Abstract
The objectives of this
study were to identify the 16 primary and eight secondary personality
characteristics of certified therapeutic recreation specialists (CTRS) using the
Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF, Cattell, Eber, and Tatsuoka,
1988) and, from that data, develop a CTRS vocational profile.
The 16PF, Form C, measures 16 functionally independent and
psychologically meaningful traits, and has been used to develop vocational
profiles for over 60 occupations. The
population sampled (N=333) were "Professional" members of the American
Therapeutic Recreation Association with current National Council for Therapeutic
Recreation Certification (NCTRC) as Certified Therapeutic Recreation Specialists
(CTRS). The findings of the study
support the hypothesis that specific occupations attract people with similar
personality characteristics by identifying the distinctive and representative
personality traits of CTRS's. Personality
profiles are beneficial in guidance counseling and designing in-service programs
for individuals currently in the field.
KEYWORDS: Certified
therapeutic recreation specialist, personality, vocational profile.
Authors: Charles H. Hammersley, Ph.D., CLP is an Assistant Professor in Recreation and
Glenn Kastrinos, CTRS is an
Instructor in Therapeutic Recreation at the University of Idaho.
Vocational
Profile of Certified Therapeutic Recreation Specialists Based
on the 16PF
The objectives of the study were to measure the 16 primary and eight secondary personality characteristics of certified therapeutic recreation specialists (CTRS) using the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF, Cattell, Eber, and Tatsuoka, 1988); and, from that data, develop a CTRS vocational profile. Potential personality differences based on gender or the population served were examined in developing the CTRS profile. Vocational profiles for over 60 professions have previously been developed by Catell, Eber, and Tatsuoka (1988). Vocational profiles offer valuable assistance to educators and employers in vocational guidance and professional development. Various personality factors have previously been linked to specific occupations including: academic professions; psychiatric technicians; medical personnel; and social workers (Cattell, 1989; and Holland,1973, 1985). Given the widely accepted importance of personality and its bearing on the effectiveness of individual therapeutic recreation specialists (Austin & Crawford, 1991; Flynn, 1980; Haun, 1966), this study will endeavor to reveal significant personality traits of practicing professionals.
Continuing evolution of the therapeutic recreation field has emphasized the significance of accreditation and certification. These processes have been based on criterion-type and norm-referencing measurements. Criterion based efforts have focused on job task analysis (National Council on Therapeutic Recreation Certification, 1988) and professional competencies determination, which measure an individual's knowledge and abilities (Austin & Crawford, 1991; Kelly, Robb, Wook & Halberg, 1974; Stumbo, 1986). Categories have been developed to identify job responsibilities, job dimensions and knowledge areas which represent the therapeutic recreation profession. These methods measure and quantify knowledge, skills, and techniques necessary to practice in therapeutic recreation. Filer (1986) identified the fallibility inherent in exclusively applying this line of research when he stated "Predictions of individual occupation should be based not on observed job characteristics such as wages but rather on individual productive attributes and tastes" (p. 413). These "productive attributes" include education, experience, and "personality traits that make certain workers better suited for particular jobs" (p.413). The first two attributes, education and experience, have been addressed by the National Council on Therapeutic Recreation Certification (NCTRC) in the requirements for professional preparation and certification in the therapeutic field. The NCTRC developed specific educational and internship standards for CTRS. However, the importance and role of personality has not been adequately addressed in determining its contribution to a successful career as a CTRS: success being defined as productive and personally satisfying.
Flynn (1980) discussed the importance and impact of personality when he described the "qualities of the therapeutic recreation practitioner" as:
Sense of humor, Competence, Realness, Generosity, Self-respect, Self-confidence, Congruence, Graciousness, Presence, Sense of personal integrity, Acceptance, Simplicity, Balance of body-mind-spirit, Intelligence, Ability to meet with empathic understanding, Well-trained, Common Sense, Ability to express unconditional positive regard, Ability to communicate clearly, Ability to listen, Ability to experience the other as a person, Sense of purpose and Genuineness. (p. 20) |
The Occupational Outlook Handbook (1988) described the diversity of characteristics imperative to those in therapeutic recreation by emphasizing the importance of "good communications skills and a warm, friendly personality that inspires both trust and respect; in addition to these qualities it is necessary to have ingenuity and imagination" (p. 149). Haun (1966) stated "A career in professional recreation calls for exceptional people - alert, mature understanding, willing to give of themselves, eager to share their enthusiasm, patient, unafraid of rebuffs, able to try the hundredth time when they have failed for ninety-nine" (p. 83). Qualities identified by EMPLOY (1989) for the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) include "outgoing, good at motivating people, and sensitive to the needs of others .... Activity planning calls for creativity and resourcefulness. Willingness to accept responsibility and the ability to exercise judgement" (p. 3). The recurrent theme of personality characteristics or traits in the professional literature, clearly invites a more empirical approach in determining the type and importance of personality factors relating to CTRS's.
