- Email: [email protected]
A comparison of the personal values and operative goals of school psychologists and school superintendents
Journal of School Psychology 1978 • Vol. 16, No. 2
0022-4405/78/1400--4)099500.95 (~)t978 The Journal of School Psychology, Inc.
A COMPARISON OF THE PERSONAL VALUES AND OPERATIVE GOALS OF SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGISTS AND SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENTS T. ROGER MANLEY
ELEYSE T. MANLEY
Air Force Institute of Technology Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio
The Miami Valley Center for Handicapped Children Dayton, Ohio
Summary: A survey of 96 school psychologists and 75 school superintendents throughout the state of Ohio showed the two groups to have generally similar personal value systems and to be in overall agreement in their respective rankings of school psychology goals. Both groups held the traditional school psychologist's goal of conducting individual testing to be of lower relevance than acting as an internal consultant or resource person. Of those differences identified, superintendents assigned greater relevance to values which were consistent with their administrative concerns, while psychologists held values preferring individualism as more relevant. Superintendents held goals associated with increased learning efficiency and interacting with community agencies as more relevant, while psychologists assigned higher relevance to goals associated with parentpsychologist interactions. Over the years research in the area of values has generally made use of the values instrument developed by Allport, Vernon, and Lindzey (1970). More recently the instruments and methodologies developed by Rokeach (1968) and England (1967) have gained increasing acceptance by organizational psychologists in their research into the behavior of professionals within formal organizations (Manley & Pittenger, Note 1). In this research we have developed an instrument based upon England's methodology which has enabled us to examine the rank orderings of school psychologists and superintendents of a carefully selected list of 56 value concepts. These concepts were categorized into three of the classifications used by England: ideas associated with people, personal goals of individuals, and groups of people. In addition to the 56 value concepts, 21 school psychology goals were included in the instrument. The selected goals were identified and defined by the Ohio InterUniversity Council on School Psychology and published in that group's Bulletin (1969). For purposes of this research it was assumed that these school psychologist goals, considered sufficiently important by the council to be defined and published, successfully captured the essence of the school psychologist's role in Ohio's educational system. The goals were categorized into four c~asses: community-oriented goals, internal consultation goals, functional goals, and professional development goals. Our interest in school psychology goals was motivated in part by the conceptualization that organizationat effectiveness is determined by the degree to which an organization succeeds in achieving its goals (Price, 1968). Accepting this construct, we reasoned that the identification, definition, and effective communication of school psy99
100
Journal of School Psychology
chology goals were important factors bearing on the effectiveness of the school psychology function within Ohio's educational system. We also considered it relevant to examine the degree of agreement between psychologists and superintendents with regard to school psychology goals. We further reasoned that the personal values data would provide insights into the nature of the differences which were identified. The purposes of this research, therefore, can be viewed as two questions: 1. How do the values of school psychologists differ from those of school superintendents? Which value concepts are most/least relevant for psychologists, and which are most/least relevant for superintendents? 2. How do school psychologists and school superintendents differ in their rankings of school psychology goals? Which goals are most/least relevant for psychologists, and which are most/least relevant for superintendents? METHOD
Subjects. The subjects in this research were 96 school psychologists and 75 school superintendents randomly selected from the state of Ohio. Questionnaires were sent to 200 randomly selected psychologists and 200 questionnaires were sent to the superintendents of their school districts. The returns represented an overall response rate of 43%. Based upon the experience of others and considering the length of the survey instrument, this is considered an acceptable response rate. The data were gathered during the April-June 1976 time period. Characteristics of the sample indicate that it is representative of the overall population. Of the respondents, 51% worked in urban school districts and 49% worked in rural school districts. Of the psychologists, 62% received their last college degree since 1970, while only 13% of the superintendents received their last degree in the same time period. Of the psychologists, 10% had doctoral degrees, while 26% of the superintendents had doctorates. All others possessed Master's degrees. Of the school psychologists, 55% were female, while only 8% of the superintendents were female. The median age of school psychologists was 31-35 years, while the median age of superintendents was 46-50 years. Each respondent completed the Hoppock (1935) general job satisfaction measure, and psychologists reported a mean job satisfaction score of 20.62 (highest possible score was 28) while superintendents reported a mean score of 22.82. Measurement Instrument. The 56 value concepts contained in the instrument were selected through a process which consisted of: (a) identification of a list of over 250 possible value concepts through a search of the literature, (b) screening of potential value concepts by a panel of experts, (c) administration of an instrument containing candidate value concepts with 7-point importance scales, and (d) a pretest administration of an instrument that was close to the final version. Respondents were instructed to rate value concepts and goals in two ways. First the respondent was asked to indicate whether the concept or goal was of high, average, or low importance to him or her as an individual. Second the respondent was presented with three descriptors (pleasant, successful, and right) and requested to indicate which of the three best described the meaning of the value concept or goal to him or her. The respondent was specifically requested to base responses on personal valuations, and not to consider how others might respond. The manner in which the concepts (and goals) were presented to respondents can be seen in Figure I. For purposes of illustration the value concept objectivity has been chosen.
Manley and Manley
101
Objectivity High Imp.
['-X'[[---]['-']
Low Imp.
