo­ graphic questions (29 items) taken from parts of the Ohio School Psychologists Association accountability study (1972), (b) original items, and (c) at the bottom of page 13 the respondents ’were given the opportunity to comment on the questionnaire. Also enclosed was a sealed envelope which the participants were instructed to open after completing the questionnaire. This letter explained the nature and purpose of the research. The questionnaire, briefing and debriefing letters, and copies of the instructions appear in Appendix A. 58 Hoding and Scoring Procedures A panel consisting of the author and two measurement I experts (professors of industrial and quantitative psycho­ logy) , converted the questionnaire responses into variables for the final analysis. The conversion consisted of two steps: (1) scoring of the responses into items and (2) combining of the items into variables (subtests). The first step of the analysis, item scoring, con­ sisted of two procedures. 1. Tabulation of responses to open ended questions (e.g. ,!V/ho is your immediate supervisor?11) and categorising these responses into a continuous variable reflecting level in the organization to which the respondent reported. 2. Tabulation of responses to multiple class response items (e.g. nature of theoretical position, organ­ izations belonged to, type of student served) to find (a) those items to which there was no varia­ bility in the response, and (b) the best classif­ ications to get the best spread of scores. The final agreements, which resulted in the scored items punched on the original IBM cards, are shown in Appendix B. The second step consisted of classifying scored items into subtests and agreeing upon scoring procedures. This step included such decisions as: 1. Combining items taken from previous studies into sub-scales determined by prior analysis, including reflection of items where necessary, and 2. Combining items from the various sections which appeared to jointly reflect some special attitude or behavior role. The final decisions in this stage are shown in Appendix C.

» 39 V a r ia b le s

The if8 variables measured in this study were chosen to fall into three general categories*, These were: (1) organizational climate variables, (2) personal-biographic and demographic variables, and (3) job-related attitudes and self perceived behaviors. The specific items from the questionnaire that constituted each variable are given in Appendix C. Three letter identification codes are given for each of the /j-8 variables.

Organizational Climate Variables Variables 1 through 9 were the perceived organiza­ tional climate scales taken from Litwin and Stringer (1968, Appendix B). The scale names and scale descriptions (as given by Litwin and Stringer, 1968, pp. 81-82) are listed below. 1. Structure (STR) - the feeling that employees have about the constraints in the group; how many rules., regulations, procedures there are; is there an emphasis on "red tape" and going through the channels, or is there a loose and informal atmosphere (8 item s). 2. Responsibility (RES) - the feeling of being your own boss; not having to double-check all your decisions; when you have a job to do, knowing that it is your job (7 items). 3* Rev/ards (REW) - the feeling of being rewarded for a job well done; emphasizing positive rewards rather than punishment; the perceived fairness of the pay and promotion policies (6 items). 4* Risk (RSK) - the sense of riskiness and challenge in the job and in the organization; is there an emphasis on taking calculated risks, or is play­ ing it safe the best way to operate (5 items). V> 5. Warmth (WAR) - the feeling of general good fellow­ ship that prevails in the group atmosphere; the emphasis on being v/ell-liked; the prevalence of friendly and informal social groups (5 items). 6. Sunnort (SUP) - the perceived helpfulness of the managers and other employees in the group; emphasis on mutual support from above and below (5 ite m s ) . 7. Standards (STD) - the perceived importance of im plicit and explicit goals and performance standards; the emphasis on doing a good job; the challenge represented in personal and group goals (6 items). 8* Conflict (COM) - the feeling that managers and other workers want to hear different opinions; the emphasis placed on getting problems out in the open rather than smoothing them over or ignoring them (if item s). 9. Identity (IDM) - the feeling that you belong to a company and you are a valuable member of a working team; the importance placed on this kind of spirit (4 it e m s ) .

Personal-Biorrranhic and Demographic Variables 10. Sex (SEX) - Female - 1, Male = 0. 1 1 . Age (AGE) - i n d e c a d e s from 20 to 60 and o v e r. 12. Years Experience (EXP) - includes both years worked as a psychologist and years in educational osition before becoming a school psychologist F2 ite m s ) . 13. Amount of Training (ATR) - includes both intern­ ship experience and highest degree earned (2 i te m s ) . lif. Recency of Training (RTR) - includes year of most recent college course and workshop or institute training (2 items). 13* Professional A ffiliations (PAF) - number of professional organization memberships plus an extra point for any national membership. h i 16. Behavioristic Orientation (BEH) - behavioristic orientation included - 1, not included = 0.

1 7 . Theoretical Orientation Complexity (TOC) - the number of positions which the respondent stated as describing his/her theoretical orientation. 18. Professional School Policies (PSP) - covers a variety of "system policies regarding assignment to schools, stability of school assignment, staff meetings, professional meetings (if item s).

1 9 . Internship Supervision Hole(SUP) - combines present supervision and both the years of super­ vising experience and number of interns super­ vised (3 items). 20. Administrative Reporting Level (REP) - the level of ^trie person to whom the respondent reports. 21 . Load-Schools (LSC) - total number of elementary schools, junior high or middle schools, and high schools served by the respondent (3 item s). 22. Psychologist/Student Ratio (PSR) - the total number of students served by the respondent. 2 3 . Consulting Services Available (CSA) - scored 1 if Services are available, 0 if not available. 2/f. Size of School System (SZS) - total number of students in the school system. 2 5 . Number of School Psychologist in School System (MSP) - one item. 2 6 . Geographic Mix of Students (GMS) - the areas serviced such as rural, suburban, urban, inner city (e.g. a respondent servicing both suburban and urban areas would receive a score of 2).

2 7 . Urban Setting of School System (URS) - combination of two items (urban versus nonurban)• 28. Inner City Setting (ICS) - scored 1 if the respondent at least in part, serves an inner city area; scored 0 otherwise. 29. Socio-Economic Level (SEL) - includes community and student population; one item. bz Job Perceptions. 30. Effort Expended (EFF) - how hard person believes he works' when he works - one item. 31* Performance Evaluation (PEI?) - self-evaluation on quality of work performed in six specialized areas plus overall evaluation of professional competence and overall performance - 8 items. 3 2 . A p p re c ia tio n d e c e iv e d (API?) - e s tim a te o f appreelation received from nine different groups • serviced - 9 items. 33* Work V7ith Students (YA7S) - the amount and per cent of time spent working with students or children; 2 items. 34* Work With Teachers (WWT) - the amount and per cent of time spent working v/ith teachers; 2 ite m s . 35• Work V/ith Parents (OTP) - the amount and per cent of time spent working with parent; 2 items. 36. Work With Staff (7/ST) - the amount and per cent of time spent working with adm inistrators, counselors and speech therapists; 3 items. 37* Work V/ith Community (WWC) - the amount and per cent of time spent working with agencies, physicians, psychiatrists, paraprofessionals and community personnel; 4 item s. 3 8 * Work V/ith Organizations (TOO) - includes schools and professional organizations; 2 items. 39* Interpersonal Relationships (SIP) - measuring satisfaction with social and technical aspects of supervision, work group relationships and physical working conditions; 7-item subtest from Friedlander (1963)* ifO. Task-Involved Self Realization (SIR) - measuring satisfaction with the ^intrinsic11 aspects of the work itself; 3-item subtest from Friedlander (1963)* 41* Recognizable Signs of Advancement (SAD) - satis­ faction with perceive designs of advancement (e.g. pay and pay increases, promotion oppor­ tunities, recognition); 4-ifceni subtest from Friedlander (1963)* b3 ifR. Chances to Helr> O th ers (SHO) - one ite m . if3. D issatisfaction With Higher Order Needs (DOW) - heed deficiency in areas of autonomy and self- actualization; difference between actual and ideal; if-itein subtest taken from Lawler and Hall (1970). 4if. D issatisfaction With Pay (DWP) - difference between actual ana ideal; one item. 45* D issatisfaction With Helping Others (DHO) - • difference between actual and ideal; one item. if6 . A bsences R ep o rted (ABS) - number o f o c c a sio n s respondent reporting being absence; one item. if7* Job Involvement (JIV) - the degree to which the job situation is central to the person and his self image and self esteem; Jf-item subtest from Lawler and Hall (1970). ^8. Intrinsic Motivation (ITM) - degree to which a job holder is motivated to perforin well because of some subjective rewards or feelings that he expects to receive or experience as a result of performing well; if-item subtest from Lawler and Hall (1970).

Analysis of Data

All variables were scored and intercorrelated. In­ ternal consistency reliabilities were computed for all variables involving more than one item. The correlations were then analyzed by the Wherry- IVherry H ierarchical Factor Program (Wherry, 1954* 1968). This program extracts factors by the Principal Factor method, ■ improves the fit by Minimum Residual analysis, rotates orthogonally to Variraax Rotation, and finally does an orthogonal Hierarchical Rotation. The factor analysis provided underlying factors - theoretical constructs which interrelated the three types of variables. Each t factor indicated patterns of climate, bio-demographic characteristics, and job perceptions and attitudes v/hich were interrelated in some manner. The W herry-Test-Selection (Wherry, 19^0) was applied to variables selected on the basis of factor analysis to see how well each factor could be predicted by the job perception variables alone and by a composite including both climate and bio-demographic variables. Weights derived in the step above for predicting the factors were used to compute composite correlation coefficients betv/een factor scores predicted by two types of variables. These composite scores indicated whether it is possible to predict some job perception patterns by means of background (clim ate plus bio-demo graphic characteristics) variables or vice versa. Finally, the vreights obtained above vie re also used to predict factor scores for each of the six factors. Distributions of the scores for each factor were used to obtain percentile equivalent tables, and the individual factor scores were changed to percentiles. The school psychologists were then assigned to the role model accordin to their highest percentile score. CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Questionnaires were originally mailed to 275 parti­ cipants. Of this number 182 were returned. In order for data to be tabulated in the final analysis, the entire questionnaire had to be completed. A total of 165 subjects met the criteria. Seven individuals failed to complete one or more pages of the questionnaire and 10 did not return the questionnaire within the four week period. Ninety- three failed to respond and return the questionnaire. The chapter deals v/ith the seven specific questions raised in Chapter III. Each question is restated, statisti­ cal and other evidence is presented, and the evidence is discussed as to meaning and im plications.

Q u e stio n 1

What are the bio-demographic characteristics of the sample of 165 school psychologists as shown by their responses to individual questionnaire items?

E v id en ce In Appendix D the actual distribution of responses to all questionnaire items is presented. The responses to thirty of the personal characteristics and demographic items are summarized below. Sex. From the sample of 165* 93 respondents (56 per cent) were females.

Ave. From the sample of 165* 47 (29 per cent) of respondents were between the ages of 20-29,58 (35 per cent) were between 30-39* 37 (22 per cent) were between 40 - 4 9* 21 (1 3 per cent) were between 50-59* two (1 per cent) were 60 or over.

Experience as a school -psychologist. From the sample, 74 participants (45 per cent) have worked as a school psychologist between 1-3 years, 44 (27 per cent) between 4-6 years, 31 (19 per cent) betxveen 7-9 years, 15 (9 per cent) between 10-20 years, and one respondent over 21.

Prior educational experience. From the sample, 37 participants (22 per cent) had no prior educa­ tional experience, 65 (39 per cent) indicated prior experience of between 1-5 years, 41 (25 per cent) between 6-10 years, 15 (9 per cent) between 11-15 years, and 7 (4 per cent) over 15 y e a r s .

Served Internship. From the sample, 116 (70 per cent) had served at least a nine month internship, 33 (20 per cent) were presently serving one, and 16 (10 per cent) of the sample had not served any internship. k? Primary employer. From the sample, 160 (97 per cent) of the participants were employed by a public school system.

Highest decree earned. From the sample, 127 (77 per cent) held at least a Masters, 17 (10 per cent) had earned the doctorate, 11 (7 per cent) had completed all work for the doctorate except the dissertation, 7 (*f per cent) held a specialist rating, and 3 (2 per cent) had earned a B.S,

Behavioristic orientation. From the sample, 129 (78 per cent) of the respondents subscribe to using a behavioristic approach at least some of the time, while 36 (22 per cent) state they do not use it a t a l l .

Theoretical complexity. From the sample, 20 (12 per cent) of the participants are uncertain of their theoretical position, 29 (18 per cent) subscribe to just one position, 78 ik? per cent) employ at least tv/o types, and 38 (23 per'cent) use all three recognized theoretical orientations.

Membership in national organizations. From the sample 115 (70 per cent) of the respondents belong to a national professional organization. Only one respondent stated no membership at the local, state or national level. 48 Presently supervising interns* From the sample, 22 (13 per cent) of the respondents are presently supervising interns.

Years of Intern Supervision. From the sample, 122 (64 per cent) of the respondents had not supervised interns, 27 (16 per cent) had super­ vised interns from 1-3 years, 10 (6 per cent) from 4 -6 y e a r s , 4 (3 per cent) from 7-9 years, and 2 (1 per cent) from 10-12 years.

Number of interns supervised over the years. Of the sample, 122 (64 per cent) responded none, 23 (15 per cent) had supervised between 1-3 interns, 5 (4 per cent) between 6-10 interns, 4 (3 per cent) between 11-15 1 and 9 (5 per cent) had supervised over 16 interns.

Immediate supervisor or renorting level. Of the sample, 31 (19 per cent) report to a supervisor of interns, 96 (58 per cent) to a director or equivalent of psychological services, 10 (6 per cent) reported to a director or supervisor outside of the psycholog­ ical setting, and 28 (17 per cent) report to an assist­ ant superintendent or to the superintendent.

Assigned to specific schools. Of the sample, 117 (71 per cent) are assigned to specific schools, and 48 (29 per cent) are not assigned.

* 49 Majority of schools changed each year. Of the sa m p le , 146 (88 per cent) of the respondents keep the same schools, and 19 (12 per cent) have school assignments changed yearly.

Regularity of staff meetings. Of the sample, 131 (79 per cent) of the respondents state staff meetings are held regularly, and 34 (21 per cent) of the respondents do not regularly have staff meetings.

Humber of elementary schools served. Of the sample, 75 (45 per cent) of the respondents serve 3-8 elementary schools, 40 (2 4 per cent) serve 2-4, 20 (12 per cent) serve 8-12, 6 (4 per cent) serve 13-20, 6 (4 per cent) serve only 1, 4 (2 per cent) serve over 20, 2 (1 per cent) serve 12-15, and 4 (7 per cent) do not serve any elementary schools.

Number of junior high schools served. Of the sample, 71 (43 per cent) serve between 2-4> 42 (2 5 per cent) serve 1, 39 (2 4 per cent) serve none, 7 ( 4 per cent) serve 5-8, 4 (2 per cent) serve over 20, and 2 psychologists serve 9-12 junior high schools.

Humber of Senior high schools served. Of the sample, 61 (37 per cent) do not serve any high school, 50 (30 per cent) serve 1, 43 (26 per cent) serve 2-4, 5 (3 per cent) serve 5-8, 3 (2 per cent) serve over 50 20, 2 (1 per cent) serve 9-12, and 1 psychologist serves 13-16*

Psychologist/student ratio. Of the sample, 57 (35 per cent) serve between 4,000-4*999 students, 34 (21 per cent) between 3> 000-3,999» 33 (20 per cent) between 5>000-5,999* 19 (12 per cen$ between 2.000-2,999, 8 (5 per cent) less than a 1,000, 2 ( 1 per cent) between 6,000-6,999> and 1 between 7.000-7,999 students.

Allowed number of days to attend professional Meetin/rs. Of the sample, 58 (35 per cent) of the respondents state there is no policy; 47 (28 per * cent) are allowed from 2 to 5 days; 10 (6 per cent) are allowed 6 to 14 days; 3 (2 per cent) are allowed 15 or more days; 47 (2 9 per cent) said it is u n lim ite d -

Contracts with mental health or specialist for Consultation- Of the sample, 93 (56 per cent) of the respondents do not have consultation services available while 72 (44 per cent) do-

School system served. Of the sample, 99 (60 per cent) serve a city system only, while 66 (4 0 p e r cent) serve a county, local exempted village, or a m ultidistrict and/or county system- 51 Size of school system* Of the sample, 47 (29 per cent) work in a system with more than 100,000 population, 35 (21 per cent) with 50,000-75,000, 29 (17 per cent) v.lth 5,000-9,000, 21 (13 per cent) v/ith 1 0 , 000- 2 4 , 0 00, 13 (8 per cent) with 3,000- 4*999» 11 (7 per cent) v/ith 25»000-49,000, and 9 (5 per cent) with 75,000-100,000 student population#

Humber of full-tim e school psychologists on staff. Of the sample, 44 (27 per cent) work in a system with 10-20 school psychologists, 39 (24 per cent) v/ith 20-30, 21 (13 per cent) with 2.1-3, 19 (12 per cent) v/ith just themselves, 14 (8 per cent) with 5*1-7, 12 (7 per cent) with over 3 0 , 9 (5 per cent) with 1.1-2, 4 (2 per cent) with 3*1-5, and 3 (2 per cent) v/ith 7*1-10 staff members.