According to career needs theory, occupational differences are caused by selective factors or pressures the occupation exerts on the individual. The importance of understanding personality and its influence on our vocational choice was described by Super and Crites (1962) "each individual has certain abilities, interests, personality traits, and other characteristics which, if he/she knows them and their potential value, will make him/her a happier man/woman, a more effective worker, and a more useful citizen" (p. 1). The relationship between personality and vocation was described by Costa, McCrae, and Holland (1984) when they stated "vocational interests are strongly related to personality" (p. 393). Kleinmuntz (1982) described personality as "a unique organization of factors that determines an individual's pattern of interaction with the environment .... Personality is also the sum total of a person's traits, needs, motivations, and the unique way each has of striving for maximum personal effectiveness" (p. 14). The selection of an occupation is influenced by the individual's perception of its ability to affirm his or her self identity. Costa, McCrae, and Holland (1984) addressed the consistency of individual personality characteristics when they stated that "vocational interests and their associated personality traits are highly stable across adulthood" (p. 399).
Methodology
Sample
The study was conducted between November, 1990 and January, 1991. The subjects were "Professional" members of the American Therapeutic Recreation Association (ATRA). Using a random start, a stratified sample was generated by selecting every 7th name and going through the membership list twice. A total of 333 subjects, from the 1,166 individuals in the ATRA "Professional" membership category, were selected for this study. All respondents were currently NCTRC certified.
Data Collection Procedures
Subjects (N= 333) were contacted by mail with an explanatory letter, an invitation to participate, a 16PF questionnaire booklet, answer sheet, and a stamped return envelope. A follow-up postcard was sent five days after the initial mailing. A third contact letter, encouraging the subjects participation, was made to those subjects who had not responded four weeks after the initial mailing which resulted in an overall return rate of 75.4%. At the conclusion of the study, all respondents received an individual personality profile.
Instrument
The Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF) Form C was selected for the study. The 16PF measures 16 primary, functionally independent and psychologically meaningful dimensions (see Table 1). Form C, contains 105 items requiring an average of 25 minutes to complete. Cattell, Eber, and Tatsuoka (1988) established reliability for Form C between .52 and .78 on individual factors and direct validity for each factor scale between .49 and .76. The alpha reliability for the primary scales were calculated as .02 and for the secondary scales as .173. The 16PF is the result of 35 years of research and has been cited in over 2,000 book and journal articles.
The instrument uses a "forced-choice format" which provides three alternative responses to each item. There are eight items for the Factor B (Concrete-thinking/Abstract-thinking) scale and six items for each of the remaining scales (see Table 1). Age corrections were made when necessary, to individual raw scores prior to entering the norm tables for sten conversions. Age corrections are applied so that individual-difference variance and age variance will not be confounded (Cattell, Eber, & Tatsuoka, 1988).
Individual raw scores were converted into a "sten" (standard ten) score. The sten conversion allows the individual's score to be evaluated in relation to scores obtained by other people in some defined population. The population used for comparison in this study were adults ages 30 plus (General Population). The General Population norm table was compiled by the Institute for Personality Testing (IPAT) based upon more than 15,000 individual cases (Administrator's Manual For The 16PF, 1986). According to the IPAT's Administrator's Manual for the 16PF "Sten scores are distributed over 10 equal-interval standard score points (assuming normal distribution) from 1 through 10" (p.19). Sten scores of 4 through 7 would be considered "average" since they appear within one standard deviation of the population mean. Sten scores of 1-3 and 8-10 offer more information for interpretation since they appear far less frequently in a normal population.
