View
29
Download
1
Category
Tags:
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Self concept, self esteem, self control, self relay
Citation preview
91
CHAPTER-II
DEVELOPMENT AND DESCRIPTION OF TOOLS
The preceding chapter dealt with theoretical basis of the study, objectives of the study,
hypotheses and delimitations of the study. The present chapter has been devoted to the
description of the tools used for the collection of data. The following tools have been used for
the purpose of the study:
2.1 TOOL I PERSONAL DATA BLANK - PREPARED BY THE
INVESTIGATOR (APPENDIX-I)
2.2 TOOL II TEACHER STRESS SCALE DEVELOPED BY OTTO (1983)
AND ADAPTED BY MAX SMITH AND SID BOURKE (1992)
(APPENDIX-II)
2.3 TOOL III LOCUS OF CONTROL SCALE PREPARED BY SANJAY
VOHRA (1992) BASED ON LEVENSON’S SCALE OF
LOCUS OF CONTROL (1973) (APPENDIX-III)
2.4 TOOL IV FAMILY ENVIRONMENT SCALE BY HARPREET
BHATIA AND CHADHA (1993) BASED ON THE
FAMILY ENVIRONMENT SCALE BY MOOS (1974)
(APPENDIX-IV)
2.5 TOOL V EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE SCALE DEVELOPED BY
ANUKOOL HYDE, SANJYOT PETHE AND UPINDER
DHAR (2002) (APPENDIX-V)
92
2.1 TOOL I: PERSONAL DATA BLANK - PREPARED BY THE
INVESTIGATOR
Personal data blank has been prepared by the investigator to collect requisite general
information about the teacher education institutions as well as the teacher educators.
Relevant literature was studied as to form specific items for the personal data blank.
After round of discussions on the basis of relevant literature with the supervisor and few
experts from the field, the following thrust points have been specified:
1. Demographic data of the teacher educators regarding name, age, sex, total teaching
experience and educational qualifications.
2. Information regarding the institution consists of name, type and year of establishment.
3. Information regarding number of years, teacher educators has been teaching in that
particular institution, position in staff and employment status.
4. General information about the amount and cause of stress experienced during last ten
months.
2.1.1 Preparation of Blue Print of Data Blank
The blue print of data blank is as follows:
1. Name
2. Age Sex
3. Total teaching experience
4. Name of the Institution
5. Type of the institution
6. Year of establishment of the institution
7. Number of years you have been teaching in this college
8. Position in staff
9. Employment status
10. Qualifications you hold
11. Stress you have been experiencing during the last ten months
12. Main cause of stress
93
2.2 TOOL II: TEACHER STRESS SCALE DEVELOPED BY OT TO
(1983) AND ADAPTED BY MAX SMITH AND SID
BOURKE (1992)
The present teacher stress scale was originally developed by Otto (1983) and later has
been hypothesized by Max Smith and Sid Bourke in 1992 from University of Newcastle. They
have used factor analysis and reliability procedures to confirm and refine the scale. The
analysis confirms the existence of four latent stress dimensions which are described below:
1. Conflict: Stress arising from staff tensions and role conflict (having to do things, which
are inconsistent with an individual’s expectations). e.g., ‘Being given conflicting orders or
being expected to do things incompatible with others’.
2. Students and Physical Conditions: Stress arising from interactions with students and
from the teaching environment in general e.g., ‘Students who are hard to motivate to be
interested and involved’.
3. Time Pressure: Stress arising from having to do too much in an insufficient time period
and work intruding on home life, e.g., ‘having to do a lot of work in a limited time’.
4. Lack of Rewards and Recognition: Stress arising from the lack of rewards, in terms of
both money and status, and lack of recognition of teachers' professionalism within the
education system, e.g., ‘Lack of appreciation, respect and consideration shown by the
Education Department’.