Student and community population description* Of the sample, 101 (61 per cent) work within some kind of an urban setting while 64 (59 per cent) work in a rural or suburban setting.

Variety of student population served. Of the sample, 79 (48 per cent) of the respondents serve 2 types of student populations, 44 (27 per cent) serve 3 types, and 42 (25 per cent) serve 1 type..

9 52 Work with inner city students. Of the sample, 105 (64 per cent) do not work with inner city students, and SO (36 per cent) work with inner city students.

Socio-economic level of student and community •population. Of the sample, 81 (49 per cent) work prim arily with lower-socio-economic students (SES), 47 (29 per cent) with a middle SES, 30 (18 per cent) with a lower-middle SES, and 7' (4 per cent) with an u p p e r SES.

D is c u s s io n The average respondent was a 32 year old female. She had about four years of other educational experience before becoming a school psychologist. She had an MA degree, and had served a nine month internship. She worked in a rather homogeneous lower-middle class urban setting with about 50,000 students. She, along with about a dozen other school psychologists, serviced about 2f000 students scattered in six elementary schools, three junior high schools, and a single high school. She tended to service the same schools year after year. She had not as yet helped train an intern. She attended regular local staff meetings and several professional meetings a year. She usually did not have access to any consultants, and reported directly to a director (or equivalent) of psychological services. 53 Her theoretical orientation usually included behaviorism and one other theoretical position. She was a member of at least one national association. While the above is a faithful picture of the average respondent, it must be realized that with respect to most of these variables there was a vide dispersion of scores. Later intthis chapter it becomes clear there are several varieties of typical school psychologists. Many if not all of these differ markedly from the average depicted in this section. The present data frequently differed from that obtained in the Farling and Hoedt and Rothman studies as indicated by the following percentages:

F&H . R K Percent Male 59 60 kk Over 35 Y rs. o f Age 71 5 7 .5 3k Employed as Psycho­ — 37*5 3 7 .6 logist over 5 years

Beyond MA 67 5 7 .5 21

The present sample members were more often fe m a le, younger and had less profeissional t r a i n i n g . F&H R IC School Enrollment — 20 5 5 .6 (50,000 or over)

Over 5 Psychologist 23 27 .5 66*8 on S ta f f

Psych/Student Patio 58 5 7 .5 6 1 .2 54 - They worked in larger school systems v/ith more psycholog­ ists but pupil/psychologist ratios v/ere higher than reported in the smaller systems# Clearly, the sample of respondents in this study differed in several characteristics from the much larger sample collected by the National Survey (1971) and the much smaller sample collected by Rothman (1972). The present sample was more often female , younger, and less v/ell trained# It v/as more concentrated in large city systems employing more psychologists but s till v/ith higher student/psychologist ratios. Nevertheless, ranges on almost all variables were identical and provided a representative sample of different kinds of psychologists and different kinds of settings. The per cent return of questionnaires v/as highest for this study but nothing is known about the self selection of respondents in any of the studies. Differences could be due to different times of collection, different distribution methods, different basis for participation and return of the questionnaires, e t c . A possible explanation for the extreme disparity noted in level of training, could be a reflection of the massive number of school psychologists trained in the late sixties. Ohio, in 1965 had available approximately 200 positions for school psychologists. (In 1965* this figure v/as quoted by Dr. Sara Bonham, Chief of the Division of Special Education, State Department of Ohio). University training programs, in order to meet this demand, expanded the number of entrants into the program* Many from this group probably have not been in the field long enough to consider either an advanced degree or to have had adequate experience or exposure to the various available specialist roles to seek further training.

Q u e stio n 2

How reliable are the variables used in this study which consisted of multiple item scales adopted from earlier research studies and of those combinations of two or more questionnaire items combined by the experts?

E v id en ce Many of the variables in this study consisted of scales adopted from earlier studies. Others consisted of unweighted item composites decided upon by the three experts (see Appendix C). Although there was no retesting it is possible to compute the reliabilities for the above composites of variables by means of internal consistency using the Kuder-Kichardson approach. Three different equations are available depending upon the assumptions v/hich one cares to make: equation assumption

1 # r K R # S a single factor

2 # r K R # llf equal intercorrelations rI£R#aO (also called Alpha) ea-ual ^.-v arian ces % Each higher equation also makes earlier assumptions# The most appropriate equation has been used when possible# The variables and their reliabilities are shown in . Table (1)# An inspection of the table shows the following distribution of reliabilities and frequency count# Eleven variables had reliability in excess of .80# 8 more had reliability in excess of #60, 6 more had reliability . in excess of #40, 2 more had reliabilities between 10 and #39* and 3 variables resulted in negative reliabilities indicating that the assumption of the equation were violated# All of the borrowed scales had reliabilities of #52 . to .88# The experts selected 12 composites which ranged from #35 up to .88# Only four turned out to be quite low (Variables 13, Ikt 18 and 3*f). Variable 13, Amount of Training, consisted of . scaled highest level of formal education with a bonus for internship# The apparent negative reliability is due to the practice of using internship at various levels (MA, Specialist, Ph.D.) with apparently most of them at - the earlier levels. The relationship was further dis­ torted by the fact that even Ph.D. holders, until recent years, did not serve internships. The resulting negative correlation between the two items was a violation of the - assumptions of the reliability equation# That the variable on retest would show a positive reliability was indicated by correlations of #32 v/ith Variable i9- 57 TABLE 1 COMPOSITE VARIABLE RELIABILITIES

, V a ria b le No# of Items KR#8 KR#14 KR#20(ALPHA)

1 8 #589 2 7 .5 5 0 5 6 .867 4 5 .7 4 0 5 5 .879 6 5 .8 2 9 7 6 • 644 8 4 .6 9 5 9 4 .8 7 0 12 2 .3 5 4 15 2 N e g a tiv e 14 2 N e g a tiv e 15 2 .5 8 7 •472 18 4 N e g a tiv e 19 3 .8 7 5 .7 78 21 3 .8 3 6 27 2 .6 3 7 31 8 • 861 32 9 .8 8 1 33 2 .4 0 0 .2 5 3 34 2 .7 4 1 .6 4 9 35 2 • 669 36 3 .4 1 4 .4 0 0 37 4 .6 2 5 • 551 38 2 .1 8 9 CO 0 0 • ' 39 7 . 40. 5 .8 3 1 41 4 .8 3 3 47 4 .5 1 7 48 4 .726 58 Internship Supervision Role, .26 with Variable 31 - Performance Evaluation, and .24 with Variable 42 - Chances to Help Others. Variable 14, Recency of Training, consisted of the date of the last formal training with a bonus for having participated in a workshop or non-credit seminar. Apparently the running of the study early in the year resulted in very recent graduates not having had a chance to participate in such extra training as yet. That the reliability v/as not really zero is attested by the fact „ that Variable 14 correlated -*46 v/ith Variable 12 - Years Experience. Variable 18, Professional School Policies, consisted of four school practices. Assignment of specific schools v/as positively related to holding of staff meetings but negatively related to shifting schools each year and to board leave for professional meetings. This caused the apparent negative reliability. That the reliability v/as not really zero is attested to by the correlation of Variable 18 with Variable 27 - -.30 (Urban Setting of School System). Variable 38, Work With Organizations, v/ith a reliability of only .19, reflecting a combination of tv/o types of work estimates (schools and profession), actually had a correlation of .51 with Variable 37 - Work With Community, and of *35 v/ith Variable 32 - Appreciation R e c e iv e d . 59 D isc u ssio n In order to justify the claim that the study did, in fact, investigate the role of such concepts as organiza­ tional climate (Variables 1 through 9)» perceived satis­ faction (Variables 39-42), and dissatisfaction (Variables 43-45) v/ith the various higher order needs, and job perceptions of job involvement and intrinsic motivation (Variables 47-48), it v/as deemed desirable to test for the reliabilities of the scales adopted from earlier studies. The satisfactory reliability of all scales and the high reliability of most of them indicated that the study did in fact consistently measure the variables. Sim ilarily, the combination variables put together by the experts measuring Job Performance (Variable 31)> Appreciation deceived (Variable 32), and the various work with Variables (33 through 38) were rather crucial to the area of job perceptions. The generally high reliabilities for these composite variables again lends a stronger feeling of confidence in any possible finding of either importance or unimportance in determining the roles played by school psychologists.

Q uestio n 3

How many and v/hat kinds of patterns of background, beliefs, and behaviors, indicating different role models of school psychologists, emerge from the interrelations

* 60 among the three types of variables (organizational climate, bio-demographic, and job perceptions) investigated in th e stu d y ? In statistical terms the above question was restated as, "How many and what kind of factors emerge from a factorial analysis of the 43 variables used in th e stu d y ?

E vidence The 48 variables were analyzed by means of the Wherry-Wherry H ierarchical Factor Analysis program on the IBM 165 Computer. The program was run with three possible criteria for stopping factoring: 1. 18 factors 2# h ig h e s t r e s id u a l o f .077 3# an eigenvalue of less than .400. The program obviously terminated on criterion three above. The table of residual correlations - unexplained original correlations, which resulted was

*122 or higher 44 .041 - .121 227 - .0 4 0 - .0 4 0 . 588 -.121 —.039 228 -.122 or lower 31

The essentially normal and unimodal shape of this dis­ tribution indicate that no major factors remain in the data. It was also concluded that loadings of .20 or above were probably not due to error. 61 The original analysis (principal axis plus minimum residual methods) resulted in five Varimax orthogonal factors# The hierarchical analysis produced one higher order factor with three of the original five factors associated with it. See Table 2 for complete loadings. The final factor structure v/as as follows: Climate Modifiers I.A. Intern Coordinators I.B. Mental Health Specialists I.C. Interns II. Inner City Crisis Solvers III. Learning-Behavior Change Agents

Factor I. Climate Modifiers The significant loadings for Factor I, along v/ith those for I.A, I.B and I.C are shown in Table 3* All loadings in Tables 3 through 8 followed by a letter d are criterion variables. Persons high on the higher order factor tend to rate seven of the nine climate variables (all but structure and standards) as being fairly high (loadings of .2? to «t3). They are more experienced and older (loadings of #30 and .23) and report fairly high in the administrative hierarchy of their school system (load­ ing of .26). Their school systems are moderately small (loading -.13) and there are relatively few other school psychologists in the system (loading of -.20). Their job perceptions consist of a fairly high level of satisfaction with interpersonal relations (.ZfO), task- TABLE 2 FACTOR ANALYSIS WITH COMPLETE LOADINGS ia l Code I IA IB IC II III Communality

1 STR #038 -#010 .170 -.039 *334 -103 *163 2 RES .272 .214 *320 .161 -.008 -.023 .249 3 HEW .434 .208 . 646 . 200 -.107 -.127 . 717

it* RSK - .377 .233 -509 .090 -.045 .019 .466 5 WAR .430 .312 .534 .271 -.002 -.101 .651 6 SUP .380 .156 .592 .284 -.026 -.113 . 613 7 STD .091 -.154 *334 .029 . 235 .126 .215 8 CON .303 .184 .413 .183 .099 -.083 -346 9 IDN .377 .085 .657 .185 .043 .015 .617 10 SEX -.003 -.055 . 048 .000 .004 . 067 . 010 11 AGE .2 3 0 .539 -.088 - .4 0 4 .0 4 2 -.008 .516 12 EXP .297 .712 -.128 -.422 -.015 .014 .789 13 ATR .071 .335 -.196 .094 .140 . 076 .190 14 RTR -.155 -.335 .031 .133 -.037 .086 .164 15 PAF .Uif .221f .000 -.298 .168 .215 .226 16 BEH .083 .081 .083 .036 .036 .142 .043 17 TOC .049 .090 .008 -.037 .168 .106 .052 S TABLE 2-Continued dal ’ode I IA IB IC II • I l l 0 u-\ (VI 1 18 PSP - .0 5 4 -.1 4 5 .038 • -.1 8 5 .107 19 SUP .065 .295 -.1 6 7 -.1 2 4 - .0 3 7 .116 20 PEP .261 .438 .076 .127 -.4 4 7 .028 21 LSC - .0 5 7 -.2 4 5 .133 - .0 6 2 -.2 4 8 .213 22 PSH - .0 6 5 -.0 5 8 - .0 7 0 .035 -.0 6 0 .132 23 CSA -.1 1 7 -.2 7 8 .048 -.0 5 9 .024 .127 24 SZS ‘ -.1 5 3 -.1 2 7 - .1 7 3 -.1 3 1 • 777 -.0 4 8 23 HSP -.2 0 5 -.2 2 3 - .1 8 0 -.1 1 8 .768 - .0 8 4 1 0 » 00 26 GMS -.0 8 6 -.0 9 8 -.0 7 1 V>l .239 -.0 8 2 27 UBS .072 .165 - .0 2 4 - .1 9 2 .653 -.1 2 2 28 ICS -.0 0 5 .016 -.0 2 6 -.2 3 1 .722 .001 0 & • 0 1 29 SEL .053 .108 . -.0 0 8 - .3 9 2 .01 1 30 EFF .152 .188 . 1 1 1 -.1 7 8 .077 •365 31 PER .117 .300 -.0 7 0 -.1 6 8 . 0 1 1 •467 32 APR .139 .138 .136 .082 - .0 9 4 .555 33 WWS .0 4 0 -.0 6 9 .147 -.0 7 0 .057 .118 34 m s .051 .015 .085 .146 .150 .402 35 WP .133 .130 .131 .097 .091 .523 00 • fCV 4 . 36 WST - .0 1 7 .089 - .1 2 2 .056 - .0 2 4 - TABLE 2-Continued

Variable Code I IA IB IC II III Communality

37 WWC .031 .1 8 7 -.0 2 8 -.1 1 1 - .1 2 4 .594 .423 38 wwo .015 .069 -.0 3 9 -.1 5 5 -.1 2 1 .626 •438 39 SIP .400 .131 .656 .030 .203 .045 .653 40 SIR .2 5 3 .0 8 4 .413 .114 .078 .283 .341 41 SAD .356 >151 .5 5 1 .074 .095 .063 .472 42 SHO , .231 .496 -.0 4 2 .626 .167 .245 .782 43 DON -.3 7 9 -.3 7 1 -.3 7 5 -.4 0 3 -.0 5 4 .139 .607 44 DWP - .1 5 4 -.0 8 6 -.2 1 6 .153 -.0 2 9 .084 .109 45 DHO -.2 0 7 - .4 7 3 .065 - .6 0 4 -.1 3 8 -.1 3 6 .673 46 ABS - .0 0 4 .068 -.0 7 6 .200 .002 .057 .053 47 JIV .1 0 4 .076 .130 -.116 .088 .256 .120 48 ITl'I .078 - .0 3 0 .183 .068 .052 .207 .091

o\ -p* TABLE 5 FACTOR I: CLIMATE MODIFIERS (AMD SUB-GROUPS)

Variable Loading Aa Bb Cc

3 Rewards: Climate .43 .21 .65 .20 5 Warmth: Climate .43 .31 .53 .27 39 Interpersonal relationships •40d .66 oo N~\ 6 Support:- Climate • .59 .28 9 Identity: Climate .38 •66 4 Risk: Climate •38 .23 .51 43 Dissatisfaction with -.3 8 d -.3 7 -.37 -•40 Higher Order Needs 41 Recognizable signs of .36d .55 Advancement 8 Conflict: Climate .30 • 41 2 Responsibility: Climate .27 .21 .32 a Experienced Supervisor Sub Model Mental Health Specialist Sub Model 0 Young Intern Sub Model Criterion Variable cr» Vn TABLE 3 “ Continued

Variable Loading Aa Bb Cc

12 Tears experience .5 0 • 71 - .4 2 vq (VI 20 Administrative Reporting Level • •44 40 Task-involved Self Realization •25d •41 42 Chances to Help Others .2 3 d .5 0 .6 3 11 Age .2 3 .5 4 - .4 0 45 Dissatisfaction with Helping Others - .2 1 d - .4 7 - .6 0

