Table Of ContentPURDUE UNIVERSITY
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE THESIS PREPARED UNDER MY SUPERVISION
BENJAMIN SHIM BERG_______________________________________
BY
THE ' DEVELOPMENT OF A NEbDL AND PROBLEMS INVENTORY
entitled
FOR HIGH SCHOOL YOUTH_________________________________________
COMPLIES WITH THE UNIVERSITY REGULATIONS ON GRADUATION THESES
AND IS APPROVED BY ME AS FULFILLING THIS PART OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
ai- V f i9
TO THE LIBRARIAN:------
-a#-»
THIS THESIS IS NOT TO BE REGARDED AS CONFIDENTIAL.
GRAD. SCHOOL FORM 9—3-4 9—1M
THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NEEDS AND PROBLEMS INVENTORY
FOR HIGH SCHOOL YOUTH
A Thesis
Submitted to the Faculty
of
Purdue University
by
Benjamin Shimberg
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
of
Doctor of Philosophy
August, 1949
ProQuest Number: 27712237
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
uest
ProQuest 27712237
Published by ProQuest LLC (2019). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.
All rights reserved.
This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 - 1346
ACKNOWLEDO-MENTS
Th.© successful completion of a large-scale investiga
tion such as this has been calls for grateful acknowledg
ment to the many persons who have helped and advised the
writer in carrying out the project.
Without the generous cooperation and firm support of
Professor H.. H. Remmers this study would not have been at
tempted. In making available the facilities of the Purdue
Opinion Panel,, he enabled the writer to collect information
about the problems and needs of thousands of young people
all over the tr. S.
The research was carried on under an XR Fellowship
granted by the Purdue Research Foundation, of which G>
Stanley Melkle Is Director.
Professor 3. E. Wirt, Head of the Tabulating Division,
helped in the planning and execution of the statistical
analysis on IBM equipment. The writer Is indebted to him
for numerous labor-saving suggestions as well as for many
helpful criticisms concerning the general methodology.
Professor Frank J. Shaw has shown great Interest in
this investigation from its inception and has advised the
writer on many problems relating to the clinical aspects of
the Inventory. Professors John Hadley, E. J. Asher, Eliza
beth K. Wilson, and E. R. Ryden have each contributed much
to the author1s understanding of the uses and limitations
of the Instrument developed.
To the members of his advisory committee - Professors
Remmers, Shaw, Lawshe. Burr, and Field - the writer is
grateful for assistance throughout his graduate training.
Finally, to his wife, Helen, the writer acknowledges -
what every woman knows - that without her support, criticism
and editorial assistance the project would not have been
completed as rapidly or as successfully as it has been.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION............. * ............... 1
Background. . - .......... 1
Prospectus. ............................ 4
A SURVEY OF .THE LITERATURE..................... *7
THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE............' 18
Sources of Items. 18
Selection and Grouping of Items . . . . . . . . . . . 27
THE POLLING MECHANISM AND THE SAMPLE..................... 55
The Sample. . . . ................. 54
The Mode of Response. ............. 35
Obtaining Data for Classifying Students...............57
Signed vs. Unsigned Questionnaires................... * 41
A PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS: METHODS AND RESULTS............ 45
Effect of Signing the Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . 45
Construction of the Stratified Sample ............... 50
Procedure used in Item Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7
THE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF THE PROBLEMS INVENTORY . . . 72
Internal Consistency of the Eight Areas ............ 73
Reliability of the Area Scores..........................76
Validity. .......... . . . 79
Intercorrelation of Area Scores . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1
Standardization and Norms............................. .83
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ITEMS.............................90
Types of Items. ............................90
Page
The "Basie Difficulty" K e y . ........................ 94
The "Step Questions"............. 97