According to Cattell and Kline (1977) the "16PF is a valuable test in vocational guidance and selection" (p. 307). A set of eight second order traits can be calculated by combining various primary scales. These composite scores provide additional information about potential for success in a specific occupation and leadership ability. Second order factors are given in Table 2. Cattell, Eber, and Tatsuoka (1988) described the 16PF's beneficial application to research when they stated:
The 16PF is a multidimensional set of sixteen questionnaire scales, arranged in omnibus form. It is designed to make available, in a practical testing time, information about an individual's standing on the majority of primary personality factors, twenty-three, if we count the 16PF Supplement, out of, perhaps thirty or so covered by existing research on the total human personality sphere (p. 1).
Table 1
Primary Personality Factors
Measured by the 16PF
| Factor | Low Sten Score Description (1-4) |
High Sten Score Description (7-10) |
| A | Cool, reserved, impersonal, detached, formal, aloof | Warm, outgoing, kindly, easygoing, participating, likes people |
| B | Concrete-thinking, less intelligent | Abstract-thinking, more intelligent, bright |
| C | Affected by feelings, emotionally less stable, easily annoyed | Emotionally stable, mature, faces reality, calm |
| E | Submissive, humble, mild, easily led, accommodating | Dominant, assertive, aggressive, stubborn, competitive, bossy |
| F | Sober, restrained, prudent, heedless, taciturn, serious | Enthusiastic, spontaneous, expressive, cheerful |
| G | Expedient, disregards rules, self-indulgent | Conscientious, conforming, staid, moralistic, rule-bound |
| H | Shy, threat-sensitive, timid, hesitant, intimidated | Bold, venturesome, uninhibited, can take stress |
| I | Tough-minded, self-reliant, no-nonsense, rough, realistic | Tender-minded, sensitive, intuitive, overprotected, refined |
| L | Trusting, accepting conditions, easy to get on with | Suspicious, hard to fool, distrustful, skeptical |
| M | Practical, steady, concerned with, "down to earth issues" | Imaginative, absent-minded, impractical, absorbed in thought |
| N | Forthright, unpretentious, open, genuine, artless | Shrewd, polished, socially aware, diplomatic, calculating |
| O | Self-assured, secure, untroubled, feels free of guilt, self-satisfied | Apprehensive, self-blaming, insecure, guilt-prone, worrying |
| Q1 | Conservative, respecting traditional ideas | Experimenting, liberal, critical, open to change |
| Q2 | Group-oriented, a "joiner" and sound follower, listens to others | Self-sufficient, resourceful, prefers own decisions |
| Q3 | Undisciplined self-conflict, lax, careless of social rules | Following self-image, socially precise, compulsive |
| Q4 | Relaxed, tranquil, composed, has low drive, unfrustrated | Tense, frustrated, overwrought, has high drive |
Table 2
Second Order Factors Measured by th 16PF
| Factor | Low Score Description (1-3) |
High Score Description |
| Extraversion | Introversion, shy, self-sufficient and inhibited in interpersonal contacts | Extraversion, socially outgoing, uninhibited, good at interpersonal contacts |
| Anxiety | Low Anxiety, has generally satisfied lives and able to attain goals | High Anxiety, are dissatisfied with their ability to achieve their goals |
| Tough Poise | Emotionally Sensitive, tend to be strongly influenced by their emotions. | Tough Poise, are more influenced by facts than feelings |
| Independence | Subduedness, group dependent, chastened, passive personalities | Independence, aggressive, daring, independent, incisive people |
| Superego/Control | Low Control, do not act according to other's values or out of sense of duty. | High Control, conform to expectations that others have set. |
| Adjustment | Neuroticism, apprehensive, emotionally reactive, sensitive | Adjustment, well adjusted, self-confident, assertive |
| Leadership | Low Leadership, non-assertive, lack self-control | High Leadership, sociable, self-assured, emotionally mature |
| Creativity | Low Creativity, tough-minded | High Creativity, imaginative |
Statistical Methods
Individual raw scores were age corrected, when appropriate, and then converted to standard ten (sten) scores using the 16PF, General Population, standardized conversion tables (Cattell, 1989). Means were calculated for each of the 16 primary and eight secondary traits to develop a vocational profile. Calculation of a confidence interval predicted a 95 percent confidence that the interval contains the mean of the population. Multivariate discriminant analysis was used to determine if any differences existed between CTRSs based on Gender or Primary Population Served. The purpose of discriminant analysis was to determine if differences existed within the population sampled based on the 16PF scores.