25 Number of school - .2 0 - .2 2 Psychologists in System

15 Amount of Training .0 7 .5 5 - .2 0

14 Recency of Training - .1 5 - .5 5 51 Performance Evaluation • 12d •50

19 Internship Supervision Role .06 .2 9 i • ro 25 Consulting Services Available - .1 2 OO

21 Load-schools —#06 - .2 5 I TABLE 3 - Continued

Variable Loading A2 Bb Cc

15 Professional Affiliations .11 .22 - .3 0

7 Standards: Climate .09 .3 3 kk Dissatisfaction tdth Pay - I 5 d - .2 2 o o 28 Inner City Setting • - .2 3

cr> -a 68 involved self realisation (.25)* signs of advancement (•36)> and chance to help others (*23)* They also claim relatively little dissatisfaction with the meeting of higher needs (-.38) or with chance to help others (-.21).

l.A - Intern Coordinators The factor loadings for Factor IA are shown in order of importance in Table If* This su'o-group has some­ what lower loadings on the climate variables. Only responsibility (.21), rewards (.21), risks (.23)» and v/armth (.31) have significant loadings. The personal characteristic variables show a corresponding increase in loadings. Age (*3^)> experience (.71), and administrator reporting level (.ifif) all show marked increases. In addition, new personal characteristic variables have risen to a significant level. Amount of training (.33)» recency of training (-.33)* intern supervision (. 2 9) and professional affiliation (.22) indicate the role of the

persons high on this sub-factor. In addition a I o y / lo a d of schools served (-.28) and an absence of consulting services (-. 23) are also indicated. The job perception'loadings also show considerable shift. Satisfaction v/ith chance to help others (.Zf5), and a lack of dissatisfaction v/ith both higher order needs (-.37) and v/ith helping others (-.If7) remain high. The loadings for satisfaction v/ith interpersonal relations ( .1 3 ) t task-involved self realization (.08), and recognizable 69 TABLE 4 FACTOR I-A : IITTERIT COORDINATOR

V a ria b le L o ad in g

12 Years experience .7 1 11 Age .5 4 42 Chances to help others • 50d 45 D issatisfaction with helping others - . 4 7 d 20 Administrative reporting level •4 4 43 D issatisfaction v/ith higher order needs -*37d 13 Amount of training •33 14 Recency of training - . 3 3 5 Warmth: Climate •31 31 Performance evaluation •3 0 19 Internship supervision •29 23 Consulting services available - .2 8 UN CM 1 21 Load-schools •

4 Risk: Climate .2 3 15 Professional affiliations .2 2 1 l\> 25 Number of school psychologists in • sy stem

* * 3 Rewards: Climate .2 1 2 Responsibility: Climate • 21

^C riterion Variable

/ 70 signs of advancement (# 15) have all become insignificant# One new significant loading is present for performance (•3 0 )* These highly trained, older school psychologist believe they are effectively performing in the field of intern development and they are gaining great satisfaction from helping others. The role of intern coordinator was evolved to assure the provision of a carefully supervised intern­ ship (Ferguson, 1963)* Xn a proposal for state depart­ ment certification of school psychologists, one of the major proposals was for an internship under a certified school psychologist, or unviersity supervision and approval (Bardon, 1963)* The growth of the role of intern coordinator parallels, indeed is required by the careful assessment of internships and practicum programs by university training programs (Clair, 1971). This role of intern coordinator was mentioned earlier by Rothman (1972, p. 14).

X.B Mental Health Specialist The loadings, in order of importance for Factor IB, appears in Table 5* For this sub-group the climate loadings are even greater than they were on the higher order factor (.32 to *66), with rewards (.63) and identity (.66) load­ ing the best* The standards variable also now has a significant loading (*33)* 71

TABLE 3 FACTOR 1 -3 : MENTAL HEALTH SPECIALISTS

V a ria b le L oading

39 Interpersonal Relationships .6 6 d Identity: Climate • 66 9 * 3 Rewards: Climate •63 6 Support: Climate *39 Ifl Recognizable signs of Advancement *55d 3 Warmth: Climate *53 if Risk: Climate *51 8 Conflict: Climate A1 ¥> Task-involved Self Realization A l d if3 D issatisfaction with Higher Order -* 3 7 d Needs

7 S ta n d a rd s : C lim at e *33 2 Responsibility: Climate *32 D issatisfaction v/ith Pay - • 2 2 d j — Criterion Variable • 72 Of the personal characteristic variables only amount of training approaches significance, but now on the negative side (-.20). The group shows extremely high loadings on the satisfaction variable of interpersonal relations (.66), task-involved self realization (.ifl), and recognizable signs of advancement (.55)» and has correspondingly low dissatisfaction with fulfillm ent of higher needs (-.37). On the other hand, both satisfaction (-.Oif) and dissatis­ faction (.0?) with "chances to help others" have become insignificant. The persons also have relatively little dissatisfaction with pay (-.22). Amount of training is 4 almost significantly low (-.20). Since mental health specialists are primarily engaged in modifying the school climate so that school children achieve their own best self realization by having their needs fulfilled, it is not surprising that these specialists are so aware of their own enviornment and opportunity. The earlier literature on the roles of school psychologists clearly indicate the nature of the mental health specialist. An understanding of motivation and of how interpersonal tensions and attitudes affect learn­ ing are so important that school psychologists are urged to give in-service training in these areas for teachers and other school personnnel (Frisch, 1956). The mental health expert does not deal directly with children, but 73 rather works through other healthy professionals as a consultant. He is responsible for training teachers, parents, and other professional school staff members who in turn take responsibility for the children (Gottlieb and Reger, 1972). The above interpretation helps to explain the low factor loadings on helping others and their very high loadings on the organizational climate v a r ia b le s . A parallel role, mental health consultant in organization development, was identified by Murray and Schmuck (1972). This role model involves moving away from working with individual studentB toward improving the climate of the school organization by consulting with all members of the school. In essence, the school psychologist would become a consultant in organizational development. Organizational development prim arily endeavors to improve communication among adm inistrators, teachers, and students and at making their respective resources more available, and at increasing their effectiveness in collabor­ ative problem solving (Murray and Schmuck, 1973). Stated specifically, the objectives of organizational training include (1) increased understanding within the school of hov/ the different participants affect one another, (2) established ways of defining goals and of assessing goal achievement, (3) identified organizational conflicts and so that they can be dealt with constructively, (h) improved 7^ group procedures used at meetings, ( 5) u t i l i z a t i o n o f new procedures for effective problem solving in small groups, and ( 6) involvement of more participants at all levels in decision making (p. 17).

I.C Interns The loadings, in order of importance for Factor IC appear in Table 6* This sub-group also had reduced loadings on the climate variables. Only support (.28) rew ards ( . 20) and warmth (. 27) had significant loadings, although other climate variables high on the higher order factor have near significant loadings (.1 6 to . 19). With respect to personal characteristics, both age and experience had significant negative loadings (-.40, -.ij.2 ), The only other significant loadings were for professional affiliation (-. 3 0 ), and a near sign­ ificant negative loading (-. 19) for an urban setting. These persons thus appear to be young interns in small town or even rural settings. The job perceptions included satisfaction with the chance to help others (.63) and a correspondingly low dissatisfaction in this area (-.60). There was a sign­ ificant low dissatisfaction for the meeting of higher order needs (-. 40 ). The interns had near significant loadings on absence (. 20), effort expanded (-. 18) and performance (-. 17). 75

TABLE 6 FACTOR I-C : INTERNS

V a ria b le L oading

kZ Chances to Help Others .6 3 d Jf5 D issatisfaction with Helping Others - .6 0 d 12 E x p erien ce —»Jf2 11 Age 0

Jf3 D issatisfaction with Higher Order -.M >d Needs

15 Professional A ffiliations - .3 0 6 Support: Climate • 28 5 Warmth: Climate .2 ? 28 Inner City Setting - .2 3 3 Rewards: Climate .2 0

^Criterion Variable These young, inexperienced interns in non-urban settings seem to value the warmth and support of the organizational climate and are realistically aware of their lack of contribution (in effort and skill) and see their job as a wonderful chance to help others.

Factor I I * Inner City Crisis Solvers Loadings for this factor appear in Table 7# Persons in this group, as opposed to those in all other groups, see the organizational climate as exclusively consisting of structure (.33) and standards (.24)# Other climate variables have loadings from (.10) (conflict) dovm to (-.11) (rewards). Among the personal characteristics variables the highest loadings are on size of school system (.78), number of school psychologists (.77)* inner city setting (.72), and urban setting (.63)* Persons high on this factor see the work setting as low in socio-economic level (-.39)* their load as consisting of few schools (-.25) but a large geographic mix (.24)# They also see themselves as reporting very low in the administrative hierarchy (-.45)* which might indicate they were mostly interns despite their average age (-04) and experience level (-.02). On-the-job perception variables had few significant loadings. There was a barely significant positive loading on "interpersonal relations" (.20) and a s till lower TABLE 7 FACTOR IIs INNER CITY CRISIS SOLVERS

Variable Loading

2^ Size of School System .7 8 25 Number of School Psychologists .77 28 Inner City Setting .7 2 27 Urban Setting of School System .65 20 Administrative Reporting Level -• 4 3 29 Socio-economic Level - .3 9 1 Structure: Climate .3 3 21 Load-schools - .2 5 7 S ta n d a rd s : C lim at e .2 7 39 Interpersonal Relationships .2 0 d d Criterion Variable loading on satisfaction with "chance to help others" (.17) and a s till lower loading on work with teachers (.15). The absence of significant loadings on age, exper­ ience, effort and efficiency seen to indicate that such large systems embrace a wide variety of persons with varying achievement. They do not seem to gain any parti­ cular type of satisfaction or see the school system climate as being concerned with such satisfactions. A sim ilar factor was isolated by Rothman.

Factor III - Learnina-Behavior Change Agents Loadings for this factor appear in Table 8. Persons high on this factor seem particularly uninterested in organizational climate. The highest positive loading is (.15) on standards, while the lowest negative loading is (-.13) on rewards. Again, this group is rather average in personal characteristics. The only significant loadings are on professional affiliation (.21) and load of schools (.21). The job perceptions variables, however, show a very strong and rich pattern. They are high in effort (.37), performance («A7), and in working with various groups (teachers, .ifO; parents, .52; staff, .3 8 ; community, .60; and organizations, .63)* As a result they see themselves as receiving much appreciation (.56), show satisfaction with self realization (.28), and as having chances to help others (.25). They also perceive a high level of job 79

TABLE 8 FACTOR III: LEAHNING-BEHAVIOR CHANGE AGENTS

Variable Loading

38 Work with Organizations •6 2 d * 37 Work with community •5 9 d 32 Appreciation Received •5 6 d 33 Work with Parents • 52d 31 Performance Evaluation •4 ? d 34 Work with Teachers .l»Od CO 36 Work with Staff • 30 Effort Expended •3 7 d 40 Task-involved Self .Realization .2 8 d 47 Job Involvement •2 6 d 42 Chance to Help Others .2 3 d 48 Intrinsic Motivation • 21 d

13 Professional Affiliations .2 1 21 Load-schools .2 1

^ Criterion Variable 80 involvement (.26) and intrinsic motivation (.21). They rate their performance in all areas as being quite high. Their dedication to the coordination of all phases of school and community activity and of personnel from all of these diverse groups to better create an atmosphere in which learning and behavior modification can take place probably .accounts for their high expenditure of effort and their high quality of performance. This factor was cited as being desirable by Farling and Hoedt (1971) who said, "The professional skills of the school psychologist most critically in need of development . . . include psychological and educational diagnosis, educational programming, behavioral modification planning, counseling and professional communication. The emphasis on these . . . skills • • • reveals the concern of school psychologists about improving their roles as 'change agents' within the school." (p. 82) A description of the role model was delineated by Tomlinson (1972). "The trend of present day psychology is toward bringing available psychological knowledge to bear on group and system problems, including consultation v/ith teachers, and adm inistrators and training others in improved techniques of behavioral analysis and control (p . 2 8 ) . While speaking of the psychologist as a helping person with the school system, Trachtman (1966) noted three major aspects of the job: a general consultant, an educational change agent and a quality control engineer. 81 Discussion The warning made in the discussion of question one (1) concerning the assumption that all school psychologists are like the average or typical profile as a simple summarization of all of the responses has certainly been well borne out# The three major types (Factor I, XI, and III) as well as the three subtypes under Factor I (Factors IA, IB and IC) demonstrate that school psychologists are of many types, i.e., perceive themselves as playing many different roles. The roles are better understood when it is realized that: 1. they work in many settings, from large metro­ politan inner city settings to small towns, 2. they vary from new interns to older, highly, experienced groups, and 3# they are variously motivated by the need to help others, by the need for self actualiza­ tion, by a desire to be appreciated, and probably by the need for other types of rewards. These differential settings and goals interact to form varying job patterns. To perform successfully on such diverse jobs necessitates various kinds of training, supervision, and an awareness by the administration of the kind of climate, rewards, and support which must be supplied simultaneously to maximize the individual workers output and satisfaction. 82 At this point it seems relevant to discuss the overlap of the identified Factors I, II and III as well as the three subtypes under Factor I (IA, IB and IC) with those identified in the Rothman study. The six role models developed in this study provide excellent cross- validation of Rothman*s results. The high degree of correspondence on four of the factors was immediately evident although they did not necessarily correspond by name. Two of Rothman*s factors seemed to match one of the factors in the present study, while neither agreed with the present remaining model (Mental Health Specialist). However, a closer examination of Rothman*s loadings dis­ closed that if one of the two remaining factors was in­ verted and then rotated forty-five degrees with the other factor, both of the rotated factors were similar to the role models identified in the present study. (Rothman*s factor 2 was reflected and rotated forty-five degrees with Rothman*s factor 1). A comparison of the original and rotated Rothman models (see Appendix E) with those of the present study follows.

I. Climate Modifiers vs> II (R) Broad Professional Development

Loadings on comparable variables for these two higher order factors were 83 III(R) years experience .3 0 • 30 years professional em ployment .2 0 years as school psychol­ o g i s t adra. reporting level .26 .16 superintendent conferences age .23 .2 0 age no* of psychologists .2 0 -• 0 7 no* of psychologists amount of training .0 7 .0 8 degree status

This h'igher order factor for both studies does not reflect a specific role* Rather it indicates there are common elements within a variety of roles* In the present study this includes role models IA, IB, and IC* Rothman did not attempt to indicate the relation of her lower factors to this higher order factor*

IA* Intern Coordinator vs* 1(R) Process Oriented Consultant (Rotated)

The loadings on common variables for this factor w e re : IA I(R) rotated years experience .71 •81 years professional experience .5 2 rears as school psyt g i s t ag e • 3k .7 0 no* of psychologists -.23 - . 1 0 s e x - .0 6 - .0 9 se x intern supervisor .3 0 .1 6 in-service for psycho] i s t .2 7 Y/ork v/ith interns, fie e x p e rie n c e

The agreement between the present factor and the Rothman rotated factor is excellent. The rotation resulted in increased loadings on age, experience and role in intern szf training for the Rothman factor, thus bringing the role of Intern Coordinator into' sharper focus.

IB. Mental Health Specialist vs. 2(R) Veteran Psychologist (Rotated and Reflected).

The common variables v/ith loadings on these factors w ere: IB 2(E) years of experience -.13 ■•Ilf years of professional employment ••11 years as school psycho­ l o g i s t age - .0 9 • .0 1 age no. of psychologists -.18 if no. of psychologists supervisor of interns -.35 ••35 in-service training of psychologists •.2? work with interns, field experience amount of training -.20 21 degree status size of system -.19 Oif school population work v/ith schools .15 31 school frequency 52 interest in legislation many high loadings 6if counselor conferences on climate variables 49 teaching classes, and in satisfaction sp e ak in g with need fulfillm ent 28 tutor conferences 21 seeking state and federal aid

The data from the study on interest in climate and need satisfaction was supplemented by the activities listed in the Rothman study to better define the nature of the mental health specialist role.

IC. Intern vs. k(R) Research Specialist

The lo a d in g s w ith common v a r ia b le s f o r t h i s factor were: 85 IC 4

Rothman*s loadings clearly support the low level of ■ experience and moderate degree of training of the intern group# Rothman*s name of Research Specialist, hased upon a loading of #59 in research seems to have been an artifact. In certain university training programs in Ohio, interns are required to do a research project and hence reported a research activity, while persons beyond the intern class are not required and apparently do not produce much research.