3 pleasant 2 successful 1 right Figure 1. Questionnaire format. In this example a hypothetical respondent has ranked objectivity as being of high importance. Additionally, the respondent has indicated that right best describes the meaning of the concept by placing a I next to it. Similar responses to all value concepts contained in the questionnaire permit the researcher to place each individual's responses into a 3 x 3 valuation matrix. This matrix is presented in Figure 2. Before the measure of behavioral relevance used in this research can be determined, the primary value orientation of an individual must be established. The primary orientation of an individual is determined by first noting the number of concepts assigned to the three high importance cells (1, 4, and 7). Once the high importance cell with the largest number of concepts assigned to it has been identified, that number is compared with its complement--the sum of the total of concepts contained in the average and low importance cells in the same row. If the number of high importance concepts is greater than or equal to its complement, the individual is described as having a defined primary value orientation. If the complement is greater, the individual is described as having a mixed orientation. In the example given in Figure I, the concept objectivity would be assigned to cell 7. To describe how this would be calculated, let us assume that a hypothetical respondent has assigned five value concepts to the high importance-pleasant cell (cell 1), l0 value concepts to the high importance-successful cell (cell 4), and 20 value concepts to the high importance-right cell (cell 7). Observing that the largest number of high importance ratings occurs in the high importance-right cell, we would then check to see how many value concepts were in the average importance-right and the low importance-right cells (cells 8 and 9). If the number of value concepts in these two cells totaled 20 or less, the individual would be described as having a normative primary orientation. If the number of value concepts in the average and low importance cells exceeded 20, the individual would be described as having a mixed orientation. This is the same as saying the individual has no defined primary value orientation.
High Importance (1)
Average Importance
Low Importance (2~
(3)
(4/
(51
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
Pleasant Successful
Right Figure 2. Valuation matrix.
102
Journal of School Psychology
Had the respondent assigned the greatest number of value concepts to the high importance-successful cell (cell 4), the same test would be performed. If the number in cell 4 exceeded or was equal to the total of value concepts in cells 5 and 6, the respondent would be described as having a pragmatic primary orientation. If the individual had assigned the greatest number of value concepts to the high importancepleasant cell (cell 1), and that number exceeded or equalled the total assigned to cells 2 and 3, the respondent would be described as having an affect primary orientation. When we identify an individual as having an affect primary orientation, we imply that a pleasant-unpleasant test will be the primary test used by that person in evaluating alternative courses of action. The individual with a normative orientation similarly tends to use a right-wrong test, and those with pragmatic orientations tend to use a successful-unsuccessful test. The terms "affect," "normative" and "pragmatic" were developed by England, and have proven to be highly descriptive of respondents placed in each respective category. The identification of an individual's primary value orientation is crucial, for the primary measure of behavioral relevance used in this research is the joint rating of high importance and a 1 assigned to the descriptor consistent with the established primary orientation of the individual. A value concept or goal rated in this manner is referred to as being operative for this individual. What is assumed in this approach is that an individual's behavior (insofar as it is influenced by personal values) is best explained by using both those things the individual considers important and his or her primary orientation (England & Keaveny, t969; England, Olsen, & Agarwal, Note 2). This can be presented symbolically:
By --* f(I f'l PO)c. This expression would read: the behavior of an individual, insofar as behavior is a function of values, is best indicated by the joint function of those concepts the individual considers important and which are consistent with his or her primary orientation. Analysis Procedure. Values and goals were hierarchically ordered according to the percent of respondents holding each value concept and goal operative. The hierarchical rankings of school psychologists and superintendents were compared using the Spearman rank correlation test. Additionally, chi-square contingency tests were formed to test for independence between the behavioral relevance ratings assigned each value concept and goal, and the various classifications of demographic variables. RESULTS
Value Rankings. The hierarchical rankings of value concepts by school psychologists, school superintendents, and by the overall sample are presented in Table 1. As the reader can probably detect from casual inspection, the rankings of psychologists and superintendents were found to be highly correlated. The Spearman rho of.7522 indicated a correlation far greater than the .0001 level of significance. Although the overall rankings of the 56 value concepts were highly correlated, noticeable differences were found to exist in the respective rankings of some value concepts by school psychologists and superintendents. Focusing on those value concepts for which a difference of 14 places (quartile range) or more existed, the reader will note that psychologists ranked concern, empathy, flexibility, rationality, and autonomy higher than did superintendents, while superintendents gave higher rankings
M a n l e y and M a n l e y
103
Table 1 Hierarchical Rankings of Personal Value Concepts Psych.
Supt.
Overall
Value Concepts a
2 4 3 5 8 11 1 6 7 17 10 9 13 18 22 12 16 15 21 29 30 23 14 20 24 19 37 25 41 26 27 32 28 36 33 38 31 35 47 39 42 43 40 45 34 46 48 44 54 52 50 49 51
2 1 7 3 4 6 25 11 13 5 18 21 16 12 10 26 17 24 20 14 15 27 35 31 29 37 9 33 8 34 36 30 41 19 32 22 40 28 23 38 39 42 45 44 53 46 48 54 43 47 50 51 52
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53
Competence Integrity Students Trust Dedication Fairness * Concern Job Proficiency Objectivity Self- Discipline Responsibility Young People Job Knowledge Emotional Stability Professionalism * Empathy Parents Me Resourcefulness Initiative *Faculty Cooperation *Flexibility Equality Maturity *Rationality * Ambition Ability * Loyalty Respect Job Satisfaction Achievement Career Satisfaction *Principals Success *Administrative Staff Dignity Work *School Board Decisiveness Creativity Security Compromise Change * Autonomy Influence Risk Taking Leisure Obedience Caution Income Prestige Money
(contmued)
Journal of School Psychology
104
Table 1 (continued) Psych.
Supt.