Results
Sample Characteristics
A total of 333 questionnaires were mailed, 249 (207 women, 42 men) usable questionnaires were received for an overall return rate of 75.4%. A basic assumption made in the current study was that CTRS's working in the field offer an "ideal" population. Any individual that has remained in a given occupation over time has demonstrated the necessary adjustment to the demands of the job and therefore form an acceptable criterion group (Cattell, Eber, & Tatsuoka, 1988).
A demographic description of the sample, with a comparison for Gender and Ethnic Origin from the NCTRC Job Analysis Project (1988), are given in Table 3. Descriptions of the Years of Experience, Primary Population Served, and Primary Work Setting are presented in Table 4. The average age for women CTRS's was 31.8 as compared to 37 for the male CTRS's for this sample.
___________________________
Insert Table 3 about here
___________________________
___________________________
Insert Table 4 about here
___________________________
All questionnaires were hand scored and checked for accuracy. Means and standard deviations were calculated, these data represent the occupational profile for CTRS's (see Table 5). The significance of the Vocational Profile is placed in a clearer perspective with a graph as shown in Figure 1.
___________________________
Place Table 5 about here
___________________________
___________________________
Place Figure 1 about here
___________________________
___________________________
Place Figure 2 about here
___________________________
As previously stated, scores of four through seven are considered "average" because they fall within one standard deviation of the population mean. This group represents about 75% of all scores in the population. However, scores of one through three and eight through ten are more significant in interpreting individual scores since they occur less frequently in the population.
It is important to note that the vocational profile is flatter and nearer the mean than any given individual's profile. This is a result of the statistical principle which describes that the sigma (a standard deviation for a population) of a set of means of random groups is much less than that of the individuals incorporating them (Cattell, Eber, and Tatsuoka, 1988). Therefore, it is the direction of the score that is important in interpreting separate factors in the 16PF. Many individuals' scores were in the extreme ranges and can be considered significant in providing information to these individual's. An example of an individual profile is shown in Figure 2.
Statistical Analyses
Means and standard deviations were calculated, these data represent the occupational profile for CTRS's. Two additional analyses are necessary to determine if all CTRSs' are similar in their personality. Multivariate analyses were used to determine if any personality factor differences were based on gender, and the possibility that certain CTRSs' personalities may be drawn to different populations which they served? No significant differences were found between Primary Population Served and 16PF scores. Significant differences (p<.001) between Gender (F=32.75) were identified for three factors: Factor E, Submissive vs. Dominant (.008); Factor G, Expedient vs. Conscientious (.017); and Factor Q2, Group-oriented vs. Self-sufficient (.042).
Discussion
This study has endeavored to expand existing research in professional preparation for the therapeutic recreation field. Previous criterion-type and norm-referencing efforts focused primarily on identifying job task analysis, job responsibilities and job dimensions while overlooking the impact of personality. The subtle and complex role of personality is responsible for, not only the attraction of an individual to a specialized occupation, but the level of success or satisfaction which they may attain in that occupation.
Knowledge, skills, and abilities are not the only conditions for admission to the therapeutic recreation profession, there are also personality characteristics which are distinctive and representative of the profession. The recognition of personality as the most important factor in determining an individual's success, as defined by productivity, and personal satisfaction in the therapeutic recreation field is obvious. Knowledge can be acquired, skills can be taught, but personality is a fixed determinant. This is not to say that there is only one "ideal" personality in the therapeutic recreation profession. Certainly a range of personality "types'" exist. However, based on the findings of this study, the range of personality "types" can be evaluated based on the ability of the profession to meet the individual's needs.
A study completed by Cunningham and Rollin (1991) on "Dimensions of Personality and Vocational Role Preferences" concluded that "leisure services students, both men and women, are significantly different from their nonmajor counterparts both in certain dimensions of personalities and vocational role preferences" (p. 22). The use of personality tests for screening potential therapeutic recreation students could be a valuable guidance tool. Even though vocational literature suggests that vocational choice is a self-selection process, this process is not always made with realistic and accurate information by a student. This instrument has been selectively used, at the University of Idaho, to advise students that seemed indecisive or dissatisfied about their career choice. This function can be provided by college or university placement offices with a follow-up meeting between the student and their faculty advisor to discuss the results of the assessment and implications for the student's career interests.