II. Inner City Crisis Solvers vs. 5(R) Community C risis Intervention and Professional Training Model.

Loadings on common variables shared by the study w ere: II 3(R) size of system .7 8 .8 2 school population inner city .7 2 no. of school .7 7 .5 7 no. of school psycholog­ psychologists i s t s amount of training • 12 - .2 2 contact with non-school a g e n c ie s .2 1 nurse conferences .2 2 doctor conference .7 5 crisis intervention .3 7 preparing m aterials .4 5 in-service training .30 meeting with psychologists .2 5 writing for media 86 The activities listed by Rothman indicate the nature of the activities carried out by this role model.

III. Learning-Behavior Change Agents vs. I(R) Quality Rating (Instrument Factor).

Loadings shared by common items on these factors w ere: III 1(H) work with teachers .2f0 .0 9 teacher frequency work v/ith parents *52 •36 parent frequency work v/ith staff .38 work v/ith community .39 .4 7 community frequency work v/ith organization .5 6 .66 school frequency •56 professional frequency e f f o r t .3 6 .83 teacher quality performance rating .If8 •78 parent quality appreciation received .5 6 •78 school quality •78 community quality • 75 professional quality .2Jf interdisciplinary staffing .23 staff intervention • 2if seeks state and federal fu n d s •16 nurse conference •30 in-service for psycholog­ i s t s •21 in-service for teachers .23 parent education • 16 conferences v/ith other specialists .1 4 follow up •17 tutor conferences

The broad interest of this group in the learning situation and in modifying behavior is highlighted by the specific type of activity v/ith positive loadings from Rothman study.

Q u e stio n k

For each of the role models discovered, how import­ ant are each of the three types of variables and how do 87 they interact to form a particular role model?

E v id en ce A major purpose of the study was to find through factor analysis the possible interrelationship among the three major types of variables. The six factors show varying combinations of patterns. Factors I, IA and IC all show significant loadings from all three types of variables. All, with 2 exceptions (IC-risks, IA -Identity), show significant or nearly significant (.16 to loading on the psychological climate variables Responsibility. Rewards. Risk, Warmth, Support. Conflict and Identity. None of these groups had signfiicant loadings on either Structure or Standards. Groups I and IA were sim ilar in their job setting loadings. They were above average in ace, experience, and reported rather high in the administrative structure. Both groups also reported a small number of school psychologists available. Group IA further reported a higher amount of training, more professional affiliation and an important role in intern supervision along v/ith a reduced load in schools served. Group IC, on the other hand, differed markedly in job setting variables, They were young, inexperienced and had little professional affiliation. All three groups have significant loadings on the job perception variables of high satisfaction with chance to help others and low dissatisfaction with meeting hi/cher 88 order needs and chance to help others* We can conclude then, that the .lob perceptions of helping others and a lack of dissatisfaction with higher order needs realization seem to go hand in hand v/ith perceiving the environment as being warm, supportive> and rewarding and demanding responsibility and handling of conflict* While there v/ere significant loadings on bio- demographic variables, none of the variables were common to all three groups. One factor, IB, has significant loadings only on psychological climate and job perception and behavior variables (apart from one loading of -.20 indicating a relatively low amount of training). All of the climate variables which loaded for Factors I, IA and IC are even more highly loaded (.%1 to .66) for group IB. In addition, there is a significant loading of *33 on Standards and an almost significant loading of .17 on Structure. They also show the same high loading indicating low dissatis­ faction v/ith meeting of higher order needs. In addition, they disclose high satisfaction v/ith Interpersonal Rela­ tions, Task-Involved Self Realisation, and Signs of Advancement. They also had a significantly negative loading on ’dissatisfaction with pay.’ It would appear as for the previous three groups that perceiving their .job primarily in terms of satisfactions received (friends, self-expression* promotion, pay), make them highly perceptive of all phases of psychological climate. Factor II has significant loadings on only the psychological climate variables and on job setting variables (the only exception is a single loading .20 in the job perception variable of satisfaction with Interpersonal Relations). The significant psychological climate variable loadings are restricted to structure and standards. The demographic significant loadings are Size of System, Humber of School Psychologists, an Urban Setting, and an Inner-city Setting accompanied by Low Socio-economic level of the community served. They also report a light load in terms of number of schools, and note that they report very low in the administrative structure. Apparently isolation (single school or few schoolst low level supervision) in a vast megatronolis causes then to see their school system as primarily concerned v/ith regulations (Structure) and (Standards). The final factor, III has significant loadings only on job perception and behavior variables, and two minimally significant (each .21) loadings on job setting variables. There were no significant loadings on the psychological climate variables. The pattern of loadings • » on the job perception and behavior side include 'high effort* and 'extensive work' v/ith all groups (teachers, staff, parents, community, organizations), and they receive much 'appreciation' in return. They rate their performance as highly satisfactory. They express mild 90 degrees of satisfaction from 'self realization1 on the job and with ’helping others*v and note that their job is 'intrinsically motivating.* Persons highly involved in their .jobs and with a high level of .1ob activity are ant to be unaware of either the demo.granhic or psychological climate in which they v/ork.

D isc u ssio n The role of the three different types of variables in determining a given model appeared to follow no stringent pattern. A given model may consist of signifi­ cant loadings on all three types of variables, or two types of variables, or on only one type of variable. It appeared that the bio-demographic and job perception variables may be more basic since two of the models are based almost solely on one or the other type of variable (Factors II and III). The perceptions or awareness of organizational climate variables, on the other hand, seem to stem either from the demographic setting of the model (av/areness of 'structure' and 'standards' by the inner city metropolitan psychologists of Factor II) or by the nature of perceived job rewards (awareness of 'warmth*, 'support,'and 'rewards,' by the Factor I and its subgroups.) Question 5

How well can each type or model be predicted or identified using either only background (climate or bio-demographic variables) or only job perception variables, and v/hich kind of variable w ill predict each type more adequately? The question was rephrased statistically in terms of the magnitude of the multiple correlations which were obtained from the use of each type of variable. The multiples are achieved by the proper use of test selec­ tion so that trend rather than error is being fitted.

E v id en c e Since there were nineteen criterion variables (Job Perceptions) and 29 predictor variables (9 Climate plus 20 Bio-demographic), it seemed unwise to use straight m ultiple regression with only 165 cases. Consequently, the variables were reduced in number by using the obtained factor loadings and the following c r i t e r i a : 1 For every factor keep at least one of each set of variables v/hich load differentially on the factors. 2. Where several variables acted in exactly the same manner (e.g. large system, urban setting, inner city setting) keep only the best v a r i a b l e . The eighteen variables selected included: ( a ) 4 climate variables (1,5,5»6) (b) 6 personal characteristics (12,13,15,20,21,2*t) 92 (c) 8 criterion variables (31,32,38,39,40,41,42,47). The factor structure (non-significant loadings not shown) for these variables is presented in Table 9. In order to further avoid overfitting of the . predictions the Wherry Test Selection Method was used for weighting separately the predictor and criterion variables to predict best each of the six orthogonal f a c t o r s . The beta weights (standard scores) and nb” weights (raw scores) for predicting each factor and the resulting multiple correlations are presented in Table 10.

D isc u ssio n An inspection of Table 10 discloses both success and failure in the prediction of the orthogonal factors. The analysis below of the two types of prediction point out both the variation in success and the reasons it o c c u rre d . 1. Prediction by climate and bio-demograpliic factors.

Factor I. IA, IB. IC

The higher order Factor I was predicted with a moderate multiple correlation of (*53)« The three subfactor groups were even more predictable: IA. Intern Coordinator .80 IB. Mental Health Specialist ,7/f IC. Interns .63 TABLE 9 VARIABLE USED FOR FACTOR PREDICTION®

Variable Factor Loadings No. Name I IA IB IC II III

1 S tru c tu r e -- - - 33 - 3 Reward 43 21 65 20 - -

3 Warmth b3 . 31 53 27 - - 6 S upport 3 ° - 59 28 - -

12 E x p erien c e 30 71 - -4 2 - - 13 Amount of Training - 33 -2 0 --- 15 Professional A ffiliation - 22 - -3 0 17 21 20 Administrative Reporting Level 26 44 -- -4 5 - 21 Load, Schools - -2 4 - -2 5 21 2 4 Size of System - - -1 7 - 78 - 31 Performance Evaluation - 30 - -1 7 - 41 32 Appreciation Received - - - - - 56

33 Work with Organizations — - - - 62 eNon-significant loadings have been o m itte d TABLE 9 - Continued

Variable Factor Loadings Ho# Name I IA IB IC II Ill

39 Interpersonal delations 40 - 66 - 20 - 40 Task-Involved Self Realization 25 - 41 - - 28 41 Recognizable Signs of Advancement 36 - 55 ---

42 Chance to Help Others 23 50 - 63 17 23 h i Job Involvement - - - ■- - 26

•P- 97 The only common beta weight shared by all four factor groups was a positive weight on the organizational climate variable of 'warmth*1 All groups were alike in that variables from both the organizational climate and the bio-demographic variables contributed to the prediction* In each case, the highest beta weight for the three subgroups turns out to reflect very well the names given on the basis of the factor analysis: (a) Intern Coordinator *60 on 'experience' (b) Mental Health Specialist *43 on 'rewards' (c) Interns -*47 on 'experience'

Factor II - Inner City Crisis Solvers

This group was as expected the most predictable of all with a multiple correlation of .84 with its largest single beta weight being .69 on the variable 'size of system.'

Factor III - Learnin^-Behavior Change Agent

This factor is very poorly predicted by this type of variable as might have been expected on the basis of the earlier conclusion that this group seemed to be un­ aware of either type of background variables. The multiple reached only .4 0 with the highest beta v/eight of .27 on 'load' in terms of 'number of schools served.*

2. Prediction by job variables. Factor I « IA. IB, IC

These factors were all less well related to job perception variables than they were to background vari­ ables with one exception: Job Perception Background F a c to r I .5 3 IA .5 7 .8 0 IB .7 2 ,7k IC .7 1 .6 3

For groups I and IA the decrease in prediction was rather marked. Factor I is now rather poorly predicted and Factor IA is now only moderately predictable. However b o th IB and IC are s till predicted very well. For groups I and IB the highest beta weight is on •satisfaction v/ith interpersonal relations' (.37 and .5 9 respectively). For groups IA and IC the highest beta weight is associated with satisfaction in *chance to help others' ( .5 2 and .7 0 respectively). The second highest beta weight turns out to be most distinguishing in terms of factor names in the case of the three subfactors. n IA .29 on 'performance evaluation* IB -.26 on 'helping others* IC - .2 1 on 'performance evaluation*

Factor II - Inner City Crisis Solvers

This factor is very poorly predicted by job perception variables (R « .30). This was to have been 99 expected on the basis of its low factor loadings on these variables, The highest beta weight of ,20 does correspond to its highest factor loading (.20) on *interpersonal relations' (satisfaction)•

Factor III - learnln^-Behavior Change Agents

This factor which was the most poorly predicted by * background variables, is best predicted by the job per­ ception variables (R « *75)» Again as wight have been expected, its two highest beta weights are on 'work with community* (.43) and 'appreciation received* (.30). The third highest beta weight of (.17) on 'performance evaluation* also could have been anticipated. Summarizing the discussion, it is noted that while some models seemed adequately predicted by both sets of predictors (Factors IA, IB, and IC), others were success­ fully predicted only by the background variables (Factors I and II), while one type role could be adequately pre­ dicted only by the job perception variables (Factor III). While not every variable received a significant weight on each prediction, all items of the background variables and all but one of the job perception variables (41* recognizable signs of advancement) received a signi­ ficant loading on at least two of the predictions. This indicates that the inclusion of the various organizational climate variables and the satisfaction and perception 100 variables did.make a real contribution to the understanding of the roles of school psychologists#

Q u e stio n 6

How well do predictions based upon one kind of data agree with those made on the basis of the other kind of data? Do they support each other? Do they supple­ ment each other? Can or should one type of prediction be used alone, or should they always be used in conjunction with one another? S tatistically, the above question was rephrased as to the values of composite correlations achieved when factor scores based upon one kind of data were correlated with factor scores based upon the other kind of data#

E v id en c e Composite correlations were computed using each regression equation based on background data in conjunc­ tion with each regression, equation based upon job per­ ception scores# The resulting set of composite correla­ tions are presented in Table 11.

D is c u s s io n The sub-general Factor I , was predicted adequately by both background variables (#53) and by job perception variables (#4Zf)» and the two predicted scores correlate very well with each other (#66)# Apparently this group

0 101

TABLE 11 COMPOSITE CORRELATIONS AMONG FACTOR SCORES BASED BACKGROUND AND JOB PERCEPTION PREDICTORS

ZBG i a bg i b bg IC BG X1m m BG Factor V alidities (526) (8 0 2 ) (743) (62 7 ) (8 4 5 ) (3 9 6 )

-0 2 2 (436) JJP 656 355 548 160 171

(573) IAJP 383 455 080 048 154 - 1 1 0 - 1 1 0 (721) IBJP 474 050 598 150 080

(710) ICJP 198 211 088 259 055 -2 7 9

(299) ^ J P 510 305 414 236 268 -3 9 0

(749) IXIJP 124 149 - 0 0 1 - 2 1 8 - 1 1 2 3 5 2 102 can be detected by either equation* Lees confusion with other groups, however, seems to arise when the predictions are made on the basis of job perception elements (.17 v e rs u s .5 1 and -.02 versus .12). The relatively high correlations of these scores with IA and IB, and to a lesser extent, IC are of course due to these three factors belonging to the higher order factor. Factors IA and 13 show sim ilar results. The factor scores from the two approaches agree fairly well (com­ posite of */f6 and .60). The scores based upon job perception variables differentiate this group from all other predicted groups. The scores based upon background variables do almost equally well (except for correla­ tions of .30 and .ifl for factor scores for Factor II predicted from job perception variables). For Factor IC, the agreement between the two scores is rather low, .26, although it is higher than the corre­ lations with scores from other factors. Since both scores had satisfactory validity (.63 and .71), their lack of agreement must be due to the fact that the two types of predictors tap different aspects of the factors. To select persons who occupy this role it might, there­ fore, be desirable to use both equations and combine the scores for use. For Factor II, the results again indicate only a slight amount of agreement (.27)* This is undoubtedly 103 due to the lo v ; validity (#30) of the scores based upon job perception variables. Actually, the scores based upon background variables do have their highest correla­ tion on the scores predicted as belonging to this group. However in view of the high validity (.8/0 of the scores based upon background variables, it seems best to use that equation alone when selecting persons for this role. For Factor III, while the scores from the two approaches correlate only .35* either series of scores seem to separate the group from the other groups quite successfully, i.e. all other correlations are either much lower or actually negative. Here again then it might be better to combine the two predictions even though the prediction based upon background variables had a much lower validity (.ZfO) than that based upon job perception variables (.73)*

Summary Factors I, IA, IB, IC, and III appear to be best predicted by a combination of the two predictive scales. Factor II seems to be best predicted using the single scale based upon the background variables alone.

