Psychological Reports, 1975, 36, 451-459. @ Psychological Reports 1975
A MEASURE OF INDIVIDUAL SENSE OF COMPETENCE FRANCIS R. WAGNER AND JOHN J. MORSE University of California, Los Angeles Summary.-A paper-and-pencil instrument to measure an individual's "sense of competence" or his basic psychological feelings of confidence and competence resulting from mastery of his environment is developed in this research. The content validity of the instrument is demonstrated based on the interpretation of four factors extracted from factor analysis and the subsequent analytic oblique solution. The predictive validity of the instrument is strongly suppotted by two separate studies conducted by two different groups of researchers. Internal reliability is also tested and found to be satisfactory. Finally, the implications of the new instrument for furure research, especially in organizational and work settings, are discussed.
Researchers and theorists have long p i n r e d to a tendency in animals and children to explore and master their external environment because that activity was satisfying in itself (Montgomery, 1754; Berlyne, 1750; Piaget, 1754). From such evidence, White (1757, 1963) proposed there is a basic, even biological, urge - or drive in all individuals to influence and master their environment. He called this urge or drive "effeccance," describing it as inherent in the mental apparatus. The biological significance of the effectance drive is to develop an individual's "competence," or his existing capacity to interact effectively with his environment. Competence is the cumulative result of a person's life history of interactions w i t h the external world, including work. White then describes a "sense of competence" as the subjective side of one's actual competence. It is the subjective feelings an irrdividual has about his abilities and reflects his confidence resulting from his cumulative interactions with his environment over his life. These feelings are ircportant individual psychological rewards which provide continued incentives to behave competently. The importance of a sense of competence becomes even clearer by recognizing than an individual's self-esteem and the esteem given him by others are contingent on the ability to master the environment and, therefore, on a sense of competence itself (White, 1963, pp. 125-150). White saw the main value in his theory lying in the evolving structuring of an individual's personality from taking action on any environment and deriving a sense of competence from that action. Nonetheless, as the term "sense of competence" is used in this paper, it refers more particularly to an individual's feelings and confidence about his abilities in mastering an organizational and work setting. It is also important to point out that the term refers not to how competent organizational rcembers actually are but rather to their internal feelings about how competent they seem to themselves from engaging in a work environment and solving problems in it.
F. R. WAGNER
&
J. J. MORSE
QUESTIONNAIRE MEASUREOF A SENSEOF COMPETENCE Every type of psychological assessment has its own unique strengths and weaknesses, whether the approach is psychodynamic, psychometric, clinical, phenomenological or behavioral. For example, a reliable and validated measure of a sense of competence based on projeccive techniques has already been developed by Morse (1969) for use with managers and professionals. The projective technique has probably been the most powerful analytical tool for measuring thoughts, feelings and attitudes of individuals. However, it is a cumbersome technique requiring specially trained scorers using elaborately designed scoring manuals to ensure interscorer reliability. Also, the manner in which a projective instrument is administered becomes an important variable which can influence a subject's response to the material. Therefore, administration must be controlled for. Because of these issues, projective methods appear to be especially inefficient for research when sample sizes are large. A final criticism sf projeccive techniques is that what is projected by individuals in response to the stimuli in the projective instrument is unclear and controversial (Murstein, 1963; Zubin, Eron, & Schumer, 1965 ) . The objective in this paper is to develop a paper-and-pencil test as an alternate assessment technique for further research dealing with a sense of competence. The development of a paper-and-pencil test does not, of course, solve the researcher's methodological problems. Self-report measures may or may not be closely related to other indices of an individual's behavior, feelings or attitudes. What an individual says about himself (test behavior) does not necessarily reflect accurately what he actually does or feels (nonrest behavior and feelings). Nonetheless, because of the ease and efficiency of administering and scoring self-report measures (especially with large samples), the development of a paper-and-pencil test for sense of competence for future research seems justified. Deueloping the Instrument Relying heavily on White's writings ( 1959, 1960, 1963, 1967), an initial pool of 93 statements was developed to incorporate the most important aspects of th'e theory of sense of competence. The statements were analyzed for redundancies and possible ambiguities, and subsequently reduced to 60 statements for administration to a group Re- of U. S. Postal Service executives ( N = 35). sponse sets, the special response tendencies associated with answering paperand-pencil instruments, were partially controlled for by administering the Crowne and Marlowe (1960) social desirability scale with the 60-item test of sense of competence. The score on each statement for the Postal Service sample was correlated with the total score for the questionnaire and the MarloweCrowne social desirability scale. The purpose of the pretest of the instrument was elimination of any items which had both a high correlation with the social -