Although significant differences were identified between men and women on factors E (Submissive/Dominant), G (Expedient/Conscientious), and Q2 (Group-oriented/Self-sufficient), similarities on the majority of factors reveal an essentially androgynous profession. On Factor E, male scores were more toward the Submissive and female scores were more Dominant. On Factor G, male scores were more Expedient and female scores were more Conscientious. On Factor Q2, male scores were more toward the Group-oriented and female scores were more toward Self-sufficient. When these personality differences and similarities are understood by those working in the profession, new opportunities for career counseling and development are possible.
Even though the vocational profile shows scores in the
"average" range, the direction of
the score is significant in comparing individual scores to it. When the CTRS vocational profile is used to interpret an
individual profile its value is
realized. The use and
interpretation of the 16PF should only be conducted by trained personnel.
An example of such an interpretation is provided below based on the
individual profile shown in Figure 2.
The high score (9) on Factor A (Cold/Warm) indicates someone that is easy
going and likes people. If she had
a score of two or three on Factor A it would be a safe assumption that she would
not be able to create the personal bonds necessary to succeed in the job, also
this individual would be uncomfortable being place in a job that requires this
type of interpersonal interaction. The
high Factor B (Concrete-thinking/Abstract-thinking) score (8) indicates a very
intelligent and fast learner. A low
score on this factor would indicate someone that requires constant supervision
and direction. The high score (9)
on Factor C (Affected by
Feelings/Emotionally Stable) indicates someone that is emotionally mature and
realistic about life. A low score
on this factor would indicate a low frustration tolerance, fretful, and easily
annoyed. The average, but on
the upper range, score (6) on Factor E (Submissive/Dominant) indicates
assertiveness and self-assurance. A
low score would indicate someone who is passive and a conformist. The low score (3) on Factor F (Sober/Enthusiastic)
indicates someone who is introspective and dependable.
A high score represents someone who is effervescent and carefree may be
impulsive. Factor G
(Expedient/Conscientious) is traditionally a key gender trait.
The CTRS profile supports this trait as gender related.
Traditionally, females' score higher on conscientious while males' score
more towards expedient. This
individual reflects the general population trait in this respect.
The low score (2) on Factor H (Shy/Bold) indicates that this individual
will experience difficulty in developing and maintaining personal
relationships. The score (7) on
Factor I (Tough-minded/Tender-minded) is in the average range which indicates
someone not overly cynical, low score, or too emotionally sensitive, high score.
The score (4) on Factor L (Trusting/Suspicious) indicates a trusting
nature and a good team worker. The
average score (4) on Factor M (Practical/Imaginative) indicates someone not too
anxious, low score, or too impractical, high score.
The score (4) on Factor N (Forthright/Shrewd) indicates genuineness, low
score, as opposed to unsentimental, high score.
The score (6) on Factor O (Self-assured/Apprehensive) indicates some
insecurity or worry and high personal expectations.
This score is still in the average range.
The score (7) for Factor Q1 (Conservative/Experimenting) indicates a
tendency to experiment and can tolerate inconvenience and change.
The score (7) on Factor Q2 (Group-oriented/Self-sufficient) indicates
someone who is temperamentally independent and can make their own decisions.
The score (10) on Factor Q3 (Undisciplined Self-conflict/Following
Self-image) indicates an extreme score of someone that has strong control of
their emotions and behavior but can be perfectionists.
The score (4) on Factor Q4 (Relaxed/Tense) indicates someone relaxed and
composed, but not lazy.
