RIGIDITY AND THE SORT‘ PHILIP LANGER AND CHARLES W. MC KAIN’

Utah S& Univereity

PROBLEM In earlier research with the Structured-Objecti-re Rorschach Test (SORT) (‘I,

we investigated the validity of the Dd factor aa a rigidity measure, employing the phenomenon of response set. Since our findings concerning the Dd factor were positive, curiosity about indices of rigidity-flexibility on the SORT (Dd is not, per se, an index of rigidity on the SORT) led us to cross-validate theae proposed meaa- urea with the Test of Behavioral Rigidity (TBR) (0.

The SORT is a multiple-choice version of the Rorschach, intended to appraise and analyze vocationally significant temperament traits. The scoring of the SORT follows the systems laid down by Beck, Klopfer, and others. The SORT utilizes area, determinants, and content factors. The fifteen factors (and their reliabilities) are: W (.77), D (.78), Dd (.77), S (.62), F (.64), F- (.71), M (.80), FM (.78), FC (.90), CF (.63), Fch (.77), A (.72), H (.68), P (.82), and 0 (.77). (7)

Stone‘’) combined a number of these factors into five indices designed to meaaure several aspects of rigidity-flexibilit y :

1. Rigidity-high S 2. 3. 4. 5. Conformity-low 0, high P

Compulsivity-high S, F, and Dd Consistency of behavior-high F, high or low S and low Fch Flexibility-high M, FC, low CF

The Test of Behavioral Rigidity (TBR), on the other hand, is designed spec- ifically to measure rigidity. The TBR yields three dimensions of rigidity-flexibility .“

Motor-Cognitive Rigidity refers to S’s ability to shift from one activity to another. The score is an indication of the level of difficulty one meets in making theae shifts. The factor is a combination of three subteete. The CapitslsR test consists of reversing ca ital lettera from a printed group of sentences with specific words and letters capitalized. ‘&e second subteet, Oppceit+l, requires the S give the synonym of a word rintad in small letters. The R2 teat IE the same teat aa R1 but employs a different matiematical procedure to o b t a i s G %

Personality-Perceptual Ri ‘dit meaeurea a S’s ability to adjust readily to new cognitive and environmental demands. &e 8 and P Scales give scorea which are interpreted to represent flexibility. The lower the acore, the leae fle$ble the individual.

Psychomotor Speed measures the mdwdual’a more spontaneous recall of cognitive re% p o r n . This factor also seema to measure a person’s ability to cope with restrainta of a more physical nature. The subtesta which make up this factor are Capi tabNR and OppOeita-(l-2)- -NR. The Capitals-NR teat is a teat, requiring the S to reproduce a printed paasage in two and onehalf minutes. The Opposita-NR teat, demands the recall of simple antonyxm(6).

PROCEDURE The TBR and the SORT were administered on successive days in counter-

balanced order. The Ss were 57 students enrolled in an Introductory Sociology class in the Spring quarter of 1963 at Utah State University.

Although Stone and Schaie emp!oyed combinations of factors to yield their various indices of rigidity-flexibility, we employed the individual factor scores since these scores contain all the data within the indices and also avoid masking effects.

In order to use the individual SORT factors we employed Stone’s manual(7) as well aa traditional Rorschach sources(1. * ) to evaluate the contributions of each of the individual factors on a rigidity-flexibility continuum:

_ _ _ ‘Research supported by Utah State University Grant USF - 196. *Now at University of Minnesota at Duluth, Duluth, Minnesota. *“R’ after a teat stands for ri ‘dity; “NR’ refers to non-rigidity. The N R scores are wed as

criterion to judge R acorea. The NR tests involve relatively simple tasks and are in essence practice senes-

490 PHILIP LANGER AND CHARLES W. MC KAIN

1. S - responses using the white spaces. A high S is indicative of rigidity. 2. F - responses closely resembling the form of the stimulus. A high F would indicate

3. Fch - responrres using texture, density and shading. A high Fch score indicates high

4. Dd - me of minor blot details. A high Dd score would indicate perfectioniem (rigidity). 5. FC - derived from color form responses. A high FC would indicate allocentric behavior

(flexibility). 6. CF - derived from color form responses. A high CF score indicatee egocentric behavior

(rigidity). 7. M -derived from human movement responsea. A high M means high activity potential

(flexibility). 8. 0 - original responses. A high 0 is indicative of cognitive flexibility. 9. P - popular responses. A high P indicates rigidity.

high structuring (rigidity).

anxiety (rigidity).