2.2.1 Scale description
The teacher stress scale is a 26-item self-report questionnaire, which conceptualizes
Teacher Stress as multidimensional. It includes items of potential stressors within the
institution. All the items are presented in a random order. The 26-item stress scale includes 6-
items for ‘conflict’, 8- for ‘students and physical conditions’, 6- for ‘time pressure’ and 6- for
‘lack of rewards and recognition’. The distribution of items with respect to four factors is as
follows:
94
TABLE 2.1
DIMENSION-WISE ITEMS OF TEACHER STRESS
S. No. Nature of the Dimension Item Numbers
1 Conflict 1,7,16,19,22 and 24
2 Students and Physical Conditions 2,5,9,13,18,20,25 and 26
3 Time Pressure 3,4,6,11,14 and 21
4 Lack of Rewards and Recognition 8,10,12,15,17 and 23
2.2.2 Scoring
Scale for teacher stress is a 4-point likert scale. Each item has following four options:
Scores Response
1 Hardly or not at all
2 A little or sometimes
3 A fair bit
4 A lot
The items have been scored as 1, 2, 3 and 4. The raw scores are used for analysis purpose.
High scores indicate more teacher stress and low scores indicate less teacher stress.
Reliability
The reliability of dimension-wise Teacher Stress scale is presented in the Table 2.2 below:
TABLE 2.2
RELIABILITY TABLE OF TEACHER STRESS SCALE
Scale Statistics
Conflict Students and Physical
Conditions
Time Pressure
Lack of Rewards and Recognition
Mean 2.04 2.04 2.62 2.70
S.D. 0.64 0.56 0.79 0.64
No. of Items 6 8 6 6
Reliability 0.80 0.79 0.87 0.78
95
2.2.4 Stress Scale Scores
Summary statistics for the stress scales have been reported in the Table 2.2. Reliability
for the scales ranged from a high of 0.87 for time pressure to a satisfactory 0.78 for the
rewards and recognition scale. Mean scores have a potential maximum of 4 indicating
teachers experience `a lot' of stress from the factor and a minimum of 1 indicating `hardly any
or no’ stress derived from the factor. The mid-point of the scales is 2.5 indicating that
moderate amounts of stress was derived from the factor. The lack of rewards and recognition
scale had the highest mean scale score with a mean of 2.70 indicating the average experience
of stress from this source in the range between ‘sometimes' and `a fair bit'. The "rewards”
refer to the pecuniary and non-pecuniary rewards for teaching, while “recognition" refers to
the acknowledgment of a teacher's professional skill and knowledge. Stress arising from ‘time
pressure’ had an average score of 2.62, which places this in a similar range. The two other
scale averages were lower with stress arising from ‘conflict’ and stress from ‘students and
physical conditions’ rounding out to an equal low of 2.04, indicating the experience of `a little
or some' stress from these factors. The inter-correlations between the scales were significant,
ranging from 0.26 between ‘students and physical conditions’ and ‘lack of rewards and
recognition,’ to a high of 0.44 between stress arising from ‘conflict’ and ‘lack of rewards and
recognition’. However, even at the maximum, less than 20 per cent of the variance in one
scale could be accounted for by another. Consequently, the scales are treated as independent
measures of teacher work-related stress. The relationships in the causal model have been
tested separately for the four different stress outcomes. The relative importance of
independent and intervening variables has been expected to differ reflecting the complex
nature of teacher stress.
2.3 TOOL III: LOCUS OF CONTROL SCALE PREPARED BY
SANJAY VOHRA (1992) BASED ON LEVENSON’S SCALE OF LOCUS OF
CONTROL (1973)
Julian Rotter first developed the concept of locus of control in the 1960 (Rotter, 1966).
He originally named this concept as locus of control of Reinforcement. Locus of control,
according to Rotter’s approach, can be divided into two separate sources of control: internal
and external. People with an internal locus of control believe that they control their own
96
destiny. They also believe that their own experiences are controlled by their own skills or
efforts .On the other hand, people who tend to have an external locus of control tend to
attribute their experiences to fate, chance or luck.
External Locus of Control: Individual believes that his/ her behavior is guided by
fate, luck, or other external circumstances.
Internal Locus of Control: Individual believes that his/her behavior is guided by
his/her personal decisions and efforts.
Where Rotter’s conceptualization viewed locus of control as one-dimensional (internal
to external), Levenson (1973) offered an alternative model. Leveson’s model asserts that there
are three independent dimensions:
• Internality,
• Chance and
• Powerful others
According to Levenson’s model, one can endorse each of these dimensions of locus of
control independently and at the same time. For example, a person might simultaneously
believe that both oneself and powerful others influence outcomes, but that chance does not.