MEASURE: INDIVIDUAL SENSE OF COMPETENCE
453
desirability scale and low item-total score correlation. This pretest resulted in a refinement of the instrument to 50 statements. This 50-item questionnaire was administered to 310 individuals working on a variety of jobs in a number of different work settings. The sample was deliberately constructed to represent a wide variety of organizations, tasks, skills, and work experiences. Choosing a single organization, a particular type of organization or a particular level of organizational hierarchy (e.g., top-level managers) would have probably increased the homogeneity in the sample, but the possibility of charaaeristics peculiar to any one organization or task setting might limit the applicability of the test to other situations. Thus, this sample of 310 individuals consisted of personnel from five organizations, geographically distributed, ranging from a large international corporation to a small computer firm. An approximately equal number of managers and white and blue collar employees comprised the sample: 150 managers: 20% upper management, 40% middle management, 40% lower management; 160 white and blue collar employees: 50% technical specialists, 25% clerical, and 25% secretarial. The format for answering the statements on sense of competence is a Likerttype agreement-disagreement scale. Response to each item is on a +4 (very strong agreement) to -4 (very strong disagreement) scale. T o compute a total sense of competence score, a subject's responses on negatively-scored (-) items are reversed and then an algebraic sum of the responses to the scale is obtained. The 50 statements were reduced to a final 23-item instrument (Table 1) based on the following criteria: ( a ) significant correlation of item score with the total score, ( b ) insignificant correlation of the scale with the Crowne and Marlowe ( 1960) social desirability scale, and ( c ) content validity inferred in part from the factor analysis of the pool of items. Item-total correlations exceeded 0.35 ( $ = .001) for each of the 23 statements and the scale in toto correlated only 0.22 ( p = .001) with the Crowne and Marlowe social desirability scale. T o explore the content of the final questionnaire, the 23 items were factor analyzed using Nie, Bent, and Hull's (1970) Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. The principal factor method was used with squared multiple correlations in the diagonal cells of the intercorrelation matrix. Three factors were extracted with eigenvalues exceeding 1.00. A fourth factor was subsequently included for reasons of strong support for White's theory and Morse's (1969) earlier projective instrument to measure a sense of competence. After the unrotated factor matrix was rotared to the varirnax criterion, analytic oblique rotations (Table 2 ) were performed using an analytic program developed by Comrey (1973) to improve simple structure. The analytic rotation of the four factors varied only slightly from the orthogonal rotation, which accounted for 40% of the variance. Composite scores for each of the factors were determined
454
F. R. WAGNER
&
J. J. MORSE
TABLE 1 QUESTIONNAIREMEASUREOF SENSEOF COMPETENCE (+) 1. N o one knows this job better than I do. ( + ) 2. Problems here are easy to solve once you understand the various consequences of your actions, a skill I have acquired. (-1 3. Even though the work here could be rewarding, I am frustrated and find motivation continuing only because of my paycheck. ( + ) 4. 1 meet my own personal expectations for expertise in doing this job. 5. I do not know why it is, but sometimes when I'm supposed to be in con(-1 trol I feel more like the one being manipulated. (-1 6. I do not know as much as my predecessor did concerning this job. 7. Unfortunately, an individual's worth often passes unrecognized no matter ( how hard he tries. ( + ) 8. I would make a fine model for an apprentice to emulate in order to learn the skills he would need to succeed. (+) 9. This job is manageable and any problems tend to be optimally solved. ( + ) 10. If anyone here can find the answer, I'm the one. ( - ) 11. Sometimes I feel like I'm not getting anything done. ( + ) 12. This job offers me a chance to test myself and my abilities. ( + ) 13. This type of work offers subjective rewards; the job is valuable to me for no other reason than I like to do it. ( - ) 14. I go home the same way I arrive in the morning, feeling I have not accomplished a whole lot. ( - ) 15. A difficult problem in this job is not knowing the results of one's actions. ( - ) 16. My talents, or where I can concentrate my attention best, are found in areas not related to this job. ( + ) 17. Considering the time spent on the job, I feel thoroughly familiar with my tasks. ( - ) 18. If the work were only more interesting I would be motivated to perform better. ( + ) 19. I honestly believe I have all the skills necessary to perform this task well. (-) 20. This job makes me tense and anxious. ( + ) 21. Doing this job well is a reward in itself. ( + ) 22. I can get so wrapped u p in my work that I forget what time it is and even where I am. (+) 23. Mastering this job meant a lot to me.