Overall
53 56 55
55 49 56
54 55 56
Value Conceptsl Power Authority Conflict
a'indicates a one quartile (14 rank places) or greater difference in the respective rankings of school psychologists and school superintendents.
to faculty, ambition, loyalty, principals, administrative staff, and school board than did psychologists. It is also interesting to focus on the values placed in the first and fourth quartiles by the two respective groups. Eight value concepts (competence, integrity, students, trust, dedication, fairness, job proficiency, and objectivity) were placed in the upper quartile by both groups. Placed in the upper quartile by psychologists only were concern, responsibility, young people, job knowledge, empathy, and flexibility. Included in the upper quartile by superintendents only were self-discipline, emotional
stability, professionalism, initiative, ambition, and loyalty. Considerably greater agreement can be observed in the lower quartile rankings where psychologists and superintendents agreed upon 12 of the 14 value concepts. Placed in the bottom quartile by both groups were change, influence, risk taking,
leisure, obedience, caution, income, prestige, money, power, authority, and conflict. The differences found in lower quartile rankings were that psychologists also included school board and security, while superintendents placed autonomy and compromise in the bottom quarter. In the contingency table tests, the behavioral relevance ratings assigned to the value concepts were tested against the different classifications of nine variables: (a) urban/ rural school district; (b) school psychologist/school superintendent; (c) highest level of formal education; (d) date of last degree; (e) time since last attended universitysponsored seminar, workshop or course; (f) sex; (g) age; (h) Hoppock job satisfaction measure; and (i) primary value orientation. Space limitations prohibit complete recounting of the findings; however, our analysis showed that primary value orientation was the most potent discriminator, accounting for 42 separate rejections (p < .05) of the null hypothesis of independence between the behavioral relevance rating of the value concept and the classification of primary orientation held by the respondent. The variable school psychologist/superintendent accounted for 10 rejections of the null hypothesis. In the 10 rejections of the null hypothesis, psychologists assigned greater behavioral relevance ratings to the value concepts flexibility, income, leisure, autonomy, and me. School superintendents assigned greater relevance to the concepts ambition,
obedience, loyalty, administrative staff, and school board. In examining the distributions of primary orientations among school superintendents and psychologists, a contingency table test yielded the following results:
Psychologists Affect Pragmatic Normative
23% 27 50
Superintendents 3% 40 57
Manley and Manley
105
As the reader will note, a majority of the superintendents were normative, with 40% possessing pragmatic primary orientations, and only 3% possessing affect orientations. While the distribution of normative orientations among psychologists approached that of superintendents, the distributions of affect and pragmatic orientations differed significantly (p < .01). Goal Rankings. The hierarchical rankings of school psychology goals by school psychologists, school superintendents, and by the overall sample are presented in Table 2. As with the rankings of the value concepts, the rankings of school psychology goals by psychologists and superintendents were found to be highly correlated. The Spearman rho of .6558 indicated a correlation greater than the .0001 level of significance. Using the decision rule of focusing on differences in rankings of one quartile (5 rank places) or more, six goals stand out. Two of these goals were ranked higher by school superintendents than by psychologists. They were: To refer and follow up on cases referred to child guidance clinics, community classes, and other community agencies. To identify factors which influence learning efficiency and classroom behavior, i.e., pupil-teacher interaction. The four goals ranked higher by school psychologists than by superintendents were: To conduct parent counseling involving communication of psychological findings, behavior management and implementation of recommendations. To conduct parent interviewing and counseling and education. To attend university seminars and workshops for school psychologists. To activate assessment and placement teams which make decisions on the placement of exceptional children. In examining the upper and lower quartiles of the psychologists and superintendents presented in Table 2, it can be noted that three of the top five goals were placed in the upper quartile by both groups, and they differed in only one goal in their lower quartile placements. The two goals placed in the upper quartile by psychologists were the goals dealing with psychologist-parent interaction noted above, and the goals placed in the upper quartile by superintendents included the goal dealing with referral of cases to community agencies and the goal "To conduct conferences with individual teachers and building principals to interpret the results of diagnostic studies of individual students." In their placement of goals in the lower quartile, psychologists and superintendents differed on only one placement: psychologists included the goal, "To administer, score, and interpret individual tests, and to conduct interviews of students requiring such tests" in the bottom quartile; while superintendents placed the goal, "To attend university seminars and workshops for school psychologists" in that quartile. As with the value concepts, the contingency table tests tested for independence between the behavioral relevance ratings assigned the school psychology goals and the different classifications of the nine variables used in the analysis. The analysis showed that the null hypothesis of independence was rejected (p < .05) in 38 separate tests. Similar to the value concept tests, the primary orientation variable accounted for the largest number (13) of rejections, and school psychologist/superintendent provided the second largest number (8). Goals found to be significantly more relevant for school psychologists were:
106
Journal o f School P s y c h o l o g y
Table 2 Hierarchical Rankings of School Psychology Goals Psych.
Supt.
All
3
1
1
4
2
2
5
3
3
6
4
4
5
11
6
7
2 11
13 6
8 9
13
5
10
12
9
11
14
10
12
10
16
13
9 15
17 12
14 15
16 17
15 14
16 17
18
19
18
19 20
21 18
19 20
21
20
21
Goal'* To develop an understanding among staff and community groups of the special needs of exceptional children. To identify the needs of the school system for special education programs. To sensitize teachers to the implications of individual differences as they relate to the learning process. To conduct conferences with individual teachers and building principals to interpret the results of diagnostic studies of individual students. To function as a consultant to teachers and other school personnel in the development of a positive mental health atmosphere in the schools. *To conduct parent counseling involving communication of psychological findings, behavior management and implementation of recommendations. To integrate all diagnostic findings into a useful and understandable written report which provides realistic recommendations pertinent to the case. *To conduct parent interviewing and counseling and education. *To identify factors which influence learning efficiency and classroom behavior, i.e., pupil-teacher interaction. *To refer and follow up on cases referred to child guidance clinics, community classes, and other community agencies. To function as a consultant or resource person to teachers, coordinators, and curriculum supervisors in special education. To participate in conferences with representatives of community agencies involved with educational and therapeutic planning, referral, follow up, etc. *To activate assessment and placement teams which make decisions on the placement and reintegration of exceptional children. *To attend university seminars and workshops for school psychologists. To conduct teacher counseling regarding the teacher's involvement in the behaviors of individual students. To conduct interviews and short-term counseling with students. To administer, score, and interpret individual tests, and to conduct interviews of students requiring such tests. To participate in the activities of such committees as curriculum evaluation, teacher personnel, special education, student mental health, teaching methods, classroom management, human relations, etc. To conduct workshops, seminars, etc. To train teachers or other personnel in group test administration, and in the interpretation of group tests results. To interview and counsel teachers, individually and in groups.
a'indicates a one quartile (5 rank places) or greater difference in the respective rankings of school psychologists and school superintendents.
