CHAPTER-II DEVELOPMENT AND DESCRIPTION OF TOOLS

Transcription

1 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) 91

2 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 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 92

3 2.2 TOOL II: TEACHER STRESS SCALE DEVELOPED BY OTTO (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 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: 93

4 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 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: Scale Statistics TABLE 2.2 RELIABILITY TABLE OF TEACHER STRESS SCALE Conflict Students and Physical Conditions Time Pressure Lack of Rewards and Recognition Mean S.D No. of Items Reliability

5 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 95

6 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 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). 96

7 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 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 97

8 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 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 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). 98

9 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. 99

10 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 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. 100

11 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, , 63, 66, Expressiveness 10, 25, 38, 44, 56, 2, 18, 32, Conflict 11, 19, 39, 51, 61, 3, 26, 33, , Acceptance 8, 16, 36, 42, 48, 23, 30, 65, and caring 54, 59, 62 II Personal Growth Dimensions 5. Independence 4, 27, 46, 52, 12, 20, 34, Active-recreational 5, 13, 21, 28, 35, 41, 53 8 orientation 47 III System Maintenance Dimensions 7. Organization Control 7, 22 15,

12 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 selfcorrelation 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 SCALE Sub-scale Reliability coefficients 1. Cohesion Expressiveness Conflict Acceptance and caring Independence Active-Recreational orientation Organization Control 0.48 Overall Test Reliability Coefficient = 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. 102

13 2.5 TOOL V: EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE SCALE DEVELOPED 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 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 103

14 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 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 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 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

15 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 The correlation of this factor with total score is 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 The correlation of the factor with total score is 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 Its correlation with total score is 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 The correlation of this factor with total score is

16 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 The correlation of this factor with total score is 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 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 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 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 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

17 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 1 107