You are not currently logged in.
Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:
Ego Strength and Related Personality Variables as Mediating Factors between Scholastic Aptitude and Scholastic Achievement
Salvatore V. Zagona and Marynell A. Kelly
The Journal of Educational Research
Vol. 61, No. 1 (Sep., 1967), pp. 29-31
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27531950
Page Count: 3
You can always find the topics here!Topics: Ego, Anxiety, Dogmatism, Psychometrics, Academic aptitude, Cognitive psychology, Anxiety disorders, Clinical psychology, Academic achievement, Psychology
Were these topics helpful?See somethings inaccurate? Let us know!
Select the topics that are inaccurate.
Preview not available
From a distribution of 515 scores on Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale, the 35 highest and 35 lowest scores were selected for further study. Measures of scholastic aptitude (provided principally by scores of ACT), and measures of scholastic performance (by cumulative grade point averages) were obtained for all subjects. A number of cognitive and personality measures were obtained, in order to determine the manner in which these mediated scholastic aptitude and scholastic performance. It was hypothesized that: (1) dogmatism and ego strength (as measured by Barron's Es Scale) would be negatively correlated; (2) dogmatism would be negatively correlated with scholastic aptitude; (3) ego strength would be high among those achieving more than their potential would indicate, and low among those achieving less than their potential would suggest. It was found that no relationship was obtained between ego strength and dogmatism; or between scholastic aptitude and dogmatism (r = —.001; r = —.003, respectively). Contrary to hypothesis, it was found (by two-tail test of significance) that high achievers have significantly (P = .01) lower ego strength scores than low achievers. Possible explanations for these unexpected findings are discussed, with suggestions for further study.
The Journal of Educational Research © 1967 Taylor & Francis, Ltd.