Chapter 3

METHODOLOGY

3.1 Method

3.2 Population

3.3 Sampling

3.4 Description of Tools used

3.5 Procedure of data collection

3.6 Data analysis

References
 116

Chapter 3

METHODOLOGY

3.1 METHOD

The survey approach under the descriptive research method was

adopted in the present investigation.

3.2 POPULATION

As per List of Affiliated Government Colleges issued by the College

Development Council (CDC), Manipur University, there are twenty-seven

(27) government colleges under Manipur University situated in the four (4)

valley districts of Manipur (Appendix 1). Out of this, eighteen (18)

colleges are providing general education and nine (9) colleges are

providing professional education. The Meitei students studying in the 27

colleges formed the universe of the study.

3.3 SAMPLE

The researcher adopted the Incidental Sampling in the selection of

the sample to be studied. The use of the incidental sampling became

imperative because of the fact that in most of the colleges the non-
 117

availability of the students due to very thin enrolment was the base

problem encountered by the investigator. As a result, the incidental

sampling was adopted in which any available Meitei student was selected

as sample of the study. In this process, altogether 534 Meitei students

participated in the study as sample of the study. So also, out of the 27

colleges, 5 colleges, out of which 4 are general and 1 professional, were

not included in the study because of thin enrolment of students.

Distribution of the Meitei student sample in the general and professional

education colleges is shown in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1
Distribution of Meitei students in the general and professional
education

Sex General Education Professional Education Total

Male 140 100 240

Female 152 142 294

Total 292 242 534

3.4 TOOLS USED

In this study, in order to explore the personality of the students, two

(2) standardised questionnaires were used. The first questionnaire was

developed by Upinder Dhar and Manisha Jain and the second questionnaire
 118

was developed by H. J. Eysenck. The description of the scales are as

follows:

(i) Type A/B Behavioural Pattern Scale (ABBPS):

This scale was developed by Upinder Dhar and Manisha Jain. The

scale is used to measure Type A/B behaviour pattern in Indian context. It is

presented in the form of a 5-point scale-strongly agree, agree, uncertain,

disagree and strongly disagree. The scale has two parts-Form A and Form

B. Form A consists of seventeen (17) items and Form B consists of sixteen

(16) items which is a total of thirty- three (33) items (Appendix 2). Form A

is used to measure Type A and Form B to measure Type B behaviour

patterns separately, because if a person scores high on Type A, it does not

mean that he is not having any characteristics of Type B personality. There

is a possibility that along with Type A characteristics he has some of the

characteristics of Type B personality because most of the personalities

have some of the characteristics of both the personality types. In other

words, their personalities are mixture of Type A and Type B personalities.

So, it is necessary to measure both the personality types separately, so that

it could be determined that how much of both the personality types a

person is having. One may be oriented more towards a particular type, but

may have some characteristics of other type too. As for the reliability of the
 119

scale, the reliability coefficient of Form A has been found to be .54 and

coincidently, for Form B also it has been found to be .54. The scale has

high content validity, besides face validity. The validity for both the forms

which has been separately measured has been found to be .73 (Dhar &

Jain, 2001). Regarding the administration of the scale, the scale is self-

administering. It can be administered in groups or individually. As there is

no time limit for completing the scale, most respondents, however, take

about 10 minutes to complete both the forms. The respondents are required

to answer all the questions and there are no right or wrong answer to the

statements. Scoring is done manualy, hence there is no scoring key. Each

statement is scored 5 for strongly agree, 4 for agree, 3 for uncertain, 2 for

disagree and 1 for strongly disagree. Sum of the scores of Form A and

Form B yields Type A score and Type B score respectively.

For this scale, norms for interpretation of raw scores is presented

below:

Individuals with very high scores on Form A may be considered as

Type A personalities and individuals having very high scores on Form B

may be considered as Type B personalities. Table 3.2(a) presents norms for

interpretation of raw scores.

Table 3.2(a)

Norms for interpretation of raw scores

Form A Form B

Mean (M) 53.05 51.97

Standard Deviation 6.70 6.22

Normal range 46 – 60 46 – 58

High 61 & above 59 & above

Low 45 & below 45 & below

Source: Dhar & Jain, 2001, p. 19.

Interpretation of the Type A-Type B scores is done in the following

way: (Dhar & Jain, 2001, pp. 21- 22)

(a) An individual having Type A and Type B scores within the

normal ranges does not demonstrate distinct tendency for either

of the types. He may sometimes behave typically like a Type A

person, whereas behave like a Type B person on other

occasions.

(b) An individual having Type A score within normal range and

Type B score below normal range is a clear Type A person.

(c) An individual having Type B score within normal range and

Type A score below normal range is a clear Type B person.

(d) An individual having either Type A or Type B score above

normal range and other score within normal range can be

considered Type A or Type B on the basis of higher scores.

(e) An individual having Type A and Type B scores either below

normal range or above normal range does not demonstrate

distinct tendency for either of the types. Such an individual is

likely to behave typically like a Type A or Type B on different

occasions.

(f) An individual having either Type A or Type B score above

normal range and other score below normal range can be

considered Type A or Type B on the basis of higher score.

In this study, based on the norms for interpretation of raw scores,

the students were grouped under Type A, Type B and Type AB

personality.