based on the simple method of singling out statements that loaded above a cutoff value of 0.40 on each factor and then adding these scores. The correlation matrix (Table 3 ) computed from these composite scores for the 310 subjects demonstrates only a moderate degree of interrelatedness among the factor scores. Content Validity Based on Factor lnterpretation Factor 1. Competence Thema.-This factor characterizes the over-all, global feelings attributed to a sense of competence. Examples of item statements loading on this factor are: "Doing this job well is a reward in itself," and "Mastering this job meant a lot to me." The individual expresses his own general feelings (his Gestalt) around experiences of feelings of competence at work. Mastery and confidence from work behavior that result in intrinsic,
MEASURE: INDIVIDUAL SENSE OF COMPETENCE
45 5
TABLE 2 OBLIQUEROTATIONS ( PATTHRNMATRIX) Factor I
Factor I1
Factor I11
Factor N
Varl2 Vat2 l Varl8 Var23 Vat16 Varl3 Var22 Vat03 VarO2 Varl7 Vat09 Varl9 Vat04 Vat08 VarO5 Varl4 Var07 Vat15 Var2O Varll VarO 1 VarlO VarOG
TABLE 3 C O R R E L A ~bfAWIX ON OF COMPOSITE SCORESBASEDON FACTOR LOADINGS FROMOBLIQUE ROTATIONS Factor Faaor Factor Factor
I
11 111 IV
Factor I
Factor I1
Factor 111
1.000 0.234 0.381 0.103
0.234 1.000 0.370 0.428
0.381 0.370 1.000 0.235
Factor IV 0.103 0.428 0.235 1.000
psychological rewards are the focal concepts in the theory of a sense of competence. The mastering of work-related activities gives the individual subjective gratification simply from doing a job well. Factor IL T a ~ kKnoulledge/Problem-so1vzn.g.-This factor captures the ability of the respondent to understand and solve problems encountered in his work. It is characterized by such statements as: "Problems here are easy ro solve once you understand the various consequences of your actions, a skill I have acquired," and, "Considering the time spent on the job, I feel thoroughly
F. R. WAGNER s( J. J. MORSE
456
familiar with my tasks." This factor describes the extent to which the individual feels he utilizes the relevant knowledge of his job to test his ability in taskrelated activities. The more appropriate the problem solution to the situation, as perceived by the respondent, the more competent he feels. Factor 111. Influence.-The influence factor is similar to the general psychological construct developed by Rotter (1966) measuring an individual's predisposition toward internal vs external control. However, while Rotter's internal/ external control scale describes an individual's general feelings toward society, this factor from this research relates specifically to the work setting. Sample statements in this factor, all of which load negatively, are "I do not know why it is, but sometimes when I'm supposed to be in control I feel more like the one being manipulated," and, "I go home the same way I arrive in the morning, feeling I have not accomplished a whole lot." A person scoring high on this factor actively engages his environment, feels potent toward that environment, and seeks to maintain this relationship by constantly testing his learning about his environment through action and its consequences. An individual scoring low on this factor feels that control and influence are external to him, that the environment is dominant, and that he has little power to influence the work setting. Pactor IV. Coltfidencc.-The last factor taps feelings of trust and faith in oneself which are inexorably part of a person's sense of competence. Some item statements representing this factor are: "No one knows this job better than I do," and "If any one here can find the answer, I'm the one." Self-assurance and self-reliance are manifest in action and imply independence or self-sufficiency at work. Effective behavior leads to feelings of mastery over an environment. Incorporated in those feelings of mastery are feelings of confidence in oneself which flow from doing something and doing it well. Intercorrelations between the competence thema factor and each of the three other factors ranged from a high of .35 (Factor 11) to a low of .16 (Factor 111). The correlation of Factors I1 and IV was .36, while the other two intercorrelations were .15. The data in this study demonstrate only a moderate to slight degree of interrelatedness among factors and factor scores, suggesting that an individual's basic psychological feelings of competence are multi-faceted feelings.