The TBR factors and subtests are as follows: I. Motor-Coguitive Rigidity

1. CapiU-R 2. Opp~ites-Rl 3. OppoSites-R2

11. Personality-Perceptual Rigidity 4. R-Scale 5. P S c a l e

111. Psychomotor Speed 6. Capitals--NR 7. Oppoeitm-NR (6)

TABLE 1. CANONICAL Room

SORT Loading

CF 0 - P

- .20 .50

- .081 .48 .94 - .34 .045 .0027

-.25

Root2 R = .55 S F

Dd Fch M

FC CF 0 P

-.46 - .46

.21

.028

.34

.75

.090 - .20 - .045

Root 3 R = .46 S F

Dd Fch

M FC CF 0 P

.81 - .083

.58

.55

.79

.38

.66

.044 - .47

TBR

~ ~~

Loading

Cap.-R

R-Scale P S c a l e Cap.-NR

Opp.-Rl Opp.-R2

0pp.-NR

~~ ~

.019 - .39 - .59 .28 .16

-.52 .31

Cap.-R

R-Scale P-Scale Cap.-NR

Opp.-Rl Opp.-R2

0pp.-NR

.55

.42 - . I 0

.32

.42

.46 -.042

Cap.-R

R-Scale P-Scale Cap.-N R

Opp.-Rl Opp.-R2

Opp.-NR

.071

.58 - .52 -.lo - .48 .086 .35

RIGIDITY AND THE SORT 49 1

The Ss were scored in accordance with Manual instructions(6* ’). However, instead of converting to standard scores and combining factors into various indices, the correlation matrix was derived from the raw scores. The matrix was then adjusted for sex and order of testing. A canonical solution of the matrix(S) yielded three significant roots. These roots are given in Table 1.

RESULTS In Root 1 (R = .60), M, F, and Fch load positively, while FC loads negative-

ly.‘ Following our previous comments on these factors, we will assume that these scores, with the exception of M, are indicative of rigidity. As we shall demonstrate shortly, M appears to be somewhat equivocal.

Furthermore, this root does not yield any of Stone’s combinations of factors. His Flexibility factor, for example, contains the M, FC and CF variables. To indi- cate rigidity, both the M and the FC should load negatively while CF should load positively. In this instance M and CF load positively and FC loads negatively. None of these combinations demonstrated any marked internal consistency on any of the three roots.

For the TBR, the Opposites-R1 and Opposites-R2 test load negatively. It should be emphasized that for the TBR, negative loadings on all factors indicate rigidity, while a high score is indicative of flexibility. Capitals-NR loads negatively while Opposites-(1-2) -NR loads positively. Since three of the four TBR factors load negatively, our feeling is that this root is a fairly well defined rigidity factor. Further, we shall tentatively hypothesize that the rigidity factor appears to be equivalent to the Motor-Cognitive Rigidity dimension of the TBR. (The split of the subtests on the Psychomotor Rigidity dimension is possibly due to the fact that these are almost equivalent to practice tests and are somewhat different from the other subtests. A t any rate, these subtests appear to be somewhat more equivocal).

Root 2 (R = 5 5 ) is a flexibility factor. For the SORT, negative S and F load- ings as well as a positive FC loading are indicative of flexibility. M loads positively which is also indicative of flexibility. However, equivocality of the M factor is easily seen on R.oots 1 and 2, where it loads positively on both roots, although they appear to be diametrically opposite in meaning.

As for the TBR all significant loadings are positive, indicating flexibility. The Personality-Perceptual Rigidity dimension is clearly represented by significant R and P scale loadings. Motor-Cognitive Rigidity has two of the three subtests loaded positively. Psychomotor Rigidity loads one of the two subtests (Capitals NR) positively. It would appear that for the TBR indices, the subtests tend to correlate more closely than those of the SORT.