2.3.1 Scale description
The present scale for Locus of Control has been prepared by Sanjay Vohra (1992) and
is based on Levenson’s scale for Locus of control (1973). According to this scale:
Individual Locus of Control: Belief about individual control. (High scores
indicate that one believes that one's outcomes are
controlled by him\her. One’s current situations
and rewards are direct outcomes of things one
controls).
Chance Locus of Control: Belief about chance control (High scores indicate
that unordered, chance or random events control
the outcomes).
Locus of Control by powerful others: Belief about control by powerful others (High
scores indicate that other people control the
outcomes).
97
This scale for locus of control has many advantages over Rotter’s Locus of Control Scale and
can be summarized as follows:
1. There is freedom of response, i.e. the subject is not forced to choose one of the two
statements as in Rotter’s scale.
2. The present scale gives result in the form of direction as well as strength of the
internal-external beliefs.
3. The present scale gives score in three areas, i.e. P- powerful others, C-chance control,
I-individual control whereas; in Rotter’s scale only one score is available.
4. The present scale helps to place the individual, with a moderate precision, at different
points on the scale.
5. Group administration of the present scale is relatively efficient and can be given to a
group of any size without any apparent loss of validity.
6. The present scale requires less time for administration as compared to Rotter’s scale.
This scale is a likert type scale, with multiple choice responses presented in a continuum.
Responses range from Strongly Agree, Agree, Undecided, Disagree to Strongly Disagree
2.3.2 Final scale
Originally 150 statements were selected with an attempt to cover the whole range by
the author, i.e., powerful others, chance control, and individual control, rather evenly. These
statements were then edited and only those, which were to the point and short, were selected.
Double barreled, incomplete, ambiguous statements were excluded from the list.
The final scale consists of 24 statements, 8 each for P-powerful others, C-chance
control and I-individual control. These statements have thoroughly been revised and edited
before being included in the final scale. The statements have been presented in random order
as follows:
TABLE 2.3
DISTRIBUTION OF ITEMS OF LOCUS OF CONTROL
S. No. Nature of the Control Item Numbers
1 Individual control (I) 1, 4, 5,9,18,19,21and 23
2 Chance control (C) 2,6,7,10,12,14,16 and 24
3 By powerful others (P) 3, 8,11,13,15,17,20 and 22
98
2.3.3 Scoring
This test is a five-point likert type scale. Each answer scores 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 points.
Scores have been added separately for all the three factors (P, C, and I). In this five-point
scale, the responses are given weight form 1to 5 as shown below:
Response Scores
Strongly Agree 5
Agree 4
Undecided 3
Disagree 2
Strongly Disagree 1
2.3.4 Reliability
A trial run of the present scale has been made to find out the reliability of the scale by
the author. First the split-half method of reliability has been employed. Here the scale has been
divided into two parts of 12 statements each. Each part contains 4 statements each for (P)-
powerful others, (C)-chance control and (I)-individual control. The split-half reliability of the
scale with N=380, has been found to be 0.72 for P, 0.79 for C and 0.65 for I, using Spearman-
Brown.
Further, with odd-even method, reliability coefficient has been found to be 0.69 for P,
0.72 for C and 0.66 for I. The test-retest reliability has also been calculated for the present
scale, with N=200, retested after one week’s time. The test-retest reliability coefficient has
been found to be 0.76, by calculating coefficient of correlation between two sets of scores of
the same individuals on the same scale, after one week’s time.
2.3.5 Validity
The present scale has been validated by correlating it with Rotter’s Locus of Control
Scale (I-E Scale). This has been done by giving both the scales one after another with very
little time interval in between. Scores of both the scales have then correlated with each other,
and the correlation coefficient has been found out be 0.54 (with N=220).