(ii) Maudsley Personality Inventory (MPI):

This scale was developed by H. J. Eysenck. It was designed to give

a rough-and-ready measure of two important personality dimensions:

Neuroticism or emotionality, and Extraversion. Long form of the scale

consisting of 48 questions and short form consisting of two scales of six

items each, taken from long form of the scales is there. Either of the two
 122

can be used to collect information. In the present study, short form

consisting of twelve (12) questions had been used (Appendix 3). As

regards the reliability of the short scale it was found to be .80 for the

Neuroticism scale and .72 for the Extraversion scale. The correlations

between the long and the short M.P.I. scales are .86 and .87 respectively

for N and E. The instructions for filling up the form can be read aloud to

groups of subjects, or be read silently by subjects tested individually. The

subjects are not to be amplified or alerted in any way. When the

questionnaires are collected after completion, care should be taken to check

that all questions have been answered; where answers are missing subjects

should have their attention drawn to the omissions. Completed

questionnaires should be scrutinized for the number of “?” responses which

should be recorded on the front page. If this number exceeds 10, results are

of very doubtful value; the subject may be retested, and part of the

instructions relating to use of “?” responses brought to his special attention.

A translucent scoring key is available for each of the two scales.

The instructions to use the key are given on the key itself. For the short

scale, the scores on page 1 are added. It has been made sure that the key

and the questionnaire which is being scored are properly aligned; the

numbers in front of the questions on the inventory should correspond with

the numbers of the key.

The norms for interpretation of raw scores to standard scores of MPI

short scale is given in Table 3.2 (b):

Table 3.2(b)

Interpretation of raw scores to standard scores of MPI short scale

M.P.I. Dimensions of Short Scale

1 30 21

2 34 25

3 37 29

4 40 33

5 43 37

6 46 41

7 50 45

8 53 49

9 56 53

10 59 57

11 63 61

12 66 65

Raw Score Mean 7.202 8.312

Raw Score Standard 3.214 2.492

Source: Eysenck, 1993, p. 9.

One can easily enter the raw score as obtained directly from the test

booklet on the left side of the table. The standard score value equivalent to

that raw score will be found to the right in that row of the table relating to

N and E dimensions.

Thus, one may easily interpret that a standard score of 50 is equal to

the average. A difference of 10 standard scores is ± sigma from the average

and is not significant. But a standard score of 70 or 30 needs attention.

Similarly, a standard score above 70 or below 30 indicates a very

considerable deviation from the average. So, accordingly, in this study, a

standard score in the range 40-60 is designated ‘equal to the average (A)’;

a standard score in the range 30-39, 61-70 is ‘equal to deviated (D)’, and a

standard score above 70 or below 30 indicates ‘highly deviated (HD)’. The

students had been categorized accordingly under the three categories i.e.,

A, D, HD in both neuroticism and extraversion dimensions of personality.

3.5 PROCEDURE OF DATA COLLECTION

In the data collection process, the researcher had first of all, sorted

out both the professional and general colleges situated in the four valley

districts of Manipur from the list of Affiliated Government Colleges

supplied by College Development Council, Manipur University. After

sorting out the colleges, the researcher collected information by personally

visiting the colleges or in some cases through a secondary source about the

availability and the percentage of students present in the colleges.

Accordingly, the target colleges were selected. The researcher then, made a

written application to each of the head of the institution where the

researcher had targeted for her data collection. On the day of the data

collection, the researcher approached the head of the institution first and

asked for the permission to meet the students. Permission being granted, as

per the requirements of the study, the researcher had approached only the

Meitei students and firstly, the purpose of the visit had been explained

properly to them and asked whether they had any problems in filling up the

questionnaire. The subjects were assured that their responses would be kept

confidential and whatever results come out from their responses would be

helpful to them and in gaining insight over their behavioural orientation.

After this, with their consent and full cooperation, the subjects were asked

to sit in groups or in some cases individually in any available classrooms or

any open space in the campus. The two set of questionnaires-ABBPS and

MPI were distributed to the subjects, and the subjects were told to fill up

the MPI first, and secondly, the ABBPS. After making sure that the

subjects were seated comfortably, the instructions printed on the scale were

read aloud to them, or the subjects were told to read silently by themselves.

Prior to making responses to the statements, the students were told to fill
 126

up the personal information sheet printed on the front page. The researcher

had been very careful in not to amplify or alert the students in any way. As

the scale can be self –administered, the subjects had been told to make the

responses as quickly as possible, without leaving any statements

unanswered. The subjects were told that there is no right or wrong answer

to the statements, and a genuine response was expected from them. There

is no time limit for completing the questionnaires, but the subjects were

told that 15 minutes time is enough for completing both the questionnaires.

In between the administration of the scale, if the respondents had any

difficult or confusing statement, then the researcher takes no time in

clearing their doubts. When the questionnaires were collected after

completion, care had been taken to check that all questions had been

answered; and where answers were missing subjects were made to draw

their attention to the omissions. In the case of MPI, completed

questionnaires were scrutinized for the number of “?” responses and were

recorded on the front page. If this number exceeds 3, as results would be of

very doubtful value, the subjects were retested and the part of the

instructions relating to use of “?” responses were explained carefully to the

subject again not to commit the mistake any further. The subjects were

thanked for their cooperation and patience. Some of the subjects were so

eager to know their personality types that they requested the researcher to
 127

inform them the result of the test. The researcher having finished collecting

the data, thanked the head of the institution for his/her cooperation.

3.6 DATA ANALYSIS

The data were analysed with the help of SPSS and computed

accordingly. Percentage and Chi-square test were used to analyse and

interpret the data. In writing the thesis, both the ethnographic past and

present tense were used, wherever necessary.

REFERENCES

College Development Council. List of Affiliated Government Colleges.

Canchipur: Manipur University.

Dhar, Upinder, and Jain, Manisha. (2001). Manual for Type A/B

Behavioural Pattern Scale. Lucknow: Ankur Psychological

Agency.

Eysenck, H. J. (1993). Manual for Maudsley Personality Inventory.

London: Author.