Root 3 (R = .46) yields positive loadings for the SORT on S, Dd, Fch, M, FC and CF factors, while P loads negatively. The negative P, and positive FC loadings indicate flexibility, while positive Dd, Fch and CF loading are indicative of rigidity. Split loadings are also represented on the TBR. Opposites-R1 and the Opposites (1-2)-NR load positively which is indicative of flexibility, ax contrasted to the negative loadings of Opposites-R2 and the P scale which are indicative of rigidity. This split we hypothesize represents a bi-polar factor, rigidity versus flexibility.

SUMMARY The Structured-Objective Rorschach Test and the Test of Behavioral Rigidity

were administered in counter-balanced order to 57 subjects at Utah State Uni- versity. A canonical analysis of the SORT-TBR matrix yielded three factors: (I) a rigidity factor approximating Schaie’s Motor-Cognitive Rigidity, (2) a general flexibility factor, and (3) a bi-polar rigidity-flexibility factor. Examination of the roots indicated that the SORT indices did not yield the same degree of postulated internal consistency a13 did those on the TBR.

‘Significance is taken to mean a loading of .30 or over, regardlena of sign.

492 PHILIP LANGER AND CHARLES W. MC K A I N

BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. ABT, L. E. and BELLAK, C. P r q d i w psychology. New York: Grove Press, 1959. 2. ANDERSON, H. H. and ANDERSON, G. L. A n introdudion to projedbe techniques. Ehglewood

3. COOLEY, w. $. and LOHNES, P. R. MuEtivafMte procedures jar &e beiuwiorol sciences. New

4. LANGER, P. Compulsivity and response set on the Structured-Objective Rorschach Teat. J .

5. ~ H A I E , K. w. A teat of behavioral rigidity. J . abnonn. soe. P h l . , 1955,61,604-610. 6. S~HAIE, K. W. Manual for the teat of behavioral rigidity. Yalo Alto, California: Consulting

7. STONE, J. 0. Manual for the Structured-Objective Rorschach Teat. Loe Angeles, California:

Cliffs, New J e w Prentice-Hall, 1961.

York: John Wiley, 1962.

din. Psychol., 1962,18, 294302.

Psychologiets Press, 1960.

California Test Bureau, 1958.

A RESTANDARDlZATION O F ADOLESCENT NORMS FOR THE SHIPLEY-HARTFORD

JAMES 0. PALMER

The Neuropsychidric Institute, University of Califmia, Lo8 Angeles

PROBLEM Although the Shipley-Hartford (formally, The Shipley Institute of Living Test)

was originally devised as a measure of “mental deterioration”, it has become chiefly useful as a brief intelligence test. Indeed, Shipley(”) reviewing his own test thirteen years after he first reported his initial study warns that the Conceptual Quotient must be interpreted quite cautiously as only a gross indication of possible intellectual deterioration and requiring further refined clinical study. On the other hand, Sines ( I ) cites fourteen studies which yield validity coe5cients with other measures of intelligence, ranging from .53 (with Rorschach indices) to .89 (with Corsini’s Im- mediate Test). Sines studied the relationship between the Shipley and the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales, providing a table for estimating WAIS Full Scale I Q s from the total Shipley score, based on an inter-test correlation of .W.

The present study arose from a need for a rapid screening measure of intelligence for adolescents, and since the Shipley was already being used for our adult patient population, it was decided to examine its usefulness for the 12 to 16 age group. Shipley’s (’) normative group actually contained more young children and ado- lescents than adults: 572 grade school children, 257 high school students and 217 college students, and his Manual gives age norms for each score ranging lrom ages 8.4 to 20.8 years. Although Shipley’s mental ages may be converted directly into IQs, a restandardiration on a sample of adolescents seemed wise for the following reasons: (1) While Shipley’s tables give the average age at which any score is achieved, these tables do not account for the deceleration of the growth curve of intelligence during adolescence. Thus, the Shipley mental ages cannot be directly transformed into IQs beyond age 12. (2) In current practice, the mental age concept, especially beyond age 12, has been dropped in favor of point scales, like the Wechsler tests, in which score norms and variations for an age are provided (rather than age norms for a score). Thus this study sought T-scores for each significantly different age group between 12 and 18 years. (3) A generation (approximately 25 years) has

‘The author gratefully acknowledges the time and effort of Quentin R. Bryan, Coordinator of Research, Inglewocd (Cahf.) Unified School District, in obtaining thia aam@e, and the cooperation of the atudenta and school authorities in the Inglewood Schools who made ftus study possible.