99
2.4 TOOL IV: FAMILY ENVIRONMENT SCALE BY BHATIA AND
CHADHA (1993) BASED ON THE FAMILY ENVIRONMENT
SCALE BY MOOS (1974)
This family environment scale is based on the family environment scale by
Moos (1974). This scale consists of three dimensions which have been taken from
Moos’scale. Although the concept of dimensions has been taken from Moos’scale, all
the subscales in each dimension have been operationally defined with certain
modifications of original definitions. Three of the original subscales have been
dropped, and one new subscale has been added by the author. The dimensions, along
with their operational definitions and contents, were given to eight judges. After
making the suggested changes and modifications, they have been again given to five
other judges. Only those dimensions and contents of the dimensions having at-least
75 percent agreement have been retained. These are:
Relationship Dimensions:
1. Cohesion: Degree of commitment, help, and support family members provide for one
another.
2. Expressiveness: Extent to which family members are encouraged to act openly and
express their feelings and thoughts directly.
3. Conflict: Amount of openly expressed aggression and conflict among family members.
4. Acceptance and Caring: Extent to which the members are unconditionally accepted and
the degree to which caring is expressed in the family.
Personal Growth dimensions:
5. Independence: Extent to which family members are assertive and independently take
their own decisions
6. Active-Recreational Orientation: Extent of participation in social and recreational
activities
System Maintenance Dimension:
7. Organization: Degree of importance of clear organization structure in planning family
activities and responsibilities.
8. Control: Degree of limit setting within a family.
100
2.4.1 Item Selection
It has been decided by the author to write 13 to 17 items under each subscale. The
items have been written subscale wise to avoid overlapping among items. An initial pool of
121 items has been made ready for the entire scale. These items have been given to eight
experts for rating on the following rating scale:
0. Not acceptable
1. Doubtful
2. Acceptable
Only those items with 75 per cent approval of the experts have been retained. Thus, out
of the initial 121 items, 17 items have been rejected and 104 have been further subjected to
item analysis.
2.4.2 Item Analysis
The scale has been administered to an unselected sample of 350 subjects. The age
range of the subject was 17 to 50 years and they belonged to the middle-class socio-economic
strata. Subjects have been asked to respond to the items by making any one of the five
response options: strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, disagree and strongly Disagree. The items
have been scored as:
Positive Item Response Negative Item Scores Scores
5 Strongly Agree 1
4 Agree 2
3 Neutral 3
2 Disagree 4
1 Strongly Disagree 5
On the basis of the total scores of subjects, the group have been divided into two-a
high score group and a low score group. These scores have been then subjected to chi-square
computation. Only those with at least 0.05 level of significance have been retained. Thus, out
of the 104 items retained after rating, 35 items have been rejected and 69 items have been
retained for the final form.
101
2.4.3 Final scale
The final scale along with the response categories are as follows in table 2.4 below:
TABLE 2.4
DISTRIBUTION OF ITEMS OF FAMILY ENVIRONMENT SCALE
Sub-Scale Positive Items Negative Items Total items
I Relationship Dimensions
1. Cohesion 1, 9, 24, 37, 43, 55, 17, 49, 31 13
60, 63, 66, 69
2. Expressiveness 10, 25, 38, 44, 56, 2, 18, 32, 50 9
3. Conflict 11, 19, 39, 51, 61, 3, 26, 33, 45 12
67 57, 64
4. Acceptance 8, 16, 36, 42, 48, 23, 30, 65, 68 12
and caring 54, 59, 62
II Personal Growth Dimensions
5. Independence 4, 27, 46, 52, 12, 20, 34, 40 9
58
6. Active-recreational 5, 13, 21, 28, 35, 41, 53 8
orientation 47
III System Maintenance Dimensions
7. Organization 14 6 2
8. Control 7, 22 15, 29 4
102
2.4.4 Reliability
Spilt-half reliability has been found for the present scale. For this purpose, the present
scale has been spilt into two halves. The scores of each dimension have also been split into
two halves. The scores for each of these halves have been then correlated. From this self-
correlation of the half-tests, the reliability coefficient of the whole test has estimated using the
Spearman-Brown Prophecy formula. The reliability coefficients thus obtained have been as
follows in the Table 2.5 below:
TABLE 2.5
RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS OF FAMILY ENVIRONMENT SCAL E
Sub-scale Reliability coefficients
1. Cohesion 0.92
2. Expressiveness 0.88
3. Conflict 0.84
4. Acceptance and caring 0.86
5. Independence 0.70
6. Active-Recreational orientation 0.48
7. Organization 0.75
8. Control 0.48
Overall Test Reliability Coefficient = 0.95
2.4.5 Validity
Both face and content validity have been tested by giving the scale to eighteen experts
to evaluate the test items. Only those items with at-least 75 percent agreement among the
judges have been retained. For content validity, the dimensions of the family environment
have been selected and clearly defined for the purpose of measuring the specific aspects of the
environment. These definitions have been also subjected to the judgment of the eight experts
in the first step, and five experts in the second step.
