METHOD The present study was planned to study the role of family in the development of successful intelligence As the main aim of the study was to see the role of family in the development of successful intelligence, for that purpose subjects were tested on successful intelligence, maternal child rearing practices or child rearing attitude, overall family environment, and family characteristics. SAMPLE The total sample was drawn from B. Tech undergraduate students of the various branches of Engineering from National Institute of Technology (NIT) Jalandhar, Punjab (India). The sample (N=500) consisted of students who voluntarily participated in the study after investigator introduced the research plan. Participants belong to different places of India which provide the diversity in total sample. The variable of gender was controlled by taking only male sample. The age of the participants ranged between 18 to 21 years with the mean age of 19.6 years. The total sample was divided in to two groups on the basis of two criteria; first criterion is high and low scores of successful intelligence in which total of all the three components (analytical, creative, and practical) of successful intelligence was taken in to consideration. Upper two fifty scores of subjects were considered high successful intelligence and lower two fifty scores of subjects were considered as low successful intelligence. A second criterion which is used here for dividing the groups is the low and high differences among scores on different components (analytical, creative and practical) of successful intelligence. MEASURES The following psychological measures/ tests were used in this study: 1. The Sternberg Triarchic Abilities Test (STAT) Level H (Sternberg, 1993) (Multiple choice and Essay type) 2. Family Environmental Scale (FES) (Moos & Moos, 1986) 3. Parental Attitude Research Instrument (PARI) (Saxena, 1976) 4. Family Characteristics Schedule 47
The brief descriptions of tests are as follows: 1) The Sternberg Triarchic Abilities Test (STAT) Level H (Sternberg, 1993) STAT has been developed to assess the components of Stemberg s triarchic theory of successful intelligence (Sternberg, 1985, 1988). It measures three realm of mental processing, analytical, creative, and practical. Analytical questions address the ability to learn from context and reason inductively (i.e. the relation of intelligence to the internal world); creative questions address the ability to cope with novelty (i.e. the relation of intelligence to experience); and practical questions address the ability to solve real everyday problems (i.e. the relation of intelligence to the external world) (Sternberg et al., 2000). The current description of the STAT has nine four-option multiple-choice subtests, each consisting of four items, plus three essays. The nine multiple-choice subtests represent a crossing of three kinds of process realm (analytical, creative, and practical) with three major contents (verbal, quantitative, and figural). The three essays assess performance in analytical, creative, and practical fields. There are four analytical subtests of the STAT, one for each content area (multiple-choice verbal, multiple-choice quantitative, multiple choice figural, and essay) (Sternberg, et al., 2000). Traditional verbal ability tests (e.g., synonym-antonym tests) correlate highly with overall IQ (Stemberg & Powell, 1983), but they are more measures of achievement than of ability. In other words, they emphasize the products over the process of learning. Analyticalverbal abilities are measured in the STAT by assessing the ability to learn from context. Vocabulary is viewed as a proxy for the ability to pick up information from relevant context (Stemberg, 1987). The analytical-quantitative section consists of items that measure inductive reasoning ability in the numerical domain. The analytical-figural items similarly measure inductive reasoning ability with either figure classification or figure analogy problems. In the figure classification test, the examinee must indicate which figure does not belong with the others. The four analytical subtests are: 48
1. Analytical-verbal (neologisms): Students see a novel word rooted in a paragraph and have to conclude its meaning from the context (Sternberg et al., 2000). 2. Analytical-quantitative (number series): Students have to say what number should come next in a series of numbers (Sternberg et al., 2000). 3. Analytical-figural (matrices): Students see a figural matrix with the lower right entry missing, and have to say which of the options fits into the missing space (Sternberg et al., 2000). 4. Analytical essay: Students are required to analyze the advantages and disadvantages of having police or security guards in a school building (Sternberg et al., 2000). The creative portion of the STAT also consists of four subtests (multiple-choice verbal, multiple-choice quantitative, multiple-choice figural, and essay). The creative-verbal questions require counterfactual reasoning and attempt to assess the ability to think in relatively novel ways (Sternberg et al., 2000). In the creativequantitative questions, symbols are used in place of certain numbers requiring the examinee to make a replacement. The creative-figural items require the examinee to complete a series in a field separate from the one in which they inferred the completion rule (Sternberg et al., 2000). The four creative subtests are: 5. Creative-verbal (novel analogies): Students are presented with verbal analogies preceded by counterfactual premises (e.g., money falls off trees) and must solve the analogies as though the counterfactual premises were true (Sternberg et al., 2000). 6. Creative-quantitative (novel number operations): Students are presented with rules for novel number operation (e.g., flix, for which numerical manipulations differ depending on whether the first of two operands is greater than, equal to, or less than the second). Students have to use the novel number operations to solve presented mathematical problems (Sternberg et al., 2000). 7. Creative-figural (novel series completion): Students are first presented with a figural series that involves one or more transformations; they then must apply the rule of the original series to a new figure with a different appearance to complete a new series (Sternberg et al., 2000). 49
8. Creative essay: Students are required to describe how they would reform their school system to produce an ideal one (Sternberg et al., 2000). Finally, the practical portion of the STAT is designed to assess ability to apply knowledge to problems with practical relevance (Sternberg et al., 2000). Practicalverbal items require the examinee to answer everyday inferential reasoning problems. Practical-quantitative items require the examinee to reason quantitatively with practical everyday problems of the kind that might be faced in everyday life (Sternberg et al., 2000). Items in the practical-figural portion require the ability to plan a route efficiently, given the information a map or diagram (Sternberg et al., 2000). The four practical subtests are: 9. Practical-verbal (everyday reasoning): Students have to solve a set of everyday problems in the life of an adolescent (e.g. what to do about a friend who seems to have a substance abuse problem) (Sternberg et al., 2000). 10. Practical-quantitative (everyday mathematics): Students have to solve mathematical problems based on scenarios requiring the use of mathematics in everyday life (e.g. buying tickets for a ball game or making chocolate chip cookies) (Sternberg et al., 2000). 11. Practical-figural (route planning): Students are presented with a map of an area (e.g. an entertainment park) and have to answer questions about navigating effectively through the area depicted by the map (Sternberg et al., 2000). 12. Practical essay: Students are required to specify a problem in their life and to state three possible practical solutions for it (Sternberg et al., 2000). Reliability and Validity The Schmidt et al. (2002) analyses indicate that the item reliability estimate for STAT is good (.79). The Cronbach alpha estimates of reliability are satisfactory but not high (.67,.56, and.72 for the analytical, practical, and creative subtests respectively), in part because within each subtest, the content domains (verbal, quantitative, and figural) are very different from each other (Sternberg, 2006b). Sternberg and the Rainbow Project 50
Collaborators (2006) have reported cross cultural reliability and validity for STAT. Testretest reliabilities for different components of STAT in the present study are also calculated and found not very high but satisfactory and are comparable with those reported by Schmidt et al. (2002). 2) Family Environmental Scale (FES) (Moos & Moos, 1986) The family environment scale (FES) is one of ten Social Climate Scales (Moos, 1987). The FES comprises ten subscales that measure the social-environmental characteristics of all types of families (Moos and Moos, 1986). Each item had to identify an aspect of the family environment that could reflect the emphasis on interpersonal relationships (such as the degree of cohesion), the emphasis on an area of personal growth (such as the degree of achievement or moral-religious emphasis), or the emphasis on the organization of the family (such as the degree of organization) (Moos and Moos, 1986). The FES has different forms: the Real Form (form R) measures people s perceptions of their conjugal or nuclear family environments. Besides the Real Form (Form R), there are two special forms of the FES, the Ideal Form (Form I) and the Expectations Form (Form E). Form I and Form E are parallel to Form R. The Ideal Form (Form I) measures people s conceptions of ideal family environments; and The Expectations Form (Form E) measures people s expectations about family settings (such as an adolescent child s expectations of a new foster family or a couple s expectations about what their family will be like after the birth of a child) The scoring keys and the answer sheets for the three forms are identical. To create the ideal Form (Form I), the Form R items and instructions were reworded to allow family members to answer them in terms of the type of family environment they would ideally like (Moos and Moos, 1986). The ten FES subscales assess three underlying domains, or sets of dimensions: the relationship dimensions, the personal growth dimensions, and the system maintenance dimensions (Moos and Moos, 1986). The relationship dimensions are measured by the cohesion, expressiveness, and conflict subscales. These subscales assess the degree of 51
commitment, help, and support family members provide for one another; the extent to which family members are encouraged to act openly and to express their feelings directly; and the amount of openly expressed anger, aggression, and conflict among family members (Moos and Moos, 1986). The personal growth, or goal orientation, dimensions are measured by the independence, achievement orientation, intellectualcultural orientation, active-recreational orientation, and moral-religious emphasis subscales (Moos and Moos, 1986). These subscales assess the extent to which family FES Subscales 1. Cohesion 2. Expressiveness 3. Conflict 4. Independence 5. Achievement Orientation 6. Intellectual-Cultural Orientation 7. Active-Recreational Orientation 8. Moral-Religious Emphasis 9. Organization 10. Control Relationship Dimension Dimensions the degree of commitment, help, and support family members provide for one another. the extent to which family members are encouraged act to express their feelings directly. the amount of openly expressed anger, aggression, at conflict among family members. Personal Growth Dimension the extent to which family members are assertive, and self sufficient, and make their own decisions. the extent to which activities (such as school and work are cast into an achievement-oriented or competitive framework. the degree of interest in political, social, intellectual and cultural activities. the extent of participation in social and recreational activities. the degree of emphasis on ethical and religious issues and values. System Maintenance Dimension the degree of importance of clear organization a structure in planning family activities and responsibility. the extent to which set rules and procedures are used to run family life. 52
members are assertive, self sufficient and make their own decisions; the extent to which activities (such as school and work) are cast into an Subscales and Dimensions of Family Environment Scale achievement-oriented or competitive framework; the degree of interest in political, social, intellectual, and cultural activities; the extent of participation in social and recreational activities; and the degree of emphasis on ethical and religious issues and values (Moos and Moos, 1986). The system Maintenance dimensions are manufactured by the organization and control subscales (Moos and Moos, 1986). These subscales assess the degree of importance of clear organization, structure in planning family activities and responsibilities and the extent to which set rules and procedures are used to run family life (Moos and Moos, 1986). Reliability and Validity For each of the ten FES subscales internal consistencies (Cronbach s Alpha) reliability was calculated and all are found in an acceptable range, varying from moderate for independence and achievement orientation to substantial for cohesion, organization, intellectual-cultural orientation, and moral-religious emphasis (Moos and Moos, 1986). Test-retest reliabilities are all in an acceptable range, varying from low of.68 for independence to a high of,.86 for cohesion (Moos and Moos, 1986). The construct validity of the FES subscales is as, the measure of religious participation is highly related to moral religious emphasis (average r=.62); joint family activities are associated with recreational orientation (average r=.39); and family arguments are linked to conflict (average r=.49) (Moos and Moos, 1986). There are small but significant relationships between cohesion, expressiveness and lack of conflict too in a family and the proportion of household tasks performed jointly by the spouses (Moos and Moos, 1986). The FES subscales also show discriminant validity in that they are not highly related to measures of different constructs (Moos and Moos, 1986). 3) Parental Attitude Research Instrument (PARI) (Saxena, 1976) (Indian Adaptation, Mother Form) Parental Attitude Research Instrument (PARI) was originally developed by Schaefer & Bell (1958) to measure the attitudes of parents towards various aspects of 53
child-rearing. The theoretical base of the instrument came from social and developmental psychology. Because of the problems with response set, the PARI has been revised several times (Schludermann and Schludermann, 1971, 1977; Zuckerman, 1959). The most recent version of the PARI, the PARI Q4, is a 115 items self report designed to assess paternal and maternal attitudes toward child rearing. PARI consists of twenty three scales, having five statements with the each scale which load on two major factors, Authoritarian-Control and Family-Disharmony (mother form) and Democratic-Attitudes and Paternal-Detachment (father form). The response format is a 4 point Likert scale to which subject indicates the extent to which they agree or disagree with items. Test-retest reliability coefficients of both forms (range from.52 to.81) and the reliability of factor scores (range from.75 to.81) and validity for all the scales are also available on PARI Q4. Each factor of PARI measures some particular type of child rearing attitude. All the factors of PARI were factor analyzed and three factors Authoritarian-Control, Hostility-Rejection and Democratic-Attitude was extracted (Schaefer & Bell, 1958; Zuckerman & Oltean, 1959; Zuckerman et al., 1958; Zuckerman et al., 1958). PARI Variables Fostering dependency (A2), Seclusion of mother (A3), Breaking the will (A4), Martyrdom (A5), Fear of harming the body (A6), Irritability (A9), Exclusion of outside influences (A10), Deification (A11), Suppression of aggression (A12), Approval of activity (A15), Avoidance of communication (A16), Inconsiderateness of the husband (A17), Suppression of sexuality (A18), Ascendancy of the mother (A19), Intrusiveness (A20) and Dependency of mother (A23) Marital conflict (A7) and Rejection of homemaking role (A13) Encouraging verbalization (A1), Strictness (A8), Equalitarianism (A14), Comradeship and sharing (A21) and Acceleration of development (A22) Factors as described by Zuckerman & Oltean, (1959) Authoritarian-Control Hostility-Rejection Democratic-Attitude 54
The largest factor, Authoritarian-Control (A), seems to measure authoritarian, suppressive, punitive, and restricting attitudes. The Hostility-Rejection factor (B) can be described as measuring hostility towards children and husband, and rejection of maternal scale. The Democratic-Attitude factor (C) is composed of three positively worded scales, and seems to measure democratic attitudes. However, Democratic-Attitude is independent of Authoritarian-Control and probably reflects the response tendency to agree with positive sounding generalizations more than a genuine response to the test item contents. The Hindi version (Indian adaptation by Saxena, 1976) of PARI was used in the present study which consists of two forms (mother and father) separately. Number of scales and statement of PARI (Hindi version; mother form) are same as in recent version of PARI Q4. This is a self administering instrument. In case of illiterate subjects, it can be used as an interview schedule (Saxena, 1976). As per the manual, the test can be administered individually as well as in groups. The Hindi version of father s PARI of hundred statements which comprises of twenty scales. Each scale consists of five statements. Like mother s form this is also a self-administering instrument and can be used both individually and in groups (Saxena, 1976). For the present study, only mother form of Parental Aptitude Research Instrument (PARI) was used because of the specific role of mother in Indian setting regarding child rearing practices and the reason being that child has more contact and feels more attached with the mother. Reliability and Validity The correlation coefficient was found to be.83. The test-reset reliability was also found to be.78. The split-half method of computing reliability was found to be.79. Both are indicator of the high reliability of the test. Concurrent validity was found.81 for father form and.78 for mother s form of PARI. 4) Family Characteristics Schedule A family characteristics schedule was designed for the present study. This schedule is structured in total four parts. The first part is about the basic information or 55
a general index of the subject which talks about gender, age, the place to which the subject belongs and the place of birth, subject s position in the family (either son or daughter), total number of siblings in the family or family size, and family physical structure (joint or nuclear family), order of birth, and mother and father (both) are working or not. Second part of the schedule deals with the parents education. Separate options are given related to mother s and father s education which subject has to tick out one by one. Third part deals with the parent s occupation which includes what type of occupation (separate option for both mother and father) and status of the job. Fourth and last part of the schedule deals with father s occupation, mother s occupation and family income from all sources and the objects well-being of the parental home. Simply, the overall structure of the first part of family characteristics schedule is related to general information, family size and birth order of the subject. Second part describes parent s education, third and fourth parts are related to parental socioeconomic status (SES). In the present study, all these family characteristics have been exercised to see the role of family in the development of different components (analytical, creative and practical) of successful intelligence. Administration and Scoring Administration The testing sessions for the entire tests were conducted in small groups of fifteen to twenty subjects in accordance with the instructions mentioned in the respective manuals of the tests. In a day only one session was conducted, in which only one test was administered. Scoring All the tests were scored by using separate scoring keys or scoring directions as per respective manuals of the tests. Separate answer sheets were prepared for all the tests used in the study. On these answer sheets scoring was a clerical task using the template provided. The scoring for Sternberg triarchic ability test (STAT) provided six scores for the different components of successful intelligence. Parental attitude research instrument 56
(PARI) was scored on twenty-three scales related to mother child rearing practices. The family environmental scale (FES) was scored for ten variables related to three dimensions; relationship, personal growth and system maintenance reflecting family environment and family characteristics schedule provided eight scores on family characteristics. Therefore, overall tests provided forty seven scores (six for STAT, twenty-three for PARI, ten for FES, and eight for family characteristics schedule) which were subjected to required statistical analysis. Statistical Analysis of Data The obtained data for total sample were analyzed by using following statistical techniques: 1. Frequency distribution, means, standard deviations, skewnesses, and kurtosis of all the variables included in the study. 2. t-test was applied to see the significance of difference between low and high group of successful intelligence on different family related variables. 3. Discriminant Analysis was applied to see family related variables responsible for low and high successful intelligence. The detailed description of the above mentioned analysis is given in the Chapter IV (Results and Discussion). 57
Table : 3.1 List of Variables Used in the Study Sr. No. Variables Name Sternberg Triarchic Ability Test (STAT) 1. AN Analytical 2. PR Practical 3. CR Creative 4. EANALY Essay analytical 5. Ecreative Essay creative 6. Epractical Essay practical Family Environmental Scale (FES) 7. C Cohesion 8. EX Expressiveness 9. CON Conflict 10. IND Independence 11. AO Achievement orientation 12. ICO Intellectual- cultural orientation 13. ARO Active-recreational orientation 14. MRE Moral- religious emphasis 15. ORG Organization 16. CTD Control Parental Attitude Research Instrument (PARI) 17. A1 Encouraging verbalization 18. A2 Fostering dependency 19. A3 Seclusion of mother 20. A4 Breaking the will 21. A5 Martyrdom Contd... 58
Sr. No. Variables Name 22. A6 Fear of harming the body 23. A7 Marital conflict 24. A8 Strictness 25. A9 Irritability 26. A10 Exclusion of outside influences 27. A11 Deification 28. A12 Suppression of aggression 29. A13 Rejection of homemaking role 30. A14 Equalitarianism 31. A15 Approval of activity 32. A16 Avoidance of communication 33. A17 Inconsiderateness of the husband 34. A18 Suppression of sexuality 35. A19 Ascendancy of the mother 36. A20 Intrusiveness 37. A21 Comradeship and sharing 38. A22 Acceleration of development 39. A23 Dependency of mother Family Characteristics Schedule 40. ASCH Number of siblings 41. BSCH Birth order 42. CSCH Mother and father (both) working 43. DSCHA Mother education 44. DSCHB Father education 45. ESCHA Mother occupation 46. ESCHB Father occupation 47. FSCH Family income 59