Q u e stio n 7

What is the distribution of school psychologists (according to their predicted factor scores) in each of the identified role models? Evidence The b weights • presented earlier in Table 11 v/ere used to compute the factor scores for the 165 school psychologists in the sample# The combined weights from both types of predictors were used, for role models I, IA, IB, IC, an d III# Only the weights for the background variables were used to predict scores for role model II# The distributions are shown in Table 12# Since the scores for role model II have a quite different mean and standard deviation in comparison with the other role model scores, it was decided to convert the raw scores to percentile equivalents for all distribu­ tions# These transmuted scores v/ere obtained by plotting cumulative frequency ogives and score values were read from the chart. Each end class, 0 and 100, contains 2#5 per cent of the cases at the ends of the distributions; the percentile equivalent for 50 includes scores read at the 47*5 pel* cent and 52#5 per cent values from the ogives# This process is described under the heading of centile norms in Guilford (1956, pp. 1 0 7 -1 1 4 )* The conversion tables are shown in Table 13# The hierarchical Factor I was excluded since the three sub-factors IA, IB, and IC represent the role models under that factor# Each of the 165 person scores v/ere changed to percentile equivalents and each person was assigned to that role model for which he had the highest percentile equival­ ent score. In case of ties the psychologist was assigned 105

TABLE 12 DISTRIBUTION OF PREDICTED ROLE MODEL SCORES

Range I IA IB IC IIIII

1 5 1 -1 6 0 1 1 4 .1 -1 5 0 2 1 1 3 1 - 1 4 0 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 -1 3 0 1 2 1 4 1 5 15 9 1 1 1 -1 2 0 2 0 3 0 2 4 2 7 2 7 1 0 1 -1 1 0 4 7 3 5 3 0 4 0 4 4 9 1 - 1 0 0 4 3 3 1 3 5 4 0 4 4 8 1 - 9 0 2 9 2 7 2 3 2 3 2 2 7 1 - 8 0 9 1 3 1 4 1 4 1 0 1 3 6 1 - 7 0 2 9 6 3 4 6 2 5 1 - 6 0 1 6 1 5 7 1 4 1 - 5 0 1 1 2 3 1 3 1 - 4 0 1 4 2 1 - 3 0 6 1 1 - 2 0 1 1 - 1 0 TABLE 13 PERCENTILE EQUIVALENT FOR ROLE MODEL SCORES

IA IB ICII III

100 130 and up 131 and up 134- and up 67 and up 1 2 8 a n d u] 9 5 1 2 3 -1 2 9 1 2 5 -1 3 0 1 2 3 -1 3 3 62-66 1 2 0 -1 2 7 9 0 1 1 9 -1 2 2 1 2 2 -1 2 4 1 1 9 -1 2 2 60—6l 1 1 6 -1 1 9 8 5 1 1 6 -1 1 8 1 1 8 -1 2 1 1 1 5 -1 1 8 5 8 -5 9 1 1 3 -1 1 5 8 0 1 1 3 -1 1 5 1 1 5 -1 1 7 1 1 3 ^ 1 1 4 57 1 1 0 -1 1 2 75 1 1 1 -1 1 2 1 1 2 -1 1 4 1 0 9 -1 1 2 56 1 0 8 -1 0 9 7 0 1 0 8 -1 1 0 1 0 9 -1 1 1 1 0 7 -1 0 8 5 5 1 0 5 -1 0 7 65 1 0 6 -1 0 ? 1 0 5 -1 0 8 1 0 5 -1 0 6 5 3 -5 4 1 0 4 6 0 104-103 103-104 1 0 4 5 2 1 0 3 5 5 1 0 1 -1 0 3 1 0 1 -1 0 2 1 0 1 -1 0 3 5 0 -5 1 1 0 1 -1 0 2 5 0 99-100 99-100 1 0 0 49 1 0 0 4 5 97-98 9 6 -9 8 9 9 4 7 -4 8 99 4 0 95-96 9 4 -9 5 97-98 4 3 -4 6 98 5 5 92-94 92-93 95-96 3 8 -4 2 96-97 30 8 9 -9 1 8 9 -9 1 9 1 -9 4 3 5 -3 7 9 4 -9 5 2 5 8 6 -8 8 85-88 87-90 3 2 -3 4 9 0 -9 3 2 0 8 3 -8 5 8 1 -8 4 8 3 -8 6 2 8 -3 1 8 7 -8 9 1 5 77-82 76-80 8 0 -8 2 2 5 -2 7 83—86 1 0 7 3 -7 6 6 8 -7 5 7 7 -7 9 1 8 -2 4 79-82 5 6 3 -7 2 5 5 -6 7 6 8 -7 6 1 3 -1 7 7 3 -7 8 0 0 -4 2 0 - 5 4 0-67 0 -1 2 0 -7 2 10? to both groups* The resulting assignments are shown in Table lif. The percentages of assignments to each role model were computed on the basis of (a) single assign­ ments, (b) plural assignments, and (c) overall assignments*

Discussion Each of the role models was assigned a substantial proportion of the sample cases, It is evident that each role model applies to a substantial proportion of current school psychologists in Ohio. The exact proportions in the total population cannot be estimated since the sample was not randomly drawn and since any bias of self selec­ tion v/hich differentiates those who returned the question­ naire from the non-respondents is unknown. Only 15 of the I 65 school psychologists were found to be tied for high percentile equivalent in two different roles. These joint patterns agree roughly with respect to percentage of assignments to those for the single assignments. Certain combinations predominated.

1. Eight persons classified as interns were equally divided (4 each) with the role models IB (Mental Health Specialist) and IX (Inner City Crisis Solvers). Ho intern was able to play the role of Intern Coordinator (XA) and Learning- Behavior Change Agents simultaneously. 2. Four persons classified as Inner City Crisis Solvers also had equally high scores on the role of Learning-Behavior Change Agents (3 cases) or Intern Coordinator (1 case). Geographical loca­ tion, unlike lack of experience, did not keep them from assuming these two specialist roles. TABLE Ik HOLE MODEL ASSIGNMENTS ON BASIS OF HIGHEST PERCENTILE EQUIVALENT

Role Single Tied Assignment With Total Combined Percentages Model Assign­ IA IB IC II III ties total single Tied Overall ment

IA 22 - 0 0 1 1 2 Zk 1 ^ 6 7 6 .6 6 1 3 .3 3 IB 3 1 0 - k 0 2 6 3 7 2 0 .6 7 2 0 .0 0 2 0 .5 6 IC 31 0 k - k 0 8 39 2 0 .6 7 2 6 .6 7 2 1 .6 7 II 3 7 1 0 k 3 8 W? 2 ^ .6 6 2 6 .6 7 2 5 .0 0 III 29 1 2 0 3 - 6 35 1 9 -3 3 2 0 .0 0 1 9 . ^

Total 150 2 6 8 8 6 30 190 1 0 0 .0 0 1 0 0 .0 0 1 0 0 .0 0

ho * CD 109 3* The remaining three cases consist of those persons predicted to bo Lcarning-bchavior Chance Agents also being assigned to the Mental Health Specialists (2 cases) or as an Intern Coordinator (1 case).

The f i n d i n g s indicate that the pattern for role model development nay be hierarchical in character with the roles interrelated as in the following diagram. • • =

Interns

Mental Health Inner City Specialists — 1— Crisis Solvers ^ U p * T 2 ) ^ ^ ______(3) Intern Coordinators <--- (1)------Learnin'jc-Bchavior Change Agents

When all pairs of highest scores, including the tied caec3 previously reported, were plotted the diagram was as follows:

Interns (Ik) .J M )-----" (23) (6) Mental Health tor\\ "Inner City Specialists <— KdfJl------>■ Crisis Solvers

(Ik) Intern Coordinators^^— •---(23)--- Learning-Behavior Change Agents

The diagram seems to confirm that most interns move to either Mental Health Specialist (primarily smaller towns) or to Inner City Crisis Solvers (metropolitan-inner city) or play both roles. Ultimately, the two intermediate levels move on either to become Intern Coordinators or 110 Learning Behavior Change Agents, and that a number engage in both higher level roles to some extent, The above interpretation has direct implication for staff training programs: 1* intern training should include information about higher level roles and immediate pre­ paration for becoming either a Mental Health Specialist or an Inner City Crisis Solver, and 2, regular staff training should include infor­ mation about and training for the even more specialized roles of Intern-Coordinator and Learning-Behavior Change Agent,

The factors in the present study could be identified in terms of role models which were congruent with those found by Rothman ( 1 9 7 1 ) through activity analysis. The contribution of the present study is not the confirmation of role models previously found by Rothman, The import­ ance is that rather than simply describing the.activities of these role models, this study delineated those aspects of the school system climate which were perceived as important to*the various models, and also specified what satisfactions and need fulfillm ents the different role models received from their jobs. This study has gone beyond identification and description of role models and has incorporated the aspects of organizational climate and personal satis­ factions which characterize these models. What has been done is to tie together organizational variables, on-the- job activities and derived personal satisfactions for I l l each role model. This seems an important step in the consideration of the roles of school psychologists. First, evidence of the existence of the role models specified by Rothman was found. Secondly, it was found that different role models perceived different aspects of the work climate as important and, that different role models derived different satisfactions from their work. From the data, it would not seem feasible to talk of an ideal climate for school psychologists for tv/o reasons. First, different types of school psychologists perceive different aspects of climate as important. r\ Secondly, the role of a school psychologist may change (most notably after the internship) and this role change would be expected to lead to different perceptions of important work climate dimensions. The same reasoning can be applied to the satisfactions and need fulfillments that are derived from working in different role model jobs. 112

CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Recent literature in educational administration and industrial organizational psychology has stressed the importance of organizational climate, biographical and demographic setting, and job perceptions and their interactions. No prior study has attempted to investi­ gate all three types of variables for school psychologists# Organizational climate scales were adapted from the earlier works of Litwin and Stringer (1968)# Biographi­ cal and demographic variables were taken from an account­ ability study by the Ohio School Psychologists Associa­ tion (1972)# Job perception scales were taken from studies by Friedlander (1963) and Lawler and Hall (1970) and from the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) Evaluation Grid used by Rothman (1972)# The items were arranged in a questionnaire and distributed to 275 school psychologists covering large and small cities and suburban and rural county systems# The questionnaire responses were coded to yield 157 items which were in turn combined into 48 variables (9 climate, 20 biographic, and 19 job perception). One hundred and sixty-five complete usable responses were included in the data analysis# The sample of respondents in the study differed in several characteristics from the much large sample collected by the national Survey (1970) and the much smaller sample collected by Rothman (1972). In contrast with the two prior studies, the present sample was more often female, younger, and less well trained. It was more concentrated■in large city systems employing more psychologists but still with higher student/psychologist ratios. Nevertheless, ranges on almost all variables were identical and provided a representative sample of different kinds of psychologists and different kinds of settings. The per cent of returned questionnaires was highest for this study but nothing is known about the self selection of respondents in any of the studies. Differences could be due to different periods of collection, different distribution methods, different bases for participation and return of the questionnaires, etc. While no retesting took place, internal reliabilities (Kuder-Richardson) computed for all multiple item vari­ ables indicated generally acceptable reliability levels for all scales adapted from earlier studies and most of the combinations appearing only in the present study. Any failure of the types of variables to interact could not be blamed upon unreliability of measurement. 114 A hierarchical factor analysis resulted in five varimax factors with three of the original factors being subordinate to a higher order factor. The higher order Factor I, (Climate Modifiers) depicted a group of school psychologists primarily concerned with climate modification. The three sub-groups were: IA - Intern Coordinators, IB - Mental Health Experts, and IC - Interns. Factor II dealt with Inner City Crisis Solvers and Factor III depicted Learning-Behavior Change Agents. Analysis of the interrelations of the factor loadings on the three types of variables led to the following conclusions: 1. School psychologists whose job perception centers around high satisfaction with helping others tend to see the organiza­ tional climate as being warm, supportive and rewarding. 2. School psychologists who see their jobs primarily as providing a wide variety of satisfactions (friends, self realization, promotion, and pay) are keenly aware of all possible facets of the organizational climate in which they work. 3* School psychologists isolated in a few schools and reporting at a low organiza­ tional level in an inner city metropolitan setting see organizational climate as consisting entirely of structure and s ta n d a rd s . 4. School psychologists performing at a high level on their jobs and with a high level of job activity (work with parents, teachers, staff, community and organizations) are unaware of the organizational climate in which they work and are not restricted to any particular demographic setting. When eight job perception variables and ten back­ ground (climate and bio-demographic) variables (selected on the basis of uniquely high factor loadings for the various role models) were used independently to predict factor scores using Wherry Test Selection, the multiple correlations ranged from .299 to .?21 for the job perception variables and from #396 to .8^5 for the back­ ground variables. Composite correlations between the two sets of predicted factor scores indicated that factor (role model) groups were best predicted by the combined equations for groups I, IA, IB, IC, and III. For Factor II the best predictions (most diagnostic) were obtained using only the background variables as predictors. When factor scores, predicted as indicated above, were'computed and converted to per cent equivalent scores the number of respondents classified as belonging to each of the groups IA, IB, IC, II and III were approximately equal (1^.6 to 2/f.6 per cent). When interrelations v/ere investigated by looking at the two highest scores for each person, an hierarchical interrelationship became apparent. Following the field training period, interns (IC) gravitate, about equally, to roles of Inner-City Crisis Solvers (II) or Mental Health Specialists (IB). As the psychologists gain experience they may move from either of the above roles to the higher order specialties of Intern Coordinator (IA) or Learning-Behavior' Change Agents (III). 116 The role models isolated in the study agreed very well with those arrived at by Rothman (after a slight rotation of two of her factors). Combining items with high loadings from both studies helped in identifying the actual activities engaged in by members of the various role models* These patterns were: Intern Coordinators - High quality performance; interested in climate factors of warmth, reward, and risk; high desire to help others; provides training for interns, and various other profes­ sionals; are concerned with field experience and professional growth; had contact with physicians and courts; were involved in legislation. Learning-Behavior Change Agents - High self rat­ ings on effort and all phases of performance; no interest in climate; high in job involve­ ment and intrinsic motivation, a high degree of contact with all levels of personnal and high community and agency contact; do in-service training with teachers, professionals, and psychologists; engaged in staff intervention; hold conferences with parents and counselors. Mental Health Specialists - Very aware of all aspects of climate (especially identity, reward, and support), and also low in control and standards; highly interested in satisfactions gained from interpersonal relations and tasks involved self realization; spend much time counseling with teachers, parents, and counselors; give training to parents and various school professionals; work on the outside with physicians and with courts; are involved with legislation. Inner City Crisis Solvers - Concerned only with climate variables of control and structure; somewhat interested in satisfaction through interpersonal relations and helping others; spend major effort on crisis intervention and preparation of materials and news releases; work with physicians and nurses on health problems; hold meetings and training courses for psycholog­ ists.

9 117 Interns - Primary interest in climate in areas warmth and support; satisfaction stems almost entirely from helping others; work with teachers, principals and Parent Teacher Organizations; engage in minor research projects, do typing, proofreading and filing; confer over the phone. The findings could obviously be put to several practical uses. The seventeen variables which entered into the prediction of factor scores for the various role models could be administered and scored for the school psychologists of a given system. The member of that system could then be classified into the various models on the basis of their highest per cent equivalence scores. Then tentative placements and the pattern of critical scores could be utilized in various ways as indicated below. The role model assignments could be checked against active duty assignments to see whether present assignment corresponded with self perceptions of climate and job and with personal characteristics. Disagreements would indicate either helping the incum­ bent obtain a more realistic perception of his job role or in reassignment to a more congenial job model. After staff were realistically assigned and had proper perceptions of their job model, it would be easier to (a) reward good performance in the light of active personal goals and motivations, (b) develop appropriate in-service training programs for development 118 and promotion for each group, and (c) develop differen­ tial performance evaluation schedules tailormade to cover appropriate duties and responsibilities. The study also indicated that the administrator should take more care in communicating information about actual climate where it was already appropriate and in modifying the climate so that it would be more conducive to better performance. Future research projects generated by the present study include a possible replication of the study using a combination of the variables found most diagnostic of role models in the present study along with some of the more diagnostic specific activities included in the Rothman study. Other research projects might attempt to carry out some of the classification, training, evaluation, and climate modification ideas mentioned in the two preceding paragraphs. An interesting foilow-up study would be a longi­ tudinal investigation of changes in perceptions of work climate and derived satisfactions with changes in role models. If a large group of interns were administered a questionnaire sim ilar to the one used in this study during their internship year and re-administered the same questionnaire after a two-year period (when they have changed from intern statuB to jobs encompassed by other role models), the effect of changes in perceptions of work climate and derived satisfactions could be examined as a function of changes in role model. It would be pre­ dicted that for the intern administration, results sim ilar to those found for interns in this study would be found, and for follow-up administration, perceptions of climate and derived satisfactions would change in the direction of the role model of the position then occupied by the psychologist. APPENDIX A Introduction and Instruction for the Questionnaire

Booklet

(This briefs the subjects as to vhat is being done, provides directions, and gives Instruction for returning the booklet).

CONFIDENTIAL ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE AND JOB ATTITUDE

QUESTIONNAIRE

This questionnaire is part of e research project being conducted

for an approved Ph. D. dissertation at The Ohio State University. This

is the original attempt to.relate organisational climate and work environment characteristics to the job-related attitudes of practicing school psychologists. Research concerning work environment characteristics end job attitudes of school psychologists can be accomplished only through the cooperation of practicing school psychologists like yourself. Your cooperation in this research project w ill be sincerely appreciated. e To maintain anonymity please do not put your name on the questionnaire.

When you have completed the questionnaire, seal it in the stamped enclosed envelope and return it by mail. Please, try to complete the questionnaire w ith in two weeks. This questionnaire is for the purpose of learning how people feel end react to their Job environment. Please read each statement carefully and mark each statement with a number as follows!

I f you Definitely Agree with the statement, then mark it 7.

If you Moderately Agree with the statement, then mark it 6.