103
2.5 TOOL V: EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE SCALE DEVELOP ED BY
ANUKOOL HYDE, SANJYOT PETHE AND UPINDER DHAR
(2002)
Emotional intelligence enables one to learn to acknowledge and understand feelings in
ourselves and in others and that we appropriately respond to them effectively applying the
information and energy of emotions in our daily life and work. Mayer and Salovey (1993)
defined emotional intelligence as the ability to monitor one’s own and other’s feelings and
emotions to discriminate among them, and to use this information to guide one’s thinking and
action. Cooper and Sawaf (1997) defined emotional intelligence as the ability to sense,
understand and effectively apply the power and acumen of emotions as source of human
energy, information, connection and influence.
2.5.1 Measures of Emotional Intelligence
The authors have come across two measures of emotional intelligence-Emotional
Quotient in business and life. These can be understood by Four-Cornerstone Model explained
by Cooper (1997). This model assumes emotional intelligence as out of the realm of
psychological analysis and philosophical theories and moves into the realm of direct knowing,
exploration and application. The first cornerstone has been ‘emotional literacy’, which builds
a locus of self-confidence through emotional honesty, energy, emotional feedback, intuition,
responsibility and connection. The second cornerstone, ‘emotional fitness’ strengthens
authenticity, believability and resilience, expanding circle of trust and capacity for listening,
managing conflict and making most of constructive discontent. The third cornerstone has been
‘emotional depth’ that explores ways to align one’s life and work with his or her unique
potential and purpose, and accountability, which in turn, increases influence without authority.
The fourth cornerstone have been ‘emotional alchemy’, through which one can extend creative
instincts and capacity to flow with problems and pressure and to complete for the future by
building one’s capacity to sense more readily. Emotional Quotient comprises various related
components that strengthen emotional intelligence and give desired outcomes. There have
been 21 scales which best explain Emotional Quotient. The scales have been further grouped
under five categories, namely current environment, literacy, competencies, values and beliefs,
and outcomes. Cooper and Sawaf (1997) have reported Emotional Quotient map in which total
score on each scale is graded in one of the four levels- optimal, proficient, vulnerable, and
104
cautionary. Goleman (1995) developed another scale. The scale has various situations and
scores are computed on the basis of responses to these situations. The authors did not come
across any scale developed for Indian conditions. The present work have been undertaken to
develop a suitable self-report measure for Indian milieu.
2.5.2 Development of the scale
After consulting relevant literature, 106 items have been developed. Each item has
been transferred on a card. A panel of 50 judges with postgraduate degree and more than 10
years of experience in their relevant fields have been prepared. Definition of emotional
intelligence was also written on a card along with necessary instructions for the selection of
the items on the card. The cards were placed before each judge who was contacted
individually. The choice for categorization of each card was noted and the frequency of choice
was calculated. The items, which have been chosen 75% or more times, have been spotted out.
The 34 items thus chosen have been administered on 200 executives. The data have been then
tabulated and item-total correlations were calculated. Items having correlation less than the
value of 0.25 have been dropped. The value has been taken from Fisher and Yates (1992) table
of correlation coefficients and their levels of significance. The final form of the scale
constituted 34 items. The inter-item correlations of the final items have been also determined.
2.5.3 Reliability
The reliability of the scale has been determined by calculating reliability coefficient on
a sample of 200 subjects. The split- half reliability coefficient has been found to be 0.88.
2.5.4 Validity
Besides face validity, as all items are related to the variable under focus, the scale has
high content validity. It is evident from the assessment of experts that items of scale are
directly related to the concept of emotional intelligence. In order to find out the validity from
the coefficient of reliability (Garrett, 1981), the reliability index has been calculated, which
indicated high validity on account of being 0.93.