A MEASURE OF INDIVIDUAL SENSE OF COMPETENCE FRANCIS R. WAGNER AND JOHN J. MORSE University of California, Los Angeles Summary.-A paper-and-pencil instrument to measure an individual's "sense of competence" or his basic psychological feelings of confidence and competence resulting from mastery of his environment is developed in this research. The content validity of the instrument is demonstrated based on the interpretation of four factors extracted from factor analysis and the subsequent analytic oblique solution. The predictive validity of the instrument is strongly suppotted by two separate studies conducted by two different groups of researchers. Internal reliability is also tested and found to be satisfactory. Finally, the implications of the new instrument for furure research, especially in organizational and work settings, are discussed.
Researchers and theorists have long p i n r e d to a tendency in animals and children to explore and master their external environment because that activity was satisfying in itself (Montgomery, 1754; Berlyne, 1750; Piaget, 1754). From such evidence, White (1757, 1963) proposed there is a basic, even biological, urge - or drive in all individuals to influence and master their environment. He called this urge or drive "effeccance," describing it as inherent in the mental apparatus. The biological significance of the effectance drive is to develop an individual's "competence," or his existing capacity to interact effectively with his environment. Competence is the cumulative result of a person's life history of interactions w i t h the external world, including work. White then describes a "sense of competence" as the subjective side of one's actual competence. It is the subjective feelings an irrdividual has about his abilities and reflects his confidence resulting from his cumulative interactions with his environment over his life. These feelings are ircportant individual psychological rewards which provide continued incentives to behave competently. The importance of a sense of competence becomes even clearer by recognizing than an individual's self-esteem and the esteem given him by others are contingent on the ability to master the environment and, therefore, on a sense of competence itself (White, 1963, pp. 125-150). White saw the main value in his theory lying in the evolving structuring of an individual's personality from taking action on any environment and deriving a sense of competence from that action. Nonetheless, as the term "sense of competence" is used in this paper, it refers more particularly to an individual's feelings and confidence about his abilities in mastering an organizational and work setting. It is also important to point out that the term refers not to how competent organizational rcembers actually are but rather to their internal feelings about how competent they seem to themselves from engaging in a work environment and solving problems in it.
F. R. WAGNER
&
J. J. MORSE
QUESTIONNAIRE MEASUREOF A SENSEOF COMPETENCE Every type of psychological assessment has its own unique strengths and weaknesses, whether the approach is psychodynamic, psychometric, clinical, phenomenological or behavioral. For example, a reliable and validated measure of a sense of competence based on projeccive techniques has already been developed by Morse (1969) for use with managers and professionals. The projective technique has probably been the most powerful analytical tool for measuring thoughts, feelings and attitudes of individuals. However, it is a cumbersome technique requiring specially trained scorers using elaborately designed scoring manuals to ensure interscorer reliability. Also, the manner in which a projective instrument is administered becomes an important variable which can influence a subject's response to the material. Therefore, administration must be controlled for. Because of these issues, projective methods appear to be especially inefficient for research when sample sizes are large. A final criticism sf projeccive techniques is that what is projected by individuals in response to the stimuli in the projective instrument is unclear and controversial (Murstein, 1963; Zubin, Eron, & Schumer, 1965 ) . The objective in this paper is to develop a paper-and-pencil test as an alternate assessment technique for further research dealing with a sense of competence. The development of a paper-and-pencil test does not, of course, solve the researcher's methodological problems. Self-report measures may or may not be closely related to other indices of an individual's behavior, feelings or attitudes. What an individual says about himself (test behavior) does not necessarily reflect accurately what he actually does or feels (nonrest behavior and feelings). Nonetheless, because of the ease and efficiency of administering and scoring self-report measures (especially with large samples), the development of a paper-and-pencil test for sense of competence for future research seems justified. Deueloping the Instrument Relying heavily on White's writings ( 1959, 1960, 1963, 1967), an initial pool of 93 statements was developed to incorporate the most important aspects of th'e theory of sense of competence. The statements were analyzed for redundancies and possible ambiguities, and subsequently reduced to 60 statements for administration to a group Re- of U. S. Postal Service executives ( N = 35). sponse sets, the special response tendencies associated with answering paperand-pencil instruments, were partially controlled for by administering the Crowne and Marlowe (1960) social desirability scale with the 60-item test of sense of competence. The score on each statement for the Postal Service sample was correlated with the total score for the questionnaire and the MarloweCrowne social desirability scale. The purpose of the pretest of the instrument was elimination of any items which had both a high correlation with the social -