Manley and Manley
107
To function as a consultant to teacher and other personnel in the development of a positive mental health atmosphere in the schools. To conduct parent counseling involving communication of psychological findings, behavior management and implementation of recommendations. To activate assessment and placement teams which make decisions on the placement and reintegration of exceptional children. To attend university seminars and workshops for school psychologists. Goals found to be significantly more relevant for school superintendents were: To participate in conferences with representatives of community agencies involved with educational and therapeutic planning, referral, follow up, etc. To develop an understanding among staff and community groups of the special needs of exceptional children. To sensitize teachers to the implications of individual differences as they relate to the learning process. To identify factors which influence learning efficiency and classroom behavior, i.e., pupil-teacher interaction.
DISCUSSION The highly correlated rankings of value concepts and goals by school psychologists and school superintendents appear consistent with personal values theory, which holds that groups of professionals and members of organizations possessing similar organization goals will tend, in the aggregate, to hold similar values and goals operative. These findings parallel those of Manley and Pittenger (Note 1) in their study of research scientists, engineers, and managers in the Cambridge Research Laboratories. Considering the relative permanency or the slowly evolving nature of personal value systems, one might reasonably expect that the participants in this research--who for the most part have dedicated their adult lives to the field of education---would tend to hold similar values and goals operative. However, as much similarity as there was in the rankings and the behavioral relevance ratings of the two groups, some intergroup differences were clearly identified and seem to merit consideration. School superintendents, with their higher ratings assigned to value concepts such as ambition, obedience and loyalty, and to goals dealing with increasing learning efficiency and interacting with community agencies, reflect their concerns as administrators or executives. Operating in a broader system than psychologists, they must interact with and attempt to influence the community on a daily basis, while the perspectives of school psychologists tend to be focused inward on a smaller system, the school system. As administrators, superintendents evidence their concern with efficiency of operation, and with minimizing conflict within the smaller system for which they are responsible. In contrast, school psychologists show less concern over interactions between the school system and the larger system--the community. Rather than focusing on efficiency in learning, they show greater internalization of a possible means to that efficiency: creation and maintenance of a positive mental health atmosphere within the school system. It is also of interest to note the importance attached to parentpsychologist interactions by the psychologists, especially in the light of the relatively modest emphasis placed on this aspect of the school psychologist's role in professional development workshops and school psychology graduate education.
108
Journal of School Psychology
School psychologist responses also reflect an emphasis on individuality which was not evident in superintendent responses. Whereas superintendents held values such as loyalty more operative, psychologists favored concepts such as autonomy, concern, and me. What the data seems to be suggesting is that occasional differences in opinion between school psychologists and superintendents might well be expected, since psychologists give evidence of valuing their autonomy, their special professional standing within the school system, and their difficult-to-measure concern for creating a positive mental health atmosphere, while superintendents are more concerned with efficiency and interacting with the community. Two other points of possible disagreement are suggested by the psychologists' more operative goals of attending school psychologist university workshops and seminars and of activating assessment teams. While disagreement about attendance at professional activities is not uncommon between professionals and administrators, the subject of activating assessment and placement teams is somewhat unique to the area of school psychology. Two factors appear to be at work with respect to the teams. First, psychologists clearly see them as being more relevant than do superintendents. Secondly, some superintendents apparently resist granting the autonomy for initiating such action. This point is perhaps best illustrated by the school superintendent who underlined the words "To activate" and wrote in the margin of the questionnaire: "Absolutely No. This is an Administrative Function." With regard to the school psychologist's traditional (and most time consuming) role of conducting individual testing, both psychologists and superintendents placed it low in their hierarchical rankings of school psychology goals. This finding supports the notion that the role of the school psychologist is presently in a period of transition, that consultative and facilitative roles are considered more relevant by both psychologists and superintendents. Findings such as psychologist concern over interactions with parents, and superintendent emphasis on learning efficiency suggest areas of emphasis for professional development programs as well as areas into which school psychologist expertise can be expanded. These findings also suggest that all may benefit from an active dialog between both groups concerning school psychology goals, and their relative importance.
REFERENCE NOTES 1. Manley, T. R., & Pittenger, E. W. Research and development professionals: an examination of the personal value systems and operative goals of the scientists, engineers and managers in one government R&D organization (AFIT Tech. Rep. 74-3). Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio
45433: Air Force Institute of Technology, September 1974. 2. England, G. W., Olsen, K., & Agarwal, N. A manual of development and research for the personal values questionnaire. Mimeographed release, University of Minnesota Industrial Relations Center, 1971.
REFERENCES Allport, G. W., Vernon, P. E., & Lindzey, G. Manual for the study of values (3rd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co. 1970. England, G. W. Personal value systems of American managers. Academy of Management Journal, 1967, 10, 53-458. England, G. W., & Keaveny, T. J. The relationship of managerial values and administrative behavior. Manpower and Applied Psychology, Winter t969, 3, 63-75.
Manley and Manley
109
Hoplx~ck, R. Job satisfaction. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1935. Ohio Inter-University Council on School Psychology. The internship program in school psychology (Rev. ed.) (Bulletin No. 2). Columbus, Ohio: Author, 1969. Price, J. L. Organizational effectiveness: An inventory of propositions. Homewood, IU.: Irwin, 1968. Rokeach, M. Beliefs, attitudes and values. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1968. T. Roger Manley Associate Professor Management and Organizational Behavior Air Force Institute of Technology Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio 45433 Received: January 12, t977 Revision Received: March 14, 1977
Eleyse T. Manley The Miami Valley Regional Center for Handicapped Children Dayton, Ohio 45404
0022-4405/78/1400--4)099500.95 (~)t978 The Journal of School Psychology, Inc.