The second order characteristics provide important information concerning more generalized personality traits. The Extraversion score (3.6) indicates someone not extroverted and may be inhibited in interpersonal contacts. The Anxiety score (3.9) is low, indicating that this persons life is generally satisfying. The score (4.3) on Tough Poise is on the low end and indicates a gentle person. The score (4.9) on Independence is average which indicates someone not too passive or too aggressive. The score (10) on Superego indicates a high score and someone who conforms to the expectations of others and very reliable, but, can be perceived as rigid. The score (6.7) on Adjustment is towards the high end which indicates self-confidence and flexibility. The score (6.3) on Leadership is towards the high end and indicates traits that are expected of leaders. The score (6.6) on Creativity is towards the high end and indicates someone that is imaginative and experimenting. Important facts can be drawn from this type of assessment. For a more empirical analysis, individual scores can be compared to the CTRS vocational profile by computing a correlation coefficient. This type of investigation is planned in a follow-up study. Case studies by Pietrofesa and Splete (1975) reveal that "personal maladjustment often underlies occupational dissatisfaction, frequent job changes, instability in an occupation..." (p.48). Knowledge about personality characteristics of CTRS's can mitigate employee dissatisfaction and turnover by integrating personality strengths with job responsibilities.
A recognized limitation of the study is the subject group. The sample, Professional members of ATRA, may not be totally representative of all CTRS's. Even though all of the individual's included in this study were currently certified by NCTRC, the results of this study need to be compared with a sample of current CTRS's which belong to the National Therapeutic Recreation Association (NTRS). However, a study by Brown, Brooks, and Associates (1990) concluded that vocational choice is based on a broad range of variables which include: gender; economics; family background; education; special skills; physical capacities & appearance; chance; peer group; cognitive; temperament & personality; and interests and values. Therefore, based on the demographic similarity of Gender and Ethnicity between the population sampled and the NCTRC (1988) study, this vocational profile can be considered as representative of the profession until additional studies can be completed.
The findings of this study support the hypothesis that specific occupations attract people with similar personality characteristics (Brown, Brooks, and Associates,1990; Cattell, Eber, & Tatsuoka, 1988; Holland, 1966; and Pietrofesa and Splete, 1975). The historical dichotomy between "vocational interests" and "personality" have been integrated to reflect a more enlightened and useful understanding of the role personality plays in the therapeutic recreation profession. In conclusion, to expand on the accepted definition of a profession by Stumbo (1986); the therapeutic recreation profession is not only a unique body of knowledge; but, a unique group of people with shared personality characteristics which will determine to a large extent the success, but possibly most important, the satisfaction which an individual can derive from this evolving profession.
References
Austin, D. R. & Crawford, M. E. (1991). Therapeutic recreation: An introduction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Brown, D., Brooks, L., & Associates. (1990).
Career choice and development (2nd
ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cattell, H. B., (1989). The 16PF:
Personality in depth. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and
Ability Testing.
Cattell, R. B., Eber, H. W., & Tatsuoka, M. M. (1988). Handbook
for the sixteen personality factor questionnaire (16PF). Champaign, IL:
Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.
Cattell, R. B. & Kline, P. (1977). The scientific analysis of personality and motivation.New York:
Academic Press.
Costa, P. T., Jr., McCrae, R. R., & Holland, J. L. (1984).
Personality and vocational interests in an
adult sample. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 69, 390-400.
Cunningham, P. H. & Rollin, S. (1991). Dimensions of personality and vocational role preferences: A
further examination of the status of women entering the leisure services
profession. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 9 (2), 18-24.
Dillman, D. A., (1978). Mail
and telephone surveys: The total design method.
New York: John Wiley &
Sons.
EMPLOY. (1989). Recreation
worker-who we are to the rest of the world. Alexandria, VA: National
Recreation and Park Association.
Filer, R. K. (1986). The
role of personality and tastes in determining occupational structure.
Industrial and Labor Relations
Review. 39 (3), 412-424.
Flynn, P. A. R. (1980). Holistic
health: The art and science of care. Bowie, MD: Robert
J. Brady Co.
Haun, P. (1966). Recreation:
A medical viewpoint.New York: Teachers College Press.
Holland, J. L. (1966). The
psychology of vocational choice. Waltham, MA: Blaisdell.
Holland, J.L. (1973). Making
vocational choices: A theory of careers.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Holland, J.L. (1985). Making
vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments
(2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Institute For Personality and Ability Testing. (1986). Administrator's
manual for the 16 personality factor questionnaire. Champaign, IL: Author.
Kelly, J. D., Robb, G. M., Wook, P., & Halberg, K. J. (1974). Therapeutic
recreation education: Developing a
competency-based entry-level curriculum. Urbana, IL: Illinois Community
College Project, Office of Recreation and Park Resources, University of
Illinois.