105
2.5.5 Factors of Emotional Intelligences
The scale was administered on 200 executives and the scores obtained have been
subjected to factor analysis and ten factors have been identified. These are self-awareness,
empathy, self motivation, emotional stability, managing relations, integrity, self-development,
value orientation, commitment and altruistic behavior. These are:
A. Self-awareness is being aware of one self and is measured by items 6, 12, 18, 29. These
items are “I can continue to do what I believe in even under severe criticism”, “I have my
priorities clear,” “I believe in myself,” and “I have built rapport and made and maintained
personal friendships with work associates.” This factor is the strongest, explains 26.8
percent variance and has a total factor load of 2.77. The correlation of this factor with total
score is 0.66.
B. Empathy is feeling and understanding the other person and is measured by items 9, 10, 15,
20, and 25. These are “I pay attention to the worries and concerns of others”, “I can listen
to someone without the urge to say something”, “I try to see the other person’s point of
view”, “I can stay focused under pressure” and “I am able to handle multiple demands”.
This factor explains 7.3 percent variance with a total factor load of 3.11. The correlation of
the factor with total score is 0.70.
C. Self-motivation is being motivated internally and is measured by items 2, 4, 7, 8, 31 and
34. These items are “people tell me that I am an inspiration for them”, “I am able to make
intelligent decision using a healthy balance of the emotions and reason”, “I am able to
assess the situation and then behave”, “I can concentrate on the task at hand in spite of
disturbances”, “I think feelings should be managed” and “I believe that happiness is an
attitude”. This factor accounts for 6.3 percent variance and a total factor load is 3.28. Its
correlation with total score is 0.77.
D. Emotional stability is measured by items 14, 19, 26 and 28. These are “I do not mix
unnecessary emotions with issues at hand”, “I am able to stay composed in both good and
bad situations”, “I am comfortable and open to novel ideas and new information”, “I am
persistent in pursuing goals despite obstacles and setbacks.” This factor explains 6.0
percent variance with a total factor load of 2.51. The correlation of this factor with total
score is 0.75.
106
E. Managing relations is measured by items 1, 5, 11 and 17. The statements that measure
this factor are “I can encourage other to work even when things are not favorable”, “I do
not depend on others’ encouragement to do my work well”, “I am perceived as friendly
and outgoing” and “I can see the brighter side of any situation”. This factor explains 5.3
percent variance with a total factor load of 2.38. The correlation of this factor with total
score is 0.67.
F. Integrity is measured by items 16, 27, and 32. “I can stand up for my beliefs”, “I pursue
goals beyond what is required of me”, and “I am aware of my weaknesses”, are the
statements that measure this factor. This factor explains 4.6 percent variance with a total
factor load of 1.88.
G. Self-development is measured by items 30 and 33 which are “I am able to identify and
separate my emotions” and “feel that I must develop myself even when my job does not
demand it.” This factor explains 4.1 percent variance with a total load of 1.37.
H. Value orientation is measured by items 21, 22. The statements are “I am able to maintain
the standards of honesty and integrity” and “I am able to confront unethical actions in
others” and explains 4.1 percent variance with a total factor load of 1.29.
I. Commitment is measured by the items 23 and 24. “I am able to meet commitments and
keep promises” and “I am organized and careful in my work” measure this factor. This
factor accounts for 3.6 percent variance with a total factor load of 1.39.
J. Altruistic behavior is measured by the items 3 and 13. The items are “I am able to
encourage people to take initiative”, and “I can handle conflicts around me”. It explains
3.0 percent variance with a total factor load of 1.3.
107
2.5.6 Administration and Scoring
Before administering the scale, it has been advised orally that responses should be
checked as quickly as possible and sincere cooperation is sought for the same and the
responses be kept confidential. It is also emphasized that there is no right or wrong answers to
the statements. The statements have been designed to understand the differences in individual
reactions to various situations. The scale is meant to know the difference between individuals
and not mean to rank them as good or bad. It is duly emphasized that all statements have to be
responded to and no statement should be left unanswered. Manual scoring has been done
conveniently with each item or statement scored as:
Response Scores
Strongly agree 5
Agree 4
Neutral 3
Disagree 2
Strongly disagree 1
Recommended