A COMPARISON OF THE PERSONAL VALUES AND OPERATIVE GOALS OF SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGISTS AND SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENTS T. ROGER MANLEY
ELEYSE T. MANLEY
Air Force Institute of Technology Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio
The Miami Valley Center for Handicapped Children Dayton, Ohio
Summary: A survey of 96 school psychologists and 75 school superintendents throughout the state of Ohio showed the two groups to have generally similar personal value systems and to be in overall agreement in their respective rankings of school psychology goals. Both groups held the traditional school psychologist's goal of conducting individual testing to be of lower relevance than acting as an internal consultant or resource person. Of those differences identified, superintendents assigned greater relevance to values which were consistent with their administrative concerns, while psychologists held values preferring individualism as more relevant. Superintendents held goals associated with increased learning efficiency and interacting with community agencies as more relevant, while psychologists assigned higher relevance to goals associated with parentpsychologist interactions. Over the years research in the area of values has generally made use of the values instrument developed by Allport, Vernon, and Lindzey (1970). More recently the instruments and methodologies developed by Rokeach (1968) and England (1967) have gained increasing acceptance by organizational psychologists in their research into the behavior of professionals within formal organizations (Manley & Pittenger, Note 1). In this research we have developed an instrument based upon England's methodology which has enabled us to examine the rank orderings of school psychologists and superintendents of a carefully selected list of 56 value concepts. These concepts were categorized into three of the classifications used by England: ideas associated with people, personal goals of individuals, and groups of people. In addition to the 56 value concepts, 21 school psychology goals were included in the instrument. The selected goals were identified and defined by the Ohio InterUniversity Council on School Psychology and published in that group's Bulletin (1969). For purposes of this research it was assumed that these school psychologist goals, considered sufficiently important by the council to be defined and published, successfully captured the essence of the school psychologist's role in Ohio's educational system. The goals were categorized into four c~asses: community-oriented goals, internal consultation goals, functional goals, and professional development goals. Our interest in school psychology goals was motivated in part by the conceptualization that organizationat effectiveness is determined by the degree to which an organization succeeds in achieving its goals (Price, 1968). Accepting this construct, we reasoned that the identification, definition, and effective communication of school psy99
100
Journal of School Psychology
chology goals were important factors bearing on the effectiveness of the school psychology function within Ohio's educational system. We also considered it relevant to examine the degree of agreement between psychologists and superintendents with regard to school psychology goals. We further reasoned that the personal values data would provide insights into the nature of the differences which were identified. The purposes of this research, therefore, can be viewed as two questions: 1. How do the values of school psychologists differ from those of school superintendents? Which value concepts are most/least relevant for psychologists, and which are most/least relevant for superintendents? 2. How do school psychologists and school superintendents differ in their rankings of school psychology goals? Which goals are most/least relevant for psychologists, and which are most/least relevant for superintendents? METHOD
Subjects. The subjects in this research were 96 school psychologists and 75 school superintendents randomly selected from the state of Ohio. Questionnaires were sent to 200 randomly selected psychologists and 200 questionnaires were sent to the superintendents of their school districts. The returns represented an overall response rate of 43%. Based upon the experience of others and considering the length of the survey instrument, this is considered an acceptable response rate. The data were gathered during the April-June 1976 time period. Characteristics of the sample indicate that it is representative of the overall population. Of the respondents, 51% worked in urban school districts and 49% worked in rural school districts. Of the psychologists, 62% received their last college degree since 1970, while only 13% of the superintendents received their last degree in the same time period. Of the psychologists, 10% had doctoral degrees, while 26% of the superintendents had doctorates. All others possessed Master's degrees. Of the school psychologists, 55% were female, while only 8% of the superintendents were female. The median age of school psychologists was 31-35 years, while the median age of superintendents was 46-50 years. Each respondent completed the Hoppock (1935) general job satisfaction measure, and psychologists reported a mean job satisfaction score of 20.62 (highest possible score was 28) while superintendents reported a mean score of 22.82. Measurement Instrument. The 56 value concepts contained in the instrument were selected through a process which consisted of: (a) identification of a list of over 250 possible value concepts through a search of the literature, (b) screening of potential value concepts by a panel of experts, (c) administration of an instrument containing candidate value concepts with 7-point importance scales, and (d) a pretest administration of an instrument that was close to the final version. Respondents were instructed to rate value concepts and goals in two ways. First the respondent was asked to indicate whether the concept or goal was of high, average, or low importance to him or her as an individual. Second the respondent was presented with three descriptors (pleasant, successful, and right) and requested to indicate which of the three best described the meaning of the value concept or goal to him or her. The respondent was specifically requested to base responses on personal valuations, and not to consider how others might respond. The manner in which the concepts (and goals) were presented to respondents can be seen in Figure I. For purposes of illustration the value concept objectivity has been chosen.
Manley and Manley
101
Objectivity High Imp.
['-X'[[---]['-']
Low Imp.
3 pleasant 2 successful 1 right Figure 1. Questionnaire format. In this example a hypothetical respondent has ranked objectivity as being of high importance. Additionally, the respondent has indicated that right best describes the meaning of the concept by placing a I next to it. Similar responses to all value concepts contained in the questionnaire permit the researcher to place each individual's responses into a 3 x 3 valuation matrix. This matrix is presented in Figure 2. Before the measure of behavioral relevance used in this research can be determined, the primary value orientation of an individual must be established. The primary orientation of an individual is determined by first noting the number of concepts assigned to the three high importance cells (1, 4, and 7). Once the high importance cell with the largest number of concepts assigned to it has been identified, that number is compared with its complement--the sum of the total of concepts contained in the average and low importance cells in the same row. If the number of high importance concepts is greater than or equal to its complement, the individual is described as having a defined primary value orientation. If the complement is greater, the individual is described as having a mixed orientation. In the example given in Figure I, the concept objectivity would be assigned to cell 7. To describe how this would be calculated, let us assume that a hypothetical respondent has assigned five value concepts to the high importance-pleasant cell (cell 1), l0 value concepts to the high importance-successful cell (cell 4), and 20 value concepts to the high importance-right cell (cell 7). Observing that the largest number of high importance ratings occurs in the high importance-right cell, we would then check to see how many value concepts were in the average importance-right and the low importance-right cells (cells 8 and 9). If the number of value concepts in these two cells totaled 20 or less, the individual would be described as having a normative primary orientation. If the number of value concepts in the average and low importance cells exceeded 20, the individual would be described as having a mixed orientation. This is the same as saying the individual has no defined primary value orientation.
High Importance (1)
Average Importance
Low Importance (2~
(3)
(4/
(51
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
Pleasant Successful
Right Figure 2. Valuation matrix.
102
Journal of School Psychology
Had the respondent assigned the greatest number of value concepts to the high importance-successful cell (cell 4), the same test would be performed. If the number in cell 4 exceeded or was equal to the total of value concepts in cells 5 and 6, the respondent would be described as having a pragmatic primary orientation. If the individual had assigned the greatest number of value concepts to the high importancepleasant cell (cell 1), and that number exceeded or equalled the total assigned to cells 2 and 3, the respondent would be described as having an affect primary orientation. When we identify an individual as having an affect primary orientation, we imply that a pleasant-unpleasant test will be the primary test used by that person in evaluating alternative courses of action. The individual with a normative orientation similarly tends to use a right-wrong test, and those with pragmatic orientations tend to use a successful-unsuccessful test. The terms "affect," "normative" and "pragmatic" were developed by England, and have proven to be highly descriptive of respondents placed in each respective category. The identification of an individual's primary value orientation is crucial, for the primary measure of behavioral relevance used in this research is the joint rating of high importance and a 1 assigned to the descriptor consistent with the established primary orientation of the individual. A value concept or goal rated in this manner is referred to as being operative for this individual. What is assumed in this approach is that an individual's behavior (insofar as it is influenced by personal values) is best explained by using both those things the individual considers important and his or her primary orientation (England & Keaveny, t969; England, Olsen, & Agarwal, Note 2). This can be presented symbolically:
By --* f(I f'l PO)c. This expression would read: the behavior of an individual, insofar as behavior is a function of values, is best indicated by the joint function of those concepts the individual considers important and which are consistent with his or her primary orientation. Analysis Procedure. Values and goals were hierarchically ordered according to the percent of respondents holding each value concept and goal operative. The hierarchical rankings of school psychologists and superintendents were compared using the Spearman rank correlation test. Additionally, chi-square contingency tests were formed to test for independence between the behavioral relevance ratings assigned each value concept and goal, and the various classifications of demographic variables. RESULTS
Value Rankings. The hierarchical rankings of value concepts by school psychologists, school superintendents, and by the overall sample are presented in Table 1. As the reader can probably detect from casual inspection, the rankings of psychologists and superintendents were found to be highly correlated. The Spearman rho of.7522 indicated a correlation far greater than the .0001 level of significance. Although the overall rankings of the 56 value concepts were highly correlated, noticeable differences were found to exist in the respective rankings of some value concepts by school psychologists and superintendents. Focusing on those value concepts for which a difference of 14 places (quartile range) or more existed, the reader will note that psychologists ranked concern, empathy, flexibility, rationality, and autonomy higher than did superintendents, while superintendents gave higher rankings
M a n l e y and M a n l e y
103
Table 1 Hierarchical Rankings of Personal Value Concepts Psych.
Supt.
Overall
Value Concepts a
2 4 3 5 8 11 1 6 7 17 10 9 13 18 22 12 16 15 21 29 30 23 14 20 24 19 37 25 41 26 27 32 28 36 33 38 31 35 47 39 42 43 40 45 34 46 48 44 54 52 50 49 51
2 1 7 3 4 6 25 11 13 5 18 21 16 12 10 26 17 24 20 14 15 27 35 31 29 37 9 33 8 34 36 30 41 19 32 22 40 28 23 38 39 42 45 44 53 46 48 54 43 47 50 51 52
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53
Competence Integrity Students Trust Dedication Fairness * Concern Job Proficiency Objectivity Self- Discipline Responsibility Young People Job Knowledge Emotional Stability Professionalism * Empathy Parents Me Resourcefulness Initiative *Faculty Cooperation *Flexibility Equality Maturity *Rationality * Ambition Ability * Loyalty Respect Job Satisfaction Achievement Career Satisfaction *Principals Success *Administrative Staff Dignity Work *School Board Decisiveness Creativity Security Compromise Change * Autonomy Influence Risk Taking Leisure Obedience Caution Income Prestige Money
(contmued)
Journal of School Psychology
104
Table 1 (continued) Psych.
Supt.