Kennedy, J. J. & Bush, A. J. (1985). An introduction to the design and analysis of experiments in
behavioral research. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Kleinmuntz, B. (1982). Personality
and psychological assessment. New York: St. Martin's Press.
National Council on Therapeutic Recreation Certification. (1988). Report
on the national job analysis project.Spring Valley, NY: Author.
Occupational Outlook Handbook. (1988). Recreational Therapists (D.O.T. 076.124-014). Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Labor.
Pietrofesa, J. J. & Splete, H. (1975). Career development:
Theory and research.New York: Grune & Stratton.
Spatz, C. & Johnston, J. O. (1984). Basic statistics(3rd
ed.). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole
Publishing.
Stumbo, N. J. (1986). A definition of entry-level knowledge for therapeutic recreation practice.
Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 20 (4), 15-30.
Super, D. E. & Crites, J. O. (1962). Appraising vocational fitness (rev. ed.). New York: Harper & Brothers.
Table 3
Demographic Description of Sample with a Comparison to the NCTRC Job Analysis Project
__________________________________________________________________________________________
16PF Study NCTRC Study
Factor Description Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage __________________________________________________________________________________________
Ethnicity white, non-Hispanic 228 91.6% 765 90.1%
Black 6 2.4% 40 4.7%
Asian 2 .8% 10 1.2%
Hispanic 1 .4% 7 .8%
American Indian 1 .4% 2 .2%
Other 11 4.4% 25 2.9%
Gender Female 207 83.1% 680 80.1%
Male 42 16.9% 159 18.7%
Age 20-24 17 6.8% [no suitable comparison]
25-29 61 24.5%
30-34 74 29.7%
35-39 43 17.3%
40-44 21 8.4%
45-49 8 3.2%
50-54 4 1.6%
55 + 8 3.2%
Omitted 4 1.6%
__________________________________________________________________________________________
NCTRC data reprinted with permission.
Table 4
Years of Experience; Primary Population Served; and Primary Work Setting
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Factor Description Frequency Percentage
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Years Experience as CTRS less than 5 69 27.7%
5 to 9 yrs 95 38.2%
10 to 14 yrs 52 20.9%
15 to 19 yrs 16 6.4%
20 + yrs 6 2.4%
omitted 11 4.4%
Setting Community Mental Health 8 3.2%
General Hospital 35 14.1%
Multiple Care Facility 19 17.6%
Nursing Home 7 2.8%
Psychiatric Hospital 63 25.3%
Recreation & Park Dept. 5 2.0%
Rehabilitation Hospital 60 24.1%
Residential Care Facility 16 6.4%
Other 36 14.4%
Population Chemical Dependency 5 2.0%
Chronic Pain 2 .8%
Head Trauma 11 4.4%
MR & DD 9 3.6%
Multiple Disabilities 12 4.8%
Multiple Populations 83 33.3%
Oncology 1 .4%
PM & R 17 6.8%
Pediatric 7 2.8%
Psychiatric 66 26.5%
Senior Citizen 12 4.8%
Other 24 9.6%
Table 5
Mean and Standard Deviation for the 16PF by Gender _____________________________________________________________________________________________
Factor Description Mean SD Mean SD
Female Female Male Male
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
A Cool vs Warm 6.227 1.948 6.714 1.784
B Concrete-thinking vs Abstract-thinking 6.685 1.724 6.619 1.738
C Affected by Feelings vs Emotionally Stable 6.473 2.006 6.738 2.072
E Submissive vs Dominant 6.256 1.808 5.380 2.488
F Sober vs Enthusiastic 5.700 1.850 5.523 2.244
G Expedient vs Conscientious 6.028 1.869 5.285 1.671
H Shy vs Bold 5.855 2.198 6.214 2.311
I Tough-minded vs Tender-minded 5.681 2.150 5.833 2.207
L Trusting vs Suspicious 4.869 1.810 4.404 1.795
M Practical vs Imaginative 4.753 2.113 4.904 1.935
N Forthright vs Shrewd 4.729 2.223 4.690 1.981
O Self-assured vs Apprehensive 5.333 2.033 5.333 1.882
Q1 Conservative vs Experimenting 5.371 2.062 5.714 1.929
Q2 Group-oriented vs Self-sufficient 5.768 1.647 5.190 1.783
Q3 Undisciplined vs Following self-image 5.826 2.031 5.476 1.656
Q4 Relaxed vs Tense 5.048 1.691 4.833 1.751
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
N = 249 (207 women and 42 men)
Figure 1. Occupational Profile for the 16 primary and eight secondary factors using the 16PF.