If you only Slightly Agree with the statement, then mark it 5. .

If you Neither Agree nor Disagree with the statement, then mark it A.

If you only Slightly Disagree with the statement, then mark it 3*

If you Moderately Disagree with the statement, then mark it 2.

I f you Definitely Disagree with the statement, then mark it L.

______The Jobs in this organisation are clearly defined and logically structured.

We don't rely too heavily on individual judgement in this organisation) almost everything is double-checked.

_____ We have a promotion system here that helps the best person to rise to the top,

_____ The philosophy of our administration is that in the long run we get ahead fastest by playing it slow, safe and sure.

_____ A friendly atmosphere prevails among the people in this organisation,

_____ You don't get ouch sympathy from higher-ups in this organisation if you make a mistake.

______In this organisation we set very high standards for performance.

______The best way to make a good Impression around here i s to ste e r d e a r of open arguments and disagreements.

_____ People are proud ot belonging to this school system.

. m this organisation, it i» sometimes unclear who has the formal authority to make a decision,

______Around here the administration resents your checking everything with themi if you think you've got the right approach you Just go ahead,

. 1® this organisation the rewards and encouragements you get usually outweigh the threats and the criticism .

- I - 123

Our system has been built up to what It ts by taking calculated risks at the right time. This organization is characterized by a relaxed, easy-going working clim ate. The administration makes an effort to talk with you about your career aspirations within the system. Our administration believes that no Job is so well done that It couldn't be done b etter.

The attitude of our administration is that conflict between competing units and Individuals can be very healthy.

I feel that I am a member of a well functioning team.

The policies and organization structure of this system have been clearly explained*

Supervision in this organization is mainly a matter of setting guidelines for your people) you let them take responsibility for the job.

In this organization people are rewarded in proportion to the excellence of their job performance.

Decision making in this organization is too cautious for maximum effectiveness.

It's very hard to get to know people in this organization.

People in this organization don't really trust each other enough.

Around her there is a feeling of pressure to continually improve our personal and group performance.

Ve are encouraged to apeak our minds, even if it means disagreeing with our superiors.

As fair as 1 can se e , there is n 't very much personal lo y a lty to the system.

Red-tape is kept to a minimum in this organization.

You won't get ahead in this organization unless you stick your neck out and try things on your own sometimes.

There is a great deal of criticism in this organization.

Our administration is willing to take a chance on a good idea.

People in this organization tend to be cool and aloof toward etch other*

The philosophy of our administration emphasises the human factor, how people feel, etc.

Our administration believes that if the people are happy, productivity will take care of itself.

- 2 -

1 I 1 2 if

In our meetings tlui goal is to arrive at a decision as smoothly as possible*

In this organization, people pretty much look out for their own interests*

Excessive rules, administrative details, and red-tape make it difficult for new and original ideas to receive consideration*

Our philosophy emphasizes that people should solve their problems by themselves.

There Is not enough reward and recognition given in this organisation Cor doing good work.

We have to take some pretty big risks occasionally to keep ahead in the educational field*

There is a lot of warmth In the relationships between administration and school psychologists in this system.

When I am on a difficult assignment I can usually count on getting assistance from my boss and co-workers*

To get ahead in this organization it's more important to get along than it is to be a high producer.

Our productivity sometimes suffers from lack of organization and planning.

There are an awful lo t of excuses around here when somebody makes a m istake.

If you make a mistake in this organization, you w ill be punished.

In this organization people don't seem to take much pride in their' performance.

In some of the projects I'ye been on, I haven't been sure exactly who my boss was.

One of .the problems in this organization is that individuals won't take responsibility.

Our administration isn't so concerned about formal organization and authority, but concentrates Instead on getting the right people together to do the Job.

The major s a tis fa c tio n in my l i f e comes from my Job.

When I do my work w ell, it gives me a feeling of accomplishment.

The most important things that happen to me Involve my Job.

My job is a very challenging one.

When 1 perform my job w ell, it contributes to my personal growth and development.

- 3 - 125

Figuratively speaking, 1 live, ent and breathe my job,

1 feel a great sense of personal satisfaction when 1 do my Job well.

Hy Job is appropriate to my abilities and skills,

1 am very much Involved personally in my work.

Doing my Job well increases my feeling of self-esteem.

«

(Turn to next page please) 126

This part of the questionnaire is concerned about self rated behaviors and on the Job self perceptions. You w ill rate yourself on a seven point scale.

1. Overall, how satisfied are you with your job?

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. < very moderately very dissatisfied satisfied satisfied

2. How much effort do you put into doing your Job (not in terms of time, but - how much do you put out during your working time)?

l^ 2. 3. 4 . 5. 4 . 7. put out as about put everything I*ve little as possi- average got into my job ble

3. How well do you feel you perform your Job?

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. do a poor about do an outstanding Job average Job

4. How would you rate yourself as a school psychologist?

1. 2. 3. 4. 5* 6. 7. poor about outstanding average

How do you feel in respect to the "quality" of work which you provide in the following six areas of service?

1* 2. 3. 4. 3* 6# 7. do a poor about d0 an outstanding Job average j0b

— — Children .Teachers 7. ____ Parents ?• - Schools (e.g, curriculum, organisational, research, etc.) 9 . Community W» ______P rofession

• J • Check ( O each group below with whom you spend over 10 per cent of your tine} double check (vM if you spend over 25 per cent of your timet

— — *tudents 12. _ _ _ _ _ teachers parents _ administrators *3* community agencies . doctors and psychiatrists 22 • ______para professions Is 2®* ~~~ counselors 2®* - ™ - ®P«ech th erap ists

Rate on a 7 point scale the degree to which you believe each group below really appreciates your services*

1* 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. not at all about really appreciated average appreciates serv ice

20 * ______teachers 22* Patents 22* " adm inistrators 23* — — community agencies 24. ■ doctors - psychiatrists 25. ______counselors 2®' ______speech therapists 22* ______nurses 28, ______students

Rate on>o 7 point scale the time you presently spend in each of the following service areast

1# 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7, non* about g r e a te st amount average of time

29. ______ch ild ren 30. • teachers 31. ______parents 32. ______schools 33. ______community 34. . profession This section is asking about specific things in your current Job which provide satisfaction or dissatisfaction. The following is a list of such things that you may have thought of. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with these things7

Please check each item once in this wannerI

Extremely satisfied - mark it Moderately satisfied - mark it 4 Neutral - mark i t £ ” Moderately dissatisfied - mark, it 2 Extremely d is s a t is f ie d - mark i t _1

_____ Performing challenging assignments on ny job.

______Receiving recognition for a Job well done.

' Work which requires the use of my best abilities.

______A feeling of achievement in the work I am doing.

.. The working relationship I have with my supervisor ( or equivalent ). ______The opportunity for advancement.

— ■ Administration policies that affect the feelings of the employees. ______Working under a supervisor who really knows his Job. ______A feeling of security in ay Job.

______The working relationship I have with a y co-workers.

_____ The amount of responsibility I have on my job.

_____ A smooth and efficient work group with which to work.

On the. Job training and experience that will help ay personal growth. - opportunity for salary Increases.

_____ Exceptionally good working conditions and equipment. _____ Doing the kind of work I like. ■ This section lists some characteristics or qualities connected with your job. For each such characteristic, you w ill be asked to give two ratings. a. How much of the characteristic JLs there now connected with your Job?

b. How much of the characteristic do you think should be connected with your job?

Each rating will be on a seven-point scale, which w ill look like thist

(minimum) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (Maximum)

You are to circle the number on the scale that represents the amount of the characteristic being rated. Low numbers represent low or minimum amounts, and high numbers represent high or maximum amounts. If you think there is "very little" or "none" of the characteristics presently associated with the job, you would circle numeral 1. If you think there is "just a little", you would circle numeral 2, and so on. II you think there Is a "great deal" but not a maximum amount, you would circle numeral 6. For each scale, circle only one number.

I. The opportunity lor independent thought and action in my position! a ) How much i s there now/ (min) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (max) b) How much should tnere be/ 12 3 4 5 6 7

2■ The feeling ot self-fulfillm ent a person gets from being in my position .(that is, the leellng ot being able to use one's own unique capabilities, realising one's potentialities)! a) now much is there uuw (min) 1 2 3 0 0 0 / (max) b) now much shouia tnere be/ 1234567

3. The opportunity in my position for participation in the setting of goals* a ) How much i s there now? (min) 1 2 3 4 5 6 ?“ (maxT™ b) How much should there be? 12 3 4 5 6 7

4. The opportunity In my position for participation in the determination of methods and procedurest " — ———— a) How much i s there now (min) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (max) b) How much should there be? 12 3 4 5 6 7 5 . The pay for my p o sitio n / a ) How much i s there now (min) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (max) b) How much should there be? 1234567

6. Theopportunity in my position, to give help to other people. a) How much is there now? “ ^ m itf ~ 2~1“ 4 ^ 6 7 (max) b) How much should there be? 1234567 This information Is being requested in order to get * better description of the sample and to help interpret the information obtained from the other sc a le s . Depending on the question, please circle the correct number, or when requested, write In your response. Unless otherwise directed, please mark only one answer per question.

(1) Sexi

1. Hale 2. Female

(2 ) Aget

1. 20 - 29 2. 30 - 39 3. 40 - 49 4 . SO - 59 5 . 60 - 69 6 . 70 or over

(3 ) How many years have you worked as a school psychologist?

1. 1 - 3 2 . 4 - 6 3. 7 - 9 4 . 10-12 5. 13 - 15 6 . 16 - 18 7. 19 - 21 8 . over 21 years.

(4) How many years were you employed in an educational position before becoming a school psychologist?

1. None 2. 1 -*5 3. 6 - 10 4 . 11-15 5. Over 15

(5) Have you had at least a nine month internship within the school? 1. No 2. Presently interning 3 . Yes

(6) Which of the following is your primary employer?

1. Public School System 2. Private School 3. University or College 4 . State Department 5. Hospital 6. Coonunity Hental Health Clinic 7* Private Practice 131

(7 ) Check the highest degree you have earnedi

li BiAi or B.S. 2. M.A., M.S., or M. Rd. 3. Specialist A. All but dissertation S. Doctorate

(8) When was the most recent course you have taken lor credit at a ■ College or University}

1. Before 1950 2 . 1951 - 1960 3 . 1961 - 1965 A. 1966 - 1970 5 . 1970 - 1972

. (9) Have you been in any kind of a workshop or institute ( no college credit ) to upgrade your professional skills}

1. Yes 2 . No

(10) Circle the one theoretical positlon(s) which most nearly describes your own positiont

1. Behavioristic 2. Phenomenological 3 . Psycho*dynamic A. Psycho-dynamic and Behavioristic 5* Phenomenological and Behavioristic 6* Psycho-dynamic and Phenomenological 7, Behavioristic, Phenomenological, Psycho-dynamic 8. Uncertain

(11) List, the number of professional organisations in which you hold membership. 1* iraplonnl 2 . atate 3. national

(12) Are you personally supervising interns this year} 1. Yes 2 . No

(13) How many years have you supervised Interns}

1. none 2 . 1 - 3 3. A - 6 A. 7 - 9 5. 10 - 12 6 . 13 - 15 7. over 15 - 10 . 132

(14) How tuny Interns over the yesrs have you supervised? (write in answer), 1. _____ 2. None

(15) Who is your immediate superior! (not name, only t i t l e ) Write in answer•

1.______(16) Arc you assigned to specific schools for a full year7 • ' 1.* Yes 2 . No

(17) Is it standard procedure to change the majority of your school building assignments from year to year?

1. Yes 2. No

(18) Do you have staff meetings for purposes other than administrative details and information sharing?

1. Yes 2 . No

(19) How many elementary schools (including preschools) do you serve?

1* None 2. 1 3. 2 to 4 4 . 5 to 6 5. 9 to 12 6. 13 to 16 7. 17 to 20 8 . More than 20

(20) How many junior high or middle schools do you serve? 1> none 2 . 1 i 3. 2 to 4 4 . 5 to 8 5. 9 to 12 6 . 13 to 16 7. 17 to 20 8 . more than 20

(21) How many high schools do you serve?

1. None 2. 1 3. 2 to 4 4 . 5 to 8 5. 9 to 12 6* 13 to 16 7. 17 to 20 8. More than 20 - 11 - 133

(22) What la your psychologist/student ratio?

1. Loss than 1,000 students per psychologist. 2. 1,000 to 1,999 students per psychologist. 3. 2,000 to 2,999 students per psychologist. 4. 3.000 to 3,999 students per psychologist. 5. 4,000 to 4,999 students per psychologist. 6. 5,000 to 5,999 students per psychologist. 7. 6,000 to 6,999 students per psychologist. 8. 7,000 to 7,999 students pec psychologist. 9. 8,000 or more students per psychologist.

(23) How many days per year are you permitted for attendance at professional meetings? 1. 1 2. 2 3 . 3 to 5 4 . 6 to 8 5 . 9 to 11 6 . 12 to 14 7. 15 or more 8. unlimited 9 . no p olicy on th is matter

(24) Does your school contract with mental health or educational specialists with whom you may consult?

1. Yes 2. Ho

(25) Type of school system served!

1. C ity 2 . County 3. Local 4 . Exempted v illa g e 5. Multi-district or multi-county

(26) Sire of scnool system ( for county system indicate total pupil population )

1. Under 1,000 2. 1,000 - 2,999 3. 3,000 - 4,999 4. 5,000 - 9,999 ' 5. 10,000 - 24,999 6. 25,000 - 49,999 7. 50,000 - 74,999 8. 75,000 - 100,000 9 . Over 100,000

- 12 - ( 27) Number of fulltime school psychologist units on stafft

1. 1 or le s s 2. 1.1 to 2 3. 2.1 to 3 4. 3.1 to 5 5. 5 .1 to 7 6. 7.1 to 10 7. 10.1 to 20 6. 20.1 to 30 9. Over 30 (28) Of the student and community population you serve, which of the following best describes those populations?

1. Rural only 2. Suburban only 3. Urban only 4. Inner city only 5. Rural - - Suburban 6. Suburban - - Urban 7. Urban — Inner C ity 8 . Suburban - - Urban - - Inner C ity 9. Rural -- Suburban — Urban

(29) Of the student and community population you serve, which of the following soclo-cconomlc levels best describes the majority of the people in those populations?

1. Lower 2. Lower-middle 3. Middle 4* Upper - middle 5 . Upper

(30) On how many occasions (not total time, e.g. a two weak Illness would count as one occasion), have you been absent from your job during the l a s t two years?

1. 0 - 2 2. 3 - 5 3. 6 - 6 4 . 9 - 1 1 5. 12 - 14 6. 15 or over

In which state are you employed?

Your written conments concerning this questionnaire or your Job w ill be appreciated. Peel free to respond on the back of this sheet. Thank you again for your participation. Debriefing Letter

Denr Colleague,

Thank you again for your cooperation in the research project. Your willingness to take time from your busy schedule to complete the questionnaire was sin cerely appreciated.

The purpose of the research was to determine the relationships between organizational climate characteristics, personal characteristics, and the

Job-related attitudes of practicing school psychologists. Dr. A, W. Halpln has given the analogy that the organizational climate is to the organization what personality is to the individual. The organizational climate scales

( covering nine facets of climate ) which you fllled-out was one developed and used by Drs. G. H. Litwin and R. A. Stringer o f the Harvard Duainaas

School,

By the use of factor analysis, an attempt is being made to find clusters of climate and individual characteristics which are related to the job attitudes and self-perceived behaviors of school psychologists in the applied work setting. While this research la exploratory, It is hoped that some suggestions can be made concerning the types of work climates that affect the job attitudes of practicing school psychologists. And, for the future, such information might be useful In the placement of new school psychologists.

C ord ially,

Gloria Klnnalrd APPENDIX B TABLE 15 ITEM SCORING PROCEDURES

Part A: Climate Items (All Items On 1-7 Point Scale 7=Highly Agree)

S cored Questionnaire Item Responses Scored Questionnaire Item Responses Item Page Position Item Page P o s itio n

1 1 1 26 2 14 2 2 27 2 15 3 1 3 28 2 16 4 1 4 29 2 17 5 1 5 30 2 18 6 1 6 31 2 19 7 1 7 32 2 20 8 1 8 33 2 21 9 1 • 9 34 2 22 10 10 35 3 1 11 1 11 36 3 2 12 1 12 37 3 3 13 2 1 38 3 4 14 2 2 39 3 5 15 2 3 40 3 6 16 2 4 41 3 7 17 2 5 42 3 8 18 2 6 43 3 9 19 2 7 bb 3 10 20 2 8 45 3 11 21 2 9 46 3 ' 12 H 22 2 10 b7 3 13 -\3 23 2 11 48 3 14 24 2 12 49 3 15 25 2 13 50 3 16 TABLE 15 - Continued

PART B - BIOGRAPHIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC ITEMS

Scored Scoring System Questionnaire Item Responses Item Page Position

1= Sex 2= Female, l=Male 9 1 z - Age 2 0 -2 9 = 1» 30-39 = 2,-----,o v e r 70=6 9 2 3= Years Worked as School 1-3 = 1, 4-6 = 2, -----, over 21 = 8 9 3 Psychologist

Years Prior Educational 0=1, 1-3 = 2, — , over 15 = 5 9 4 E x p erien ce

5- Had a 9 month Internship 1 = No, 2 = Presently, 3 = Yes 9 5 6= Primary Employer 1 = Public Schools, 0 = Other 9 6 7= Highest Degree Earned 1 = BA, — , 5 - D o cto rate 10 7 8= Most Recent Course in 1 = before 1950, 2 = 1951-60, 10 8 C o lleg e -----, 3 = 1970-1972

9= Non-credit Upgrading in 1 = Yes, 0 = No 10 9 Workshop or Institute

L0- Behavioristic Orientation 1 = Yes (1,4,5»7) 10 10 0 = No (2,3,6,8) TABLE 15 - PART B - Continued

S cored Scoring System Questionnaire Item Responses Item Page Position

11= Theoretical Complexity 0 = uncertain (8) 10 10 1 = one type (1,2,3) 2 = two types (4,5,6) 3 = three types (7) O H 12= Membership in National n n any (3) responses 10 11 Organization only (1) or (2) response

13= Number of Professional (1) + (2 ) + (3 ) -m 2 10 11 Organizations

14= Presently Supervising 1 = Yes, 0 = No 10 12 I n te r n s N H 15= Years of Intern IIII None, 2 = 1-3, — , 10 13 Supervision o v er 15

16= Number of Interns Over 0 = None, 1 = 1-5* 2 = 6-10, 11 14 th e Y ears rvlH 17= Who is Your Immediate 11II Intern Supervisor 11 15 Supervisor (Reporting Director of Psychological L ev el) Services (Counseling) 3 = Head of Curriculum (Academic) 4 = Supt# or Assistant Supt. M vo TABLE 15 - PART B - Continued

S cored Scoring System Questionnaire Item Responses Item s Page Position

18= Assigned to Specific 1 = Yes, 0 = No 11 16 S chools

19= Are Majority of Your 1 = Yes, 0 = No 11 17 Schools Changed Each Year

20= Are Regular Staff Meetings 1 = Yes, 0 = No 11 18 H eld

21= ITumber o f E le . o r p re ­ 1 = None, 2 = 1, 3 = 2-4, 11 19 schools Serviced — , 8 = More than 20 22= Number of Junior High or (See Scale for 21) 11 20 Middle Schools Serviced

23= Number of High Schools (See Scale for 21) 11 21 S e rv ic e d

24 = Psychologist/Student Ratio 1 = less than 1000 12 22 2 = 1000 to 1999 — , 9 = 8000 or more

25= Number of Days for 0 = No Policy (9) 12 Attending Professional 1 = 1, 2 = 2 M eetings H O TABLE 15 - PART B - Continued

Scored Scoring System Questionnaire Item Responses Item Page Position

26= Does School Provide 1 = Yes, 0 = No 12 2^ Mental Health Specialist or Consulting Services

27= Type of School System 1 = City (1), 0 = Other 12 25 S erv ic e d ( 2 ,3 .^ ,5 ) 28= Size of School System 1 = under 1000, 2 = 1,000- 12 26 2 , 9 9 9,— , 9 = over 100,000

29= Number of Full-tim e 1 = 1 or less, 2 = 1.1 - 2 13 27 School Psychologists — , 9 = over 30

50= Nature of Student 1 = Urban (3,h,6,7,8,9) 13 28 P o p u la tio n 0 = Other (1,2,5)

31= Variety of Student Types 1 = One Type (1,2,3) 13 28 2 = Two Types (4»5»6,7) 3 = Three Types (8,9)

32= Do you Work With Inner- 1 = Yes U ,7,8) 13 28 City Pupils 0 = No ( 1 ,2 ,3 ,3 ,6 ,9 )

33= Socio-Economic Level of 1 = Lower, — 13 29 Community and Student 5 = Upper P o p u la tio n TABLE 15 - Continued

PART C - JOB PERCEPTIONS

Scored Questionnaire Item Responses Item Page Position

1 R a tin g : Overall Joh Satisfaction(l-7 Likert 5 1 S cale)

2 R a tin g : E ffort Expended When Working 3 2 3 R a tin g : Joh Performance 5 3 k R a tin g : A School Psychologist 5 h 3 Rating: Quality With Children 5 3 6 R atin g : Quality With Teachers 5 6 7 R a tin g : Quality With Parents 5 7 8 R atin g : Quality With Schools 5 8 9 R atin g : Quality With Community 5 9 10 R a tin g : Quality With Profession 6 10 11 Work With Students (2 - Over 25^, 1 » Over 10%, 6 1 1 0 s Less than 10?5) TABLE 15- PAST C - Continued

S cored Questionnaire Item Responses Item Page Position

12 Work With Teachers (scored same as 11) 6 12

13 Work With Parents (Same as 11) 6 13 1/f Work With Administrators (Same as 11) 14 15 Y/ork vrith Community Agencies tt ii 6 15 16 7/ork with Doctors and ti ii 16 Psychiatrists

17 Work v/ith Paraprofessionals ii it 6 17 18 Work with Counselors it ii 6 18

19 Work with Speech Therapists ii ii 6 19 20 Appreciation From Teachers 1 -7 Likert Scale 6 20 21 Appreciation From Parents 1 -7 Likert Scale 6 21 22 Appreciation From 1 -7 Likert Scale 6 22 Administrators

23 Appreciation From 1 -7 Likert Scale 23 Community Agencies 5 TABLE 15 - PAST C - Continued

Scored Questionnaire Item Besponses Item Page Position

2Zf Appreciation From 1 - 7 Likert Scale 6 24 Doctors

25 Appreciation From 7 Likert Scale 6 25 Counselors 26 Appreciation From - 7 Likert Scale 6 26 Speech Therapists 27 Appreciation From Nurses - 7 Likert Scale 6 27 28 Appreciation From - 7 Likert Scale 6 28 Students 29 Time with Children - 7 Likert Scale 6 29 30 Time with Teacher - 7 Likert Scale 6 30 31 Time with Parents - 7 Likert Scale 6 31 32 Time with Schools - 7 Likert Scale 6 32 33 Time with Community 1 7 Likert Scale 6 33 34 Time with Profession 1 7 Likert Scale 6 34

-P- -P- TABLE 15 - PART C - Continued

Scored Questionnaire Item Responses Item Page P o s itio n

55 Items 35-50 on a 5 point 1 -5 Point Likert Scale 7 1 Likert Scale 1 ss Extremely D issatified 5 ~ Extremely Satisfied (Items 35 through 56 use this scale) TABLE 15 - PART C - Continued

S cored Questionnaire Item Responses Item Page P o s itio n b7 7 13 b& 7 l b b9 7 15 50 7 16

51 How Much i s T here (1 = minimum, 7 = Maximum) 8 l , a Items 51-56 Use M s Scale

52 8 2 , a

53 8 3 , a 5b 8 bs a 55 8 5 , a

56 8 6*a

57 Dissatisfaction (b-a) sum for 51*52,53*5^ 8 la b to 4ab

58 Dissatisfaction with Pay (b-a for 55) 8 5ab

59 Dissatisfaction Helping (b-a for 56) 8 6ab h -p o 60 Number of Absences 13 30 TABLE 15 - PAST C - Continued

Scored Questionnaire Item Responses Item Page Position

61 1 -7 Point Likert Scale 5 17 (Items 61-70 use this Scale)

62 5 18

65 5 19 6if 5 20

65 5 21 66 b 1 6? k 2 68 b- 3

69 b b 70 b 5 APPENDIX C TABLE 16 - SUBTEST SCORING PROCEDURES

PART A - CLIMATE VARIABLES (UNDERLINE a ITEM REVERSED IN SCORING)

Variables Scored Item Numbers

1 S tru c tu r e = 1 + 10 + 19 + 28 + 37 + ^8 + ^50

2 Responsibility s 2 + 11 + 20 + 29 + 38 + i £ + it1 3 Reward a 3 + 12 + 21 + ■3Q, + 32. + k k 4 Risk S it + 13 + 22 + 31 + ifO 5 Warmth s 5 + 14 + 3 k + 41 6 Support s 6 + 15 + ait + 33 42

s + + 7 S tan d ard s 7 + 16 + 25 + 2 b 4 2 itZ 8 Conflict a 8 + 17 + 26 + 2 ?

9 I d e n ti t y = 9 + 18 + 22 + 3 k

H 4=- vO TABLE 16 - Continued

PART B - BIOGRAPHICAL AND DEMOGRAPHICAL VARIABLES

V a ria b le s Scored Item Numbers

10 Sex 1

U Age 2

12 Experience 3 + 4 13 Training, Amount 5 + 7 14 Training, Recency 8 + 9 15 Professional Affiliations 12 + 13

16 Behavioristic Orientation 10 1? Theoretical Orientation Complexity 11 18 Professional School Policies 18 + 19 + 20 + 25

19 Internship Supervision Role 14 + 15 + 16 20 Administrative Reporting Level 17 21 Load - Schools 2 1 + 2 2 + 2 3 150 Vi 22 Psychologist/Student Ratio 24 TABLE 16 - PART B - Continued

V a ria b le s Scored Item Numbers

23 Consulting Services Available 26

24 . Size of School System 28

25 Number of School Psychologists in 29 School System

26 Geographic Mix of Students 31 (Rural, Suburban, TJrban, Inner City)

27 Urban Setting of School System 27 + 30 28 Inner City Setting 32

29 Socio-Economic Level 33 151 TABLE 16 - Continued

PAST C - JOB PERCEPTIONS

V a ria b le s Scored Item Numbers

30 Effort Expended 2

31 Performance Evaluation 3 + I + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 ■* • 9 + 1 0

32 Appreciation Received 20 + 21 + 22 + 23 * 24 + 23 + 26 33 V/ork with Students 11 + 29 34 Y/ork with Teachers 12 + 30

35 V/ork with Parents 13 + 31 36 Work with Staff 14 + 18 + 19

37 Work with Community 15 * 16 + 17 + 33 38 Work with Organizations 32 + 34

39 Interpersonal Relationships 39 + 41 + 42 + 43 + 44 + 46+49 40 Task-Involved Self Realization 35 + 37 + 38 + 47 + 30

41 Recognizable Signs of Advancement 36 + 40 + 45 + 48 42 Chances to Help Others 56 TABLE 16 - PART C - Continued

Variables Scored Item Numbers b3 Dissatisfaction with Higher Order Needs 37 bb Dissatisfaction with Pay 58 b3 Dissatisfaction with Helping Others 59 bS Absences Reported 60 b7 Job Involvement 61 + 63 + 66 + 69 bS Intrinsic Motivation 62 + 65 + 67 + 70 APPENDIX D 155 TABLE 17 RESPONSE FREQUENCIES OF THE SCORED ITEMS

PART A - CLIMATE ITEMS (ALL ITEMS ON 1 - 7 LIKERT SCALE)

Item No. 1 2 5 if 5 6 7

1 11 23 lif lif 28 57 18 2 56 46 17 13 15 11 7 3 kk 33 17 49 8 9 5 if Ik 26 12 29 31 31 22 5 7 5 11 11 26 56 49 6 29 52 24 21 17 15 7 7 9 11 15 20 32 50 28 8 20 25 26 23 30 23 18 9 if 6 11 36 37 if7 2if 10 37 28 10 7 30 38 15 11 26 36 22 30 2if 21 6 12 15 13 18 26 20 36 37 13 21 15 12 60 28 21 8 lif 12 19 22 12 33 39 28 15 ifif 32 22 33 18 8 8 16 17 13 18 56 33 20 8 17 29 26 27 61 11 8 3 18 10 11 lif 18 38 46 28 19 13 17 30 13 36 38 18 20 8 6 8 16 28 53 46 21 36 26 19 51 16 12 5 22 16 30 26 ifO 2if 19 10 23 ifO 51 19 15 25 9 6 2if 30 46 lif 29 15 21 10 25 15 18 28 32 37 26 9 26 13 21 26 21 37 27 20 156 TABLE 17 - PART A - Continued

Item Wo* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

27 30 38 29 34 17 13 4 28 21 28 34 25 27 21 9 29 17 19 27 48 29 15 10 30 ,24 36 33 24 25 14 9 31 ’ 4 15 12 22 42 42 28 32 34 40 33 25 14 9 10 33 12 23 26 40 24 24 16 34 11 32 19 63 12 19 9 35 5 13 33 39 32 26 17 36 7 19 31 22 42 37 7 37 25 34 34 21 28 16 7 38 21 32 34 31 29 15 3 39 21 20 18 20 36 34 16 40 6 16 17 41 36 28 21 41 17 18 24 34 35 19 18 42 5 9 2 10 28 45 66 43 9 10 16 49 37 29 15 44 9 23 15 27 42 30 17 45 30 33 29 43 13 10 7 46 44 39 18 40 13 9 2 47 52 46 29 16 14 4 4 48 47 32 17 25 18 18 8 49 36 50 24 22 21 8 4 50 9 27 18 35 32 24 20 157

TABLE 17 - Continued

PART B - BIOGRAPHIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC ITEMS

Item No. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

.1 72 93 2 47 58 37 21 1 1 3 74 44 31 4 5 6 1 4 37 65 41 15 7 5 16 33 116 6 160 5 7 3 127 7 11 17 8 8 32 125 9 19 146 10 36 129 11 20 29 78 38 12 50 115 13 14 100 3 1 . 14 14 143 22 15 2 120 27 10 4 2 16 122 25 5 4 2 4 3 17 31 96 10 28 18 48 117 19 146 19 20 34 151 21 12 6 40 75 20 6 2 4 22 39 42 71 7 2 4 23 61 50 43 5 2 1 3 24 4 7 19 34 57 33 2 1 8 25 58 7 40 6 3 1 3 47 26 93 72 • 27 66 99

i

9 158 TABLE 1? - PART B - Continued

Item No* 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 ' 7 8 9

28 13 29 21 11 35 9 47 29 19 9 21 4 14 3 44 39 12 30 6/f 101 31 4-2 79 44 32 105 60 33 30 81 47 7

PART C - JOB PERCEPTIONS

l f 1 7 8 26 33 61 29 2 0 12 27 92 34 3 1 10 46 95 13 4 2 17 54 73 19 5 2 7 27 84 45 6 5 26 58 59 17 7 5 30 38 66 26 8 10 6 30 63 21 25 10 9 13 15 39 50 29 14 5 10 6 6 26 62 18 34 13 11s 3 23 139 12 9 81 75 13 32 106 27 14 30 110 25 15 127 35 3 16 138 26 1 17 147 16 2

Unless noted, all items on a 7 point Likert Scale. Sltems 11-19 See Table 15* 159

TABLE 17 - PART C - Continued

Item No. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

18 81 75 9 19 143 22 20 2 2 5 29 44 59 24 21 1 1 1 22 38 63 39 22 2 1 9 30 56 48 19 23 13 10 22 61 31 19 9 24 17 18 19 71 21 16 3 25 9 5 6 39 42 49 15 26 15 11 8 58 30 37 6 27 20 8 9 66 39 17 6 28 6 3 9 46 34 47 20 29 1 4 4 10 12 35 108 30 3 2 8 29 31 78 14 31 1 8 23 50 56 24 3 32 7 6 20 42 27 32 31 33 33 49 45 29 4 5 34 19 50 27 21 15 6 35h 1 6 11 70 77 36 8 22 32 62 41 37 2 14 10 76 63 i 38 16 11 78 60 39 1 9 23 62 70 40 19 30 76 30 10 41 15 43 61 31 15 42 2 10 37 50 66 43 7 18 28 61 51 44 4 11 71 79 45 14 13 74 64 Items 35-50 on a 3 point Likert Scale.

# 160 TABLE 17 - PART C - Continued

Ite m No. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 if6 3 21 20 73 48 47 7 32 38 50 38 48 29 35 47 40 14 49 , 17 46 24 67 11 50 8 8 73 76 51 2 8 13 17 40 61 24 52 2 9 13 22 47 45 27 53 7 10 17 38 38 35 20 54 7 12 19 37 38 34 18 55 16 11 18 48 33 27 12 56 1 1 9 19 35 51 49 57i 37 35 31 25 15 10 8 1 58^ 44 35 34 24 11 8 9 59k 80 39 31 8 6 1 601 105 45 11 3 1

■^See T a b le 15* ^See Table 15* kSee Table 15. ^ee Table 15. APPENDIX E 162 ROTATION OF ROTHMAN*S FACTORS 1 AND 2

2n Ite m 1 2 l m

1 Sex -1 6 03 -0 9 -1 2 2 Marital Status 08 .11 13 -0 2 3 Degree Status -1 7 13 -0 3 -2 1 4 Teacher Certification 04 -5 0 -3 3 38 5 D i s t r i c t 10 22 22 08 6 Pupil Ratio -Oif 60 39 -4 5 7 School Population -1 3 -1 9 -2 2 04 8 Age 50 51 72 -0 1 9 Years on this job 43 49 65 -0 5 10 Years as School Psychologist 48 28 53 14 11 Years, Professional Employment 66 50 82 12 12 Graduate hours, psychology -4 8 02 -3 3 -3 5 13 Graduate hours, guidance -2 2 04 -1 3 -1 8 14 Graduate hours, education -1 7 -0 6 -1 6 -0 8 13 Undergrad* hours, psychology -02 -4 0 -3 4 31 16 Undergrad, hours, education 15 17 23 -0 1 17 Undergrad* hours, guidance -22 16 -0 4 -2 7 18 School Psychologists on staff -3 9 24 -1 1 -4 5 19 Child, frequency -3 1 -2 1 -3 7 -0 7 20 Child, quality -0 9 01 -0 6 05 21 Teacher, frequency -3 5 08 -1 9 -3 1 22 Teacher, goal -0 4 21 12 -1 8 23 Parent, frequency -1 6 07 -0 6 -1 6 24 Parent, goal -0 6 23 12 -2 1 25 School, frequency -0 3 -4 7 -3 6 31 26 School, goal -0 1 -2 4 -1 8 16 27 Community, frequency 25 —26 00 36 28 Community, goal 18 -0 7 08 18 29 Professional, frequency 14 08 15 0 4 30 Professional, goal 20 -0 7 08 19

Rotation Equations: ml(rotated) ® *7071 (1 original) + #7071 (2 original) n2(rotated) = #7071 (1 original) - *7071 (2 original) 163 ROTATION OF ROTHMAR* S FACTORS - Continued

Item 1 2 lm 2n

31 Classroom observation 03 00 02 02 32 Child counseling 00 -1 9 -1 3 -1 3 33 Large scale screening -0 2 -1 7 -1 3 11 34 Follow-up 09 09 12 0 0 35 Testing -1 1 02 -0 8 -0 9 36 Teacher-Principal-Parent -1 8 39 15 -4 0 conferences 37 Teacher conference 09 02 07 05 38 In-service,teachers 01 -1 7 -1 1 1 2 39 Teacher-Parent conferences -2 8 02 -1 9 -2 2 40 Teacher-Principal conferences -15 22 05 -2 6 41 Parent counseling 07 -2 6 -1 3 23 42 Parent education 35 -1 2 16 33 43 Home visits -1 9 33 10 -2 5 44 Confer with other specialists -2 3 39 11 - 4 4 45 Principal conference 06 00 04 04 46 Superintendent Conference 11 -1 5 17 -0 3 47 Counselor conference 59 -3 3 18 65 48 Nurse conference 08 21 20 -0 9 49 Interdisciplinary staffing -0 9 -1 9 -1 9 07 50 Group therapy -1 8 02 - 1 2 -1 3 51 Vocational education planning -1 1 -0 6 - 1 2 03 52 Curriculum planning 08 -0 2 04 07 53 Meetings: PTA, Brd. Educ. etc• 27 -1 0 12 26 54 Research 06 -1 1 -0 3 1 2 55 Staff intervention 05 -0 3 01 06 56 Teaching classes, speaking 50 -2 1 20 50 57 Seek state and federal aid 07 -2 7 -1 4 25 58 Tutor conferences -0 3 -3 7 -2 8 24 59 In-Service: varied personnel 60 -0 3 40 45 60 Contact with court 56 -1 2 31 48 164

ROTATION OF ROTHMAN'S FACTORS - Continued

Item 1 2 1 * 2 n

61 Contact: non-school agencies -0 7 -0 2 - 0 7 -0 4 62 Contact: physicians 63 -0 9 38 51 63 Writing for local media -0 6 00 -0 5 -0 5

64 Involvement,• legislation 68 -0 7 43 53 65 Involvement, public relations 04 21 18 -1 4 66 Crisis intervention -2 5 14 -0 8 -2 8 67 In-service, psychologists -1 3 35 16 -3 4 68 Meetings, psychologists -Ok -0 9 -0 9 03 69 V/ork w /interns, field experi­ 00 37 26 —26 ence 70 Professional growth 00 38 27 -2 7 71 Preparation of material -0 2 06 02 -0 6 72 Report writing -14 33 13 -3 3 73 Typing, proofing, filing -1 7 04 -0 9 -1 5 74 Phone calls -0 7 -1 2 - 1 4 03 75 D riv in g -0 9 11 02 -1 4 r e f e r e n c e s 166

Andrew, J. D. W. "The Achievement Motive and Advance­ ment in Two Types of Organizations," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 196?. 6 . 163-167. ' “ Barclay, J. R. "Descriptive, Theoretical, and Behavioral Characteristics of Subdoctoral School Psycho­ logists." American Psychologist, 1971, 26. (3). 257-280. Bardon, J. I."M ental Health Education: a Framework for Psychological Services in Schools." Journal of School Psychology, 1963* 1* 20-28. Bardon, J. I. (Ed.) Problems and Issues in School Psychology - 1964* Proceedings of a conference on "Hew Directions in School Psychology" spon­ sored by the National Institute of Mental Health

Journal of School Psychology, 1964-65* ^ (2), 1-44 ' * Berlew, D. E. and Hall, D. T.,Scme Determinants of Early Managerial Success. Working paper No. 81-64* Alfred P. Sloan School of Management. Cambridge, Mass.: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1964* Berlew, D. E. and Hall, D. T., "The Socialization of Managers: Effects of Expectations on Performance." Administrative Science Quarterly. 1966, 11, £ 6 7 -2 2 £

Campbell, J., Dunnette, M., Lawler, E ., and V/eick, K., Managerial Behavior, Performance, and Effective­ n e s s . New Y ork: h c G raw -M ill, 1 9 7 0. Cassell, R. M#"Clinical Diagnostic Case Study, Procedure for School Psychologists." National Association of Women's Deans and Counselors B ulletin'.'"19607 2 £ . 23- Clair, R. N.,Osterman, R. L., Kiraly, J. Jr., Klausraeier, R. D., and Graff, M. M.; "Practicum and Intern­ ship Experience in School Psychology." American Psychologist. 1971, 26, 566-574* ------Cutts, N. E. (Ed.),"School Psychologists at Mid-century." Washington, D. 0 .: American Psychological Association, 1955* 167 Engin, A. \V., and Lav/rence, F ., Project Directors of the Ohio School Psychologist Association (OSPA) Accountability Task Force, Project I, Fall, 1972. Farling, W. H., and Hoedt, K. C., National, regional, and state survey of school psychologists. Final report project No. 9-1^-150, Grant No. OEG-5-70- 0009 (010), Office of Education, Bureau of Research, February, 1971» i-84* Ferguson, D. G., Training Programs in School Psychology in Professional School Psychology. by Gottsegen & Gottsegen, hew York: Grune and Stratton, Inc. 1 9 6 3 » Vol. II. Fiedler, F. E. A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. New York! M c G ra w -¥ £ ll,1 9 6 7 . Findikyan, N. and Sells, S. B., The similarity of campus organizations assessed through a hierarchical groupings procedure. Technical Report No. 6, 1965* Nonr 5 4 3 6 (0 0 ), Office of Naval Research. Fleishman, E. A., "The Description of Supervisory Behavior." Journal of Applied Psychology. 1953. 3Z* 1-5! Fleishman, E. A. and Harris, E. F., "Patterns of Leader­ ship Behavior Related to Employee Grievances and Turnover." Personnel Psychology. 1 9 6H, 1£, 43-36. Forehand, G. and Gilmer, B., "Environmental Variation in Studies of Organizational Behavior." P sy chological Bulletin. 1964* 62* 361-382. Frederiksen, N., Some effects of organizational climates on adm inistrative performance. Educational Testing Service: Research Memorandum RM-66-21, 1966. Friedlander, F., and Margulies, N., "Multiple Impacts of Organizational Climate and Individual Value Systems Upon Job Satisfaction." Personnel Psychology. 1969* 22* 171-182. Friedlander, F ., "Underlying Sources of Job Satisfaction," Journal of Applied Psychology, 1963* ifcZ* 246-250. Frisch, P.,"A Program in School Psychology."Mental Hygiene. 1936, i*0, 258-266. 168 Fuchel, J* C. , "Observations in Educational Psychology," E d u c a tio n a l P s y c h o lo g is t. 1964* 1» 4-.- Gellerman, S. W., People. Problems, and Profits. New York: HcGrav/-Hill7 I960. Gilmer, B., Industrial Psychology (2nd ed.), New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966. Gottlieb, B. H. and Reger, S., ’'Social Intervention in the Community: Three Professional Roles," Professional Psychology* 1972. 3 , 231-2AO. Guildford., J. P., Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Education* (3rd. Ed.). Hew York: McGraw-Hill. ------Halpin, A. V/., Theory and Research in Administration. New York: Macmillan, 1966. Halpin, A. W. and Crofts, D. B., The Organizational Climate of Schools. Chicago: University of Chicago, Midwest Administration Center, 1963* Hemphill, J. K. and Westie, C. N., "The Measurement of Group Dimensions," Journal of Psychology. 1950, 22, 325-34-2 . House, R. J. and Rizzo, J. R., "Toward the Measurement o f Organizational Practices: Scale Development and Validation." Journal of Applied Psychology. 1972, £6, 388-396. Itkin, W., "The School Psychologist and His Training," Psychology in the Schools. 1966, 348-354-* Johnson, W. F., Steffire, B. and Edelfelt, R. A., Pupil Personnel and Guidance Services.. New York: McGraw-Hill Co. ,1965, "139. Katz, D., Maccoby, N., Gurin, G., and Floor, L. G., "Productivity, Supervision, and Morale Among Railroad Workers." Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research, 1951 Katz, D. Maccoby, N., and Morse, N. C., "Productivity, Supervision, and Morale in an Office Situation." Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research, 1950. 169 Kuder, G. F ., and Richardson, M. W., "The Theory of the Estimation of Test R eliability, Psychometrika. 1937» 2, 151-160. Lantz, B.i The school psychologist in the Inner City, in Gottsegan and Gottsegan, Professional School Psychology. New York: Grune '& Stratton, Inc. 1 9 6 6, W). Lawler, E. E., Hall, D. T ., "Relationship of Job Charac­ teristics to Job Involvement, Satisfaction, and Intrinsic Motivation." Journal of Applied Psychology, 1970, ^05-*tl2. Liaison Committee, Report to the executive board of the California Association of School Psychologists and Psychometrists, January, 1962 (mimeographed). Lighthall, F. P., "A Social Psychologist for School Systems," Psychology in the Schools, 1969, 6,

Litwin, G. H., and Stringer, R. A., Motivation and Organizational Climate. Boston: Division of Research, Harvard Business School, 1968. Magary, J. F. (Ed.) School Psychological Services in Theory and Practice. Englewood C liffs, id. J.r Prentice-H all. 1967*. Margulies, N., "A Study of Organizational Culture and the Self-Actualizing Process." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, 1965* M clntire, H. C., The School Psychologist in Ohio, Columbus, Ohio, Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, 1959* Meyer, H. H., "Differences in Organizational Climate in Outstanding and Average Sales Office: A Summary Report." Behavioral Research Service and Public Relations Personnel Service, General Electric Company, 1967* Meyer, H. H., Achievement Motivation and Industrial Climates. In. R. Taguiri and G. Litwin (Eds.), Organizational Climate: Explorations of a Concept. Boston; harvard University Press. 1968,150-166. 170 Meyer, H. H., "The effects of organizational climate on performance. Personnel Research Planning and Practices, Corporate Employee Relations, General E lectric Company, 1969* Mink, 0# G., "The Role of the School Psychologist, Cornell Miscellaneous B ulletin. 1963* i&» l“*f. Montgomery, M., "School Psychologists in Princeton, J. J ., New Jersey Association of School Psychologists, Nev/s and Views. 1963* 5» 8-9* Murray, D. and Schmuck, R., "The Counselor as a Consultant in Organization Development. Elementary School Guidance and Counseling Journal. 1972. 7. (2). Murray, D. and Schmuck, R., "The Counselor as a Consultant in Organization Development. The School Psychology Digest. , 1973» Winter, 16-19. Ohio School Psychologists Association, Self Report Questionnaire. 1963*6^ (mimeographed;. 0*Shea, H., The Future of School Psychology, in Gottsegen and Gottsegen, Professional School Psychology. New York, Grune and Stratton, Inc.,

Patros, P., Trends in the Models and Training Programs of School Psychologists: 1936-1970. Training and Accreditation Committee. National Associa­ tion of School Psychologists, 1970. Peres, S. H., Factors which influence careers at General Electric. General Electric Behavioral Research Service, 1965. Pritchard, R. D. and Karasick, B. W., The effects of organizational climate on managerial job performance and job satisfaction. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, in press. Richland Public Schools, Department of Guidance, Intro­ ducing the school psychologist, Guidance Talks, No. 3f 1963* 1 (mimeograph). Rothman, J. K. P., A Study of the Bole of Ohio School Psychologists.' unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 1972. Schein. E. H.. Organizational Psychology. 2nd ed.. Englewood C liffs, 1970...... 171 Schneider* B. and B artlett, C. J ., "Individual Differences and Organizational Climate I: The Research Plan and Questionnaire Development*" Personnel Psychology, 1968, 21, 323-33**. Schneider, B. and B artlett, C. J ., "Individual Difference and Organizational Climate II: Measurement of Organizational Climate by the M ulti-trait, Multi­ rater Matrix*" Personnel Psychology. 1970. 23. 1*93-512. Schneider, B*, and Hall, D* T., "Toward Specifying the Concept of Work Climate: A Study of Roman Catholic Diocesan priests." Journal of Applied Psychology. 1972, £6, Mt7-*f55. Seattle Public Schools, Standards for Preparation of Specialized Personnel, State Board of Education, April, I960, 1. Silverman, H. L*, "School Psychologist: A Divergent Role Conceptualization." Psychology in the Schools. 1969. 6, 266-271. Stogdill, R. M* and Coons, A. E., Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement. Ohio State Univer­ sity, Bureau of Business Research, Business Research Monograph No. 88, 1957* Taguiri, R., The Concept of Organizational Climate. In R. Taguiri and G. Litwin (Eds.) Organizational Climate: Explorations of a Concept. Boston: Marvard University Press, 196b, 9-32* Thornton, G. C., The Dimensions of Organizational Climate of Office Situations., Washington, D. C.: American Psychological Association, Experimental Publications, Systems, 1969* Tomlinson, J. R., "Schools and Hospitals: A Reply to Bersoff." Professional Psychology. 1972, Winter, 2 5 -2 9 . Trachtman, G. M., "New Directions for School Psychology, Exceptional Children. 1961, 28»• 159-163* University of Miami, Doctoral Programs in School Psycho­ logy, 1962, 1 (mimeographed). Waters, L* K., Roach, D., and Batlis, N., Organizational Climate Dimensions and Job-related Attitudes. Unpublished Manuscript, Ohio University, 1972. 172 W herry, R. J ., Appendix V. Test Selection in Stead, Shartle, et. a l., Occupational Counseling Techniques» New York: American Book Co#, 19*f0. W herry, R. J ., "Hierarchical Factor Solutions Without Rotation.", Psychometrika, 1959* 2/f, **5-51* W herry, R. J ., and Wherry. R. J ., J r ., WHEWH Program. In R. J. V/herry (Ed.), Psychology Department Computer Programs. , Columbus, Ohio Department of Psychology, tfhe Ohio State University, 1963.