Overall
53 56 55
55 49 56
54 55 56
Value Conceptsl Power Authority Conflict
a'indicates a one quartile (14 rank places) or greater difference in the respective rankings of school psychologists and school superintendents.
to faculty, ambition, loyalty, principals, administrative staff, and school board than did psychologists. It is also interesting to focus on the values placed in the first and fourth quartiles by the two respective groups. Eight value concepts (competence, integrity, students, trust, dedication, fairness, job proficiency, and objectivity) were placed in the upper quartile by both groups. Placed in the upper quartile by psychologists only were concern, responsibility, young people, job knowledge, empathy, and flexibility. Included in the upper quartile by superintendents only were self-discipline, emotional
stability, professionalism, initiative, ambition, and loyalty. Considerably greater agreement can be observed in the lower quartile rankings where psychologists and superintendents agreed upon 12 of the 14 value concepts. Placed in the bottom quartile by both groups were change, influence, risk taking,
leisure, obedience, caution, income, prestige, money, power, authority, and conflict. The differences found in lower quartile rankings were that psychologists also included school board and security, while superintendents placed autonomy and compromise in the bottom quarter. In the contingency table tests, the behavioral relevance ratings assigned to the value concepts were tested against the different classifications of nine variables: (a) urban/ rural school district; (b) school psychologist/school superintendent; (c) highest level of formal education; (d) date of last degree; (e) time since last attended universitysponsored seminar, workshop or course; (f) sex; (g) age; (h) Hoppock job satisfaction measure; and (i) primary value orientation. Space limitations prohibit complete recounting of the findings; however, our analysis showed that primary value orientation was the most potent discriminator, accounting for 42 separate rejections (p < .05) of the null hypothesis of independence between the behavioral relevance rating of the value concept and the classification of primary orientation held by the respondent. The variable school psychologist/superintendent accounted for 10 rejections of the null hypothesis. In the 10 rejections of the null hypothesis, psychologists assigned greater behavioral relevance ratings to the value concepts flexibility, income, leisure, autonomy, and me. School superintendents assigned greater relevance to the concepts ambition,
obedience, loyalty, administrative staff, and school board. In examining the distributions of primary orientations among school superintendents and psychologists, a contingency table test yielded the following results:
Psychologists Affect Pragmatic Normative
23% 27 50
Superintendents 3% 40 57
Manley and Manley
105
As the reader will note, a majority of the superintendents were normative, with 40% possessing pragmatic primary orientations, and only 3% possessing affect orientations. While the distribution of normative orientations among psychologists approached that of superintendents, the distributions of affect and pragmatic orientations differed significantly (p < .01). Goal Rankings. The hierarchical rankings of school psychology goals by school psychologists, school superintendents, and by the overall sample are presented in Table 2. As with the rankings of the value concepts, the rankings of school psychology goals by psychologists and superintendents were found to be highly correlated. The Spearman rho of .6558 indicated a correlation greater than the .0001 level of significance. Using the decision rule of focusing on differences in rankings of one quartile (5 rank places) or more, six goals stand out. Two of these goals were ranked higher by school superintendents than by psychologists. They were: To refer and follow up on cases referred to child guidance clinics, community classes, and other community agencies. To identify factors which influence learning efficiency and classroom behavior, i.e., pupil-teacher interaction. The four goals ranked higher by school psychologists than by superintendents were: To conduct parent counseling involving communication of psychological findings, behavior management and implementation of recommendations. To conduct parent interviewing and counseling and education. To attend university seminars and workshops for school psychologists. To activate assessment and placement teams which make decisions on the placement of exceptional children. In examining the upper and lower quartiles of the psychologists and superintendents presented in Table 2, it can be noted that three of the top five goals were placed in the upper quartile by both groups, and they differed in only one goal in their lower quartile placements. The two goals placed in the upper quartile by psychologists were the goals dealing with psychologist-parent interaction noted above, and the goals placed in the upper quartile by superintendents included the goal dealing with referral of cases to community agencies and the goal "To conduct conferences with individual teachers and building principals to interpret the results of diagnostic studies of individual students." In their placement of goals in the lower quartile, psychologists and superintendents differed on only one placement: psychologists included the goal, "To administer, score, and interpret individual tests, and to conduct interviews of students requiring such tests" in the bottom quartile; while superintendents placed the goal, "To attend university seminars and workshops for school psychologists" in that quartile. As with the value concepts, the contingency table tests tested for independence between the behavioral relevance ratings assigned the school psychology goals and the different classifications of the nine variables used in the analysis. The analysis showed that the null hypothesis of independence was rejected (p < .05) in 38 separate tests. Similar to the value concept tests, the primary orientation variable accounted for the largest number (13) of rejections, and school psychologist/superintendent provided the second largest number (8). Goals found to be significantly more relevant for school psychologists were:
106
Journal o f School P s y c h o l o g y
Table 2 Hierarchical Rankings of School Psychology Goals Psych.
Supt.
All
3
1
1
4
2
2
5
3
3
6
4
4
5
11
6
7
2 11
13 6
8 9
13
5
10
12
9
11
14
10
12
10
16
13
9 15
17 12
14 15
16 17
15 14
16 17
18
19
18
19 20
21 18
19 20
21
20
21
Goal'* To develop an understanding among staff and community groups of the special needs of exceptional children. To identify the needs of the school system for special education programs. To sensitize teachers to the implications of individual differences as they relate to the learning process. To conduct conferences with individual teachers and building principals to interpret the results of diagnostic studies of individual students. To function as a consultant to teachers and other school personnel in the development of a positive mental health atmosphere in the schools. *To conduct parent counseling involving communication of psychological findings, behavior management and implementation of recommendations. To integrate all diagnostic findings into a useful and understandable written report which provides realistic recommendations pertinent to the case. *To conduct parent interviewing and counseling and education. *To identify factors which influence learning efficiency and classroom behavior, i.e., pupil-teacher interaction. *To refer and follow up on cases referred to child guidance clinics, community classes, and other community agencies. To function as a consultant or resource person to teachers, coordinators, and curriculum supervisors in special education. To participate in conferences with representatives of community agencies involved with educational and therapeutic planning, referral, follow up, etc. *To activate assessment and placement teams which make decisions on the placement and reintegration of exceptional children. *To attend university seminars and workshops for school psychologists. To conduct teacher counseling regarding the teacher's involvement in the behaviors of individual students. To conduct interviews and short-term counseling with students. To administer, score, and interpret individual tests, and to conduct interviews of students requiring such tests. To participate in the activities of such committees as curriculum evaluation, teacher personnel, special education, student mental health, teaching methods, classroom management, human relations, etc. To conduct workshops, seminars, etc. To train teachers or other personnel in group test administration, and in the interpretation of group tests results. To interview and counsel teachers, individually and in groups.
a'indicates a one quartile (5 rank places) or greater difference in the respective rankings of school psychologists and school superintendents.
Manley and Manley
107
To function as a consultant to teacher and other personnel in the development of a positive mental health atmosphere in the schools. To conduct parent counseling involving communication of psychological findings, behavior management and implementation of recommendations. To activate assessment and placement teams which make decisions on the placement and reintegration of exceptional children. To attend university seminars and workshops for school psychologists. Goals found to be significantly more relevant for school superintendents were: To participate in conferences with representatives of community agencies involved with educational and therapeutic planning, referral, follow up, etc. To develop an understanding among staff and community groups of the special needs of exceptional children. To sensitize teachers to the implications of individual differences as they relate to the learning process. To identify factors which influence learning efficiency and classroom behavior, i.e., pupil-teacher interaction.
DISCUSSION The highly correlated rankings of value concepts and goals by school psychologists and school superintendents appear consistent with personal values theory, which holds that groups of professionals and members of organizations possessing similar organization goals will tend, in the aggregate, to hold similar values and goals operative. These findings parallel those of Manley and Pittenger (Note 1) in their study of research scientists, engineers, and managers in the Cambridge Research Laboratories. Considering the relative permanency or the slowly evolving nature of personal value systems, one might reasonably expect that the participants in this research--who for the most part have dedicated their adult lives to the field of education---would tend to hold similar values and goals operative. However, as much similarity as there was in the rankings and the behavioral relevance ratings of the two groups, some intergroup differences were clearly identified and seem to merit consideration. School superintendents, with their higher ratings assigned to value concepts such as ambition, obedience and loyalty, and to goals dealing with increasing learning efficiency and interacting with community agencies, reflect their concerns as administrators or executives. Operating in a broader system than psychologists, they must interact with and attempt to influence the community on a daily basis, while the perspectives of school psychologists tend to be focused inward on a smaller system, the school system. As administrators, superintendents evidence their concern with efficiency of operation, and with minimizing conflict within the smaller system for which they are responsible. In contrast, school psychologists show less concern over interactions between the school system and the larger system--the community. Rather than focusing on efficiency in learning, they show greater internalization of a possible means to that efficiency: creation and maintenance of a positive mental health atmosphere within the school system. It is also of interest to note the importance attached to parentpsychologist interactions by the psychologists, especially in the light of the relatively modest emphasis placed on this aspect of the school psychologist's role in professional development workshops and school psychology graduate education.
108
Journal of School Psychology
School psychologist responses also reflect an emphasis on individuality which was not evident in superintendent responses. Whereas superintendents held values such as loyalty more operative, psychologists favored concepts such as autonomy, concern, and me. What the data seems to be suggesting is that occasional differences in opinion between school psychologists and superintendents might well be expected, since psychologists give evidence of valuing their autonomy, their special professional standing within the school system, and their difficult-to-measure concern for creating a positive mental health atmosphere, while superintendents are more concerned with efficiency and interacting with the community. Two other points of possible disagreement are suggested by the psychologists' more operative goals of attending school psychologist university workshops and seminars and of activating assessment teams. While disagreement about attendance at professional activities is not uncommon between professionals and administrators, the subject of activating assessment and placement teams is somewhat unique to the area of school psychology. Two factors appear to be at work with respect to the teams. First, psychologists clearly see them as being more relevant than do superintendents. Secondly, some superintendents apparently resist granting the autonomy for initiating such action. This point is perhaps best illustrated by the school superintendent who underlined the words "To activate" and wrote in the margin of the questionnaire: "Absolutely No. This is an Administrative Function." With regard to the school psychologist's traditional (and most time consuming) role of conducting individual testing, both psychologists and superintendents placed it low in their hierarchical rankings of school psychology goals. This finding supports the notion that the role of the school psychologist is presently in a period of transition, that consultative and facilitative roles are considered more relevant by both psychologists and superintendents. Findings such as psychologist concern over interactions with parents, and superintendent emphasis on learning efficiency suggest areas of emphasis for professional development programs as well as areas into which school psychologist expertise can be expanded. These findings also suggest that all may benefit from an active dialog between both groups concerning school psychology goals, and their relative importance.
REFERENCE NOTES 1. Manley, T. R., & Pittenger, E. W. Research and development professionals: an examination of the personal value systems and operative goals of the scientists, engineers and managers in one government R&D organization (AFIT Tech. Rep. 74-3). Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio
45433: Air Force Institute of Technology, September 1974. 2. England, G. W., Olsen, K., & Agarwal, N. A manual of development and research for the personal values questionnaire. Mimeographed release, University of Minnesota Industrial Relations Center, 1971.
REFERENCES Allport, G. W., Vernon, P. E., & Lindzey, G. Manual for the study of values (3rd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co. 1970. England, G. W. Personal value systems of American managers. Academy of Management Journal, 1967, 10, 53-458. England, G. W., & Keaveny, T. J. The relationship of managerial values and administrative behavior. Manpower and Applied Psychology, Winter t969, 3, 63-75.
Manley and Manley
109
Hoplx~ck, R. Job satisfaction. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1935. Ohio Inter-University Council on School Psychology. The internship program in school psychology (Rev. ed.) (Bulletin No. 2). Columbus, Ohio: Author, 1969. Price, J. L. Organizational effectiveness: An inventory of propositions. Homewood, IU.: Irwin, 1968. Rokeach, M. Beliefs, attitudes and values. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1968. T. Roger Manley Associate Professor Management and Organizational Behavior Air Force Institute of Technology Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio 45433 Received: January 12, t977 Revision Received: March 14, 1977
Eleyse T. Manley The Miami Valley Regional Center for Handicapped Children Dayton, Ohio 45404