THE USE AND ABUSE OP THE INVENTORY...................... 101
A Tool in Admlni stration and Guidance . . . . . . . 101
A Group Survey Technique. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Limitations . . . . . . . . .......... 109
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.......... 112
Purpose and procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.3
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Need for Further Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
APPENDIX A: MATERIALS RELATING TO COLLECTION
OP D A T A ......................................120
APPENDIX B: THE QUESTIONNAIRE AND RESULTS OF
NATIONWIDE SURVEY...........................124
APPENDIX C: BISERIAL CORRELATIONS BETWEEN EACH
ITEM AND THE TOTAL SCORE OF EACH OF
THE EIGHT PROBLEM CATEGORIES................144
APPENDIX D: THE PROBLEMS INVENTORY - REVISED FORM
RESULTS ARRANGED ACCORDING TO THE
REVISED ORDER OF ITEMS...................... 159
APPENDIX Ei PERCENTILE NORMS FOR TOTAL SCORES ON
EIGHT PROBLEM AREAS AND FOR "BASIC
DIFFICULTY" QUESTIONS .................... 190
APPENDIX F: INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN TO JUDGES WHO
ASSISTED IN CLASSIFICATION OF ITEMS . . . 208
BIBLIOGRAPHY.............................................. SIS
VITA
LIST OF TABLES
Number of Items Assigned to Bach of the
Eight Categories in Preliminary Form
of Questionnaire * ............. . . 29
Distribution of the Total Number of "Yes*
Answers to Items in House and Home Scale • 40
Distribution of Randomly Selected Signed
and unsigned Ballot Cards on Three
Classification Factors ............... •• 47
Distribution of Raw Differences in
Proportions of problems Checked by
Signed and Unsigned Samples............. .. 48
Composition of Stratified Sample of High
School Students Used in Making Analysis
of Results of Purdue Opinion poll #21. . * 56
Number of Items, Mean, and Standard
Deviation for Eight problem Areas of
Original Inventory . . . ............... 60
Comparison of Ten Biserial Coefficients
of Correlation With and Without Cor
rection for Overlap Between Item and
Total Score. ............. .. 65
Wording of Statements and BI serial
Correlations of the 28 Items which
Were Reassigned. 67
Number of Items, Mean and Standard
Deviation for Eight Problem Areas
for Revised Inventory. . . . . . . . . . . 75
Distribution of Biserial Coefficients
of Correlation Between Each Item and
Its Area Total Score . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Reliability Coefficients for Eight Problem
Areas Based on lOOOCases Drawn From A
National Sample of 2500 Cases............. 78
Intercorrelation of Total Scores Among
the Eight Problem Areas.................... 82
Number of Cases in Each of the 16 Groups
Used in Preparation of Norms . . .........
88
page
XIV* Agreement of seven Judges on
Classification of Items as
"Basic Difficulty" or "Problem
Recognition" . . . ................. 95
XV* Vote of 12 Psychologists For or Against
Inclusion of Certain Items In a
"stop k e y " .......................... 99
ABSTRACT
Shimb erg, Benjamins "The Development of a Needs and Problems
Inventory for High School Youth," doctoral dissertation pre
sented to the Faculty of Purdue University, July, 1949,
215 pages. Including 15 tables, 6 appendices, and bibliogra
phy of 47 references.
The purpose of the Investigation was to develop a needs
and problems Inventory for high school youth that would meet
the conventional standards of test technology. The projected
instrument was to be useful as a tool in guidance and as a
survey technique for administrative purposes.
Suitable items for the inventory were extracted from
more than 500 anonymous essays about personal problems writ
ten by students from high schools throughout the nation.
Additional items were secured from a review of the literature
and from other sources. The Items were assigned to eight
a priori categories; 1) school problems, 2) post-high school
problems, 5) personal problems, 4) social adjustment problems,
5) family relationship problems, 6) boy-girl problems, 7)
health problems, and 8) general problems.
The questionnaire, in check list form, was administered
to more than 12,000 high school students in schools which
regularly participate in the Purdue Opinion panel and to
several additional schools whose cooperation was enlisted
for this project. The polling procedure made use of an IBM
mark— sensed punch card on which students indicated their
