Dr. Larry Ramaekers

The purpose of this study was to investigate whether or not either stress responses selected from a set of 15 critical incidents or personality characteristics were different both within and between groups of prospective and practicing school administrators. Personality characteristics were measured by use of the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16 PF). Data about stress responses were collected by administration of a set of 15 critical incidents based on actual events experienced by practicing school administrators. The research questions investigated were: (1) Do responses to stressful situations (critical incidents) or measures of personality for prospective and practicing school administrators differ at statistically significant levels when these two groups are compared with one another? (2) Do prospective school administrators differ from what would be expected in their selection of five categories of response to stress? (3) Do practicing school administrators differ from what would be expected in their selection of five categories of response to stress? Five major categories of stress response were identified in the review of literature: dominance, negotiation, co-existence, avoidance or diversion, and integration. Each response can result in either the strengthening of the individual and/or the organization. The subjects for this study were 17 prospective and 20 practicing school administrators. All subjects were enrolled in preservice and inservice graduate courses in educational administration at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Data gathering procedures consisted of the administration of the 15 critical incidents and the 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire to both groups of subjects. The scores of the two groups were computed using discriminant analysis to distinguish whether or not personality traits differed between prospective and practicing school administrators. A chi square and t-tests were computed to identify differences between and within the groups of subjects. There were no statistically significant differences between trainees and practitioners on (1) measures of personality or (2) type of response selected for a set of 15 critical incidents. Trainees and practitioners did differ significantly in what would be expected in their selection of five categories of response to stress.