MEASURE: INDIVIDUAL SENSE OF COMPETENCE
453
desirability scale and low item-total score correlation. This pretest resulted in a refinement of the instrument to 50 statements. This 50-item questionnaire was administered to 310 individuals working on a variety of jobs in a number of different work settings. The sample was deliberately constructed to represent a wide variety of organizations, tasks, skills, and work experiences. Choosing a single organization, a particular type of organization or a particular level of organizational hierarchy (e.g., top-level managers) would have probably increased the homogeneity in the sample, but the possibility of charaaeristics peculiar to any one organization or task setting might limit the applicability of the test to other situations. Thus, this sample of 310 individuals consisted of personnel from five organizations, geographically distributed, ranging from a large international corporation to a small computer firm. An approximately equal number of managers and white and blue collar employees comprised the sample: 150 managers: 20% upper management, 40% middle management, 40% lower management; 160 white and blue collar employees: 50% technical specialists, 25% clerical, and 25% secretarial. The format for answering the statements on sense of competence is a Likerttype agreement-disagreement scale. Response to each item is on a +4 (very strong agreement) to -4 (very strong disagreement) scale. T o compute a total sense of competence score, a subject's responses on negatively-scored (-) items are reversed and then an algebraic sum of the responses to the scale is obtained. The 50 statements were reduced to a final 23-item instrument (Table 1) based on the following criteria: ( a ) significant correlation of item score with the total score, ( b ) insignificant correlation of the scale with the Crowne and Marlowe ( 1960) social desirability scale, and ( c ) content validity inferred in part from the factor analysis of the pool of items. Item-total correlations exceeded 0.35 ( $ = .001) for each of the 23 statements and the scale in toto correlated only 0.22 ( p = .001) with the Crowne and Marlowe social desirability scale. T o explore the content of the final questionnaire, the 23 items were factor analyzed using Nie, Bent, and Hull's (1970) Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. The principal factor method was used with squared multiple correlations in the diagonal cells of the intercorrelation matrix. Three factors were extracted with eigenvalues exceeding 1.00. A fourth factor was subsequently included for reasons of strong support for White's theory and Morse's (1969) earlier projective instrument to measure a sense of competence. After the unrotated factor matrix was rotared to the varirnax criterion, analytic oblique rotations (Table 2 ) were performed using an analytic program developed by Comrey (1973) to improve simple structure. The analytic rotation of the four factors varied only slightly from the orthogonal rotation, which accounted for 40% of the variance. Composite scores for each of the factors were determined
454
F. R. WAGNER
&
J. J. MORSE
TABLE 1 QUESTIONNAIREMEASUREOF SENSEOF COMPETENCE (+) 1. N o one knows this job better than I do. ( + ) 2. Problems here are easy to solve once you understand the various consequences of your actions, a skill I have acquired. (-1 3. Even though the work here could be rewarding, I am frustrated and find motivation continuing only because of my paycheck. ( + ) 4. 1 meet my own personal expectations for expertise in doing this job. 5. I do not know why it is, but sometimes when I'm supposed to be in con(-1 trol I feel more like the one being manipulated. (-1 6. I do not know as much as my predecessor did concerning this job. 7. Unfortunately, an individual's worth often passes unrecognized no matter ( how hard he tries. ( + ) 8. I would make a fine model for an apprentice to emulate in order to learn the skills he would need to succeed. (+) 9. This job is manageable and any problems tend to be optimally solved. ( + ) 10. If anyone here can find the answer, I'm the one. ( - ) 11. Sometimes I feel like I'm not getting anything done. ( + ) 12. This job offers me a chance to test myself and my abilities. ( + ) 13. This type of work offers subjective rewards; the job is valuable to me for no other reason than I like to do it. ( - ) 14. I go home the same way I arrive in the morning, feeling I have not accomplished a whole lot. ( - ) 15. A difficult problem in this job is not knowing the results of one's actions. ( - ) 16. My talents, or where I can concentrate my attention best, are found in areas not related to this job. ( + ) 17. Considering the time spent on the job, I feel thoroughly familiar with my tasks. ( - ) 18. If the work were only more interesting I would be motivated to perform better. ( + ) 19. I honestly believe I have all the skills necessary to perform this task well. (-) 20. This job makes me tense and anxious. ( + ) 21. Doing this job well is a reward in itself. ( + ) 22. I can get so wrapped u p in my work that I forget what time it is and even where I am. (+) 23. Mastering this job meant a lot to me.
based on the simple method of singling out statements that loaded above a cutoff value of 0.40 on each factor and then adding these scores. The correlation matrix (Table 3 ) computed from these composite scores for the 310 subjects demonstrates only a moderate degree of interrelatedness among the factor scores. Content Validity Based on Factor lnterpretation Factor 1. Competence Thema.-This factor characterizes the over-all, global feelings attributed to a sense of competence. Examples of item statements loading on this factor are: "Doing this job well is a reward in itself," and "Mastering this job meant a lot to me." The individual expresses his own general feelings (his Gestalt) around experiences of feelings of competence at work. Mastery and confidence from work behavior that result in intrinsic,
MEASURE: INDIVIDUAL SENSE OF COMPETENCE
45 5
TABLE 2 OBLIQUEROTATIONS ( PATTHRNMATRIX) Factor I
Factor I1
Factor I11
Factor N
Varl2 Vat2 l Varl8 Var23 Vat16 Varl3 Var22 Vat03 VarO2 Varl7 Vat09 Varl9 Vat04 Vat08 VarO5 Varl4 Var07 Vat15 Var2O Varll VarO 1 VarlO VarOG
TABLE 3 C O R R E L A ~bfAWIX ON OF COMPOSITE SCORESBASEDON FACTOR LOADINGS FROMOBLIQUE ROTATIONS Factor Faaor Factor Factor
I
11 111 IV
Factor I
Factor I1
Factor 111
1.000 0.234 0.381 0.103
0.234 1.000 0.370 0.428
0.381 0.370 1.000 0.235
Factor IV 0.103 0.428 0.235 1.000
psychological rewards are the focal concepts in the theory of a sense of competence. The mastering of work-related activities gives the individual subjective gratification simply from doing a job well. Factor IL T a ~ kKnoulledge/Problem-so1vzn.g.-This factor captures the ability of the respondent to understand and solve problems encountered in his work. It is characterized by such statements as: "Problems here are easy ro solve once you understand the various consequences of your actions, a skill I have acquired," and, "Considering the time spent on the job, I feel thoroughly
F. R. WAGNER s( J. J. MORSE
456
familiar with my tasks." This factor describes the extent to which the individual feels he utilizes the relevant knowledge of his job to test his ability in taskrelated activities. The more appropriate the problem solution to the situation, as perceived by the respondent, the more competent he feels. Factor 111. Influence.-The influence factor is similar to the general psychological construct developed by Rotter (1966) measuring an individual's predisposition toward internal vs external control. However, while Rotter's internal/ external control scale describes an individual's general feelings toward society, this factor from this research relates specifically to the work setting. Sample statements in this factor, all of which load negatively, are "I do not know why it is, but sometimes when I'm supposed to be in control I feel more like the one being manipulated," and, "I go home the same way I arrive in the morning, feeling I have not accomplished a whole lot." A person scoring high on this factor actively engages his environment, feels potent toward that environment, and seeks to maintain this relationship by constantly testing his learning about his environment through action and its consequences. An individual scoring low on this factor feels that control and influence are external to him, that the environment is dominant, and that he has little power to influence the work setting. Pactor IV. Coltfidencc.-The last factor taps feelings of trust and faith in oneself which are inexorably part of a person's sense of competence. Some item statements representing this factor are: "No one knows this job better than I do," and "If any one here can find the answer, I'm the one." Self-assurance and self-reliance are manifest in action and imply independence or self-sufficiency at work. Effective behavior leads to feelings of mastery over an environment. Incorporated in those feelings of mastery are feelings of confidence in oneself which flow from doing something and doing it well. Intercorrelations between the competence thema factor and each of the three other factors ranged from a high of .35 (Factor 11) to a low of .16 (Factor 111). The correlation of Factors I1 and IV was .36, while the other two intercorrelations were .15. The data in this study demonstrate only a moderate to slight degree of interrelatedness among factors and factor scores, suggesting that an individual's basic psychological feelings of competence are multi-faceted feelings.