STEN SCORES
Factors
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
A
cool
.
.
.
.
.
. o
x .
.
.warm
B
concrete
.
.
.
.
.
. ox
.
.
.
.abstract
C
feeling
.
.
.
.
.
. o x
.
.
.
.stable
E
submissive
.
.
.
.
. x
. o
.
.
.
.dominant
F
sober
.
.
.
.
. x o
.
.
.
.
.enthusiastic
G
expedient
.
.
.
.
. x
o
.
.
.
.conscientious
H
shy
.
.
.
.
.
o
. x
.
.
.
.bold
I
tough-minded
.
.
.
.
. o
x
.
.
.
.
.tender-minded
L
trusting
.
.
.
. x
o .
.
.
.
.
.suspicious
M
practical
.
.
.
. o
x .
.
.
.
.
.imaginative
N
forthright
.
.
.
. xo
.
.
.
.
.
.shrewd
O
self-assured
.
.
.
.
. xo
.
.
.
.
.apprehensive
Q1
conservative
.
.
.
.
. o
x
.
.
.
.
.experimenting
Q2
group-oriented
.
.
.
.
. x o
.
.
.
.
.self-sufficient
Q3
undisciplined
.
.
.
.
. x
o
.
.
.
.
.following
self-image
Q4
relaxed
.
.
.
. x
o
.
.
.
.
.tense
Extraversion
.
.
.
.
.
o
. x
.
.
.
.extraversion
Anxiety
.
.
.
. xo
.
.
.
.
.
.high
anxiety
Tough
Poise
.
.
.
.
. x
o
.
.
.
.
.tough
poise
Independence
.
.
.
.
. ox
.
.
.
.
.independence
Superego
.
.
.
.
. x
o
.
.
.
.high
control
Adjustment
.
.
.
.
.
. x o
.
.
.
.adjustment
Leadership
.
.
.
.
.
x
. o
.
.
.high
leadership
Creativity
.
.
.
.
.
x o
.
.
.
.
.high
creativity
o = female scores
x = male scores
Figure 2. Example of Individual Profile for the 16 primary and eight secondary factors using the 16PF.
STEN SCORES
Factors
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
A
cool
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
o
.warm
B
concrete
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
o.
.
.abstract
C
feeling
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
o
.stable
E
submissive
.
.
.
.
.
o
.
.
.
.dominant
F
sober
.
.
o
.
.
.
.
.
.
.enthusiastic
G
expedient
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
o
.
.conscientious
H
shy
.
o
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.bold
I
tough-minded
.
.
.
.
.
.
o
.
.
.tender-minded
L
trusting
.
.
.
o
.
.
.
.
.
.suspicious
M
practical
.
.
.
o
.
.
.
.
.
.imaginative
N
forthright
.
.
.
o
.
.
.
.
.
.shrewd
O
self-assured
.
.
.
.
.
o
.
.
.
.apprehensive
Q1
conservative
.
.
.
.
.
.
o
.
.
.experimenting
Q2
group-oriented
.
.
.
.
.
.
o
.
.
.self-sufficient
Q3
undisciplined
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. o
.following
self-image
Q4
relaxed
.
.
.
o
.
.
.
.
.
.tense
Extraversion
.
.
. o
.
.
.
.
.
.
.extraversion
Anxiety
.
.
.
o.
.
.
.
.
.
.high
anxiety
Tough
Poise
.
.
.
. o
.
.
.
.
.
.tough
poise
Independence
.
.
.
.
o.
.
.
.
.
.independence
Superego
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. o
.high
control
Adjustment
.
.
.
.
.
. o
.
.
.
.adjustment
Leadership
.
.
.
.
.
. o .
.
.
.high
leadership
Creativity
.
.
.
.
.
.
o .
.
.
.high creativity
o
= scores for a 35 year old female with five years in the field working at a
psychiatric hospital
Copyright
2001. Northern Arizona University, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED