Thesis Nurs. 1995 P499r
c.2
Pett, Lisa Bendig.
The relationship between
personality hardiness
1995.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERSONALITY HARDINESS
AND GRADE POINT AVERAGE
IN DIPLOMA NURSING STUDENTS.

by

Lisa Bendig Pett BSN, RN

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Master of Science in Nursing Degree

Approved by:

Chairperson, Thesis Committee
Edinboro University of Pennsylvania

Date

7

/Z-J cw

_ Committee Member

mittee Member

v

10,1^
Date

Date

3
6- V

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

iv

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

ABSTRACT,

vi

Chapter

1

2

3

1

INTRODUCTION.
Background of the Problem

1

Purpose of the Study,

6

Statement of the Problem,

7

Assumptions,

7

Limitations.

7

Definition of Terms.

8

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

10

Stressful Life Events

11

Mediators of Stress

18

Personality Hardiness,

23

Academic Performance.

27

METHODOLOGY

31
ii

4

Setting

31

Sample

33

Instrumentation

34

Reliability and Validity

35

Collection of Data

35

Data Analysis Plan.

36

PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA
Sample Description

38

Analysis of Data

39

44

CONCLUSION

5

38

Summary

44

Discussion

45

Recommendations

48

REFERENCES

50

APPENDICES

55

A

Personal Views Survey

55

B

Cover Letter

59

C

Pearson Correlation Matrix

60

iii

LIST OF TABLE AND FIGURES
Table

1

Descriptive Statistics for Hardiness and Component

Characteristics

40

1

Score Distribution for Challenge

41

2

Score Distribution for Commitment

42

3

Score Distribution for Control

42

Figures

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express my gratitude to my committee: Chairperson and advisor Dr.
Charlotte Paul, and members Ms. Ellen Pfadt RN MSN and Mr. James Palmer MA. Their
guidance, knowledge and expertise in the research process is greatly appreciated.

I would also like to thank my colleagues at Saint Vincent Health Center School of

Nursing for their ongoing support and encouragement, and the students who participated in
this study for their time and interest.

My special thanks to my friend and husband Steve for his passion for learning, his wit
and wisdom, his technical contributions to this project, and most of all his love and patience.

L.B.P.

v

ABSTRACT

This research discovered the relationship between Suzanne Kobasa’s concept of
personality hardiness and cumulative grade point average in diploma nursing students.

Hardiness, a stress mediating trait, consists of the personality characteristics commitment,
control and challenge. A convenience sample of 36 first year students in a diploma nursing
program participated in the study. Each student's level of personality hardiness was

determined, along with subscores of commitment, control and challenge, using a 50 item

questionnaire. The cumulative grade point average was obtained from each student's
academic record at the completion of the first year of study.
The Pearson's r Product Moment Correlation was used to correlate hardiness score
and cumulative grade point average. The correlation between hardiness and cumulative grade

point average in this sample was not significant. The results did not support the theory

derived from the literature that high levels of hardiness would be positively correlated to high
grade point average.

Further exploration of the concept of hardiness and its relationship to stress mediation

and academic performance in nursing students is needed. Implications for further research in
this area are offered.

vi

CHAPTER I

Introduction

Background of the Problem

For many years, nursing education had enjoyed a surplus of qualified

applicants. In the 1980's, institutions for nursing education experienced a decrease
in enrollment (Benda, 1991). A declining interest in nursing by young women as
well as increasing career options for women contributed to this decrease. A drop

in students in 368 college nursing programs occurred from August 1984 to August

1985. During this same year, a 33 per cent decrease was reported in the number
of college freshmen who wanted to be nurses (Benda, 1991).

Now, at a time when fewer students are seeking to enter nursing schools,
the nursing profession needs to attract and encourage able applicants. The

importance of retaining students who are accepted into nursing programs has also
become an increasing concern.
Research has shown that a large proportion of students are unable to

successfully complete a program of nursing education (Weinstein, Brown &
1

2

Wahlstrom, 1979; Rosenfeld, 1988).

Rosenfeld (1988), Director of Research at

the National League for Nursing, found that diploma nursing programs registered
the lowest net retention rates of all nursing program types. Net retention rates

were broken down by program type, type of financial support, and length of

program. Program types described were diploma nursing programs, associate
degree in nursing (ADN) programs, and bachelor’s of science in nursing (BSN)

programs. Financial support was described only as public versus private
programs. Only 70 per cent of public diploma nursing program students and 72

per cent of private diploma program students were retained. Retention at ADN
and BSN programs ranged from 75 to 89 per cent.
High attrition rates can pose a distinct problem for limited capacity
programs such as nursing. Even with the decline in interest in nursing, many

nursing programs still receive many more applicants than class positions. A place
occupied by a student unable to complete the program of study is one denied to a
potentially successful applicant. In the current climate of health care reform and

conscientious use of health care resources, selection procedures must be capable of
filtering potential failures. A nursing education program under enrolled due to

attrition is one that wastes both human and economic resources. Attrition, once

considered a necessary weeding-out process, is now a formidable obstacle to be
overcome.

Studies of the problem have focused on personal, educational, and

3
intellectual factors related to attrition. Research has also addressed various aspects

of attrition including retention and pre-admission selection procedures. CameronBuccheri and Trygstad (1989) explored student retention problems ranging from
homesickness and personal problems to academic pressures. They looked at the

tactics that could be applied in a nursing program, such as a new student
orientation program, study groups and support groups, which would aid in
freshman retention.

McDonald, Collins and Walker (1983) examined techniques to maximize
student potential for success in an ADN program. Their student profiles reflected
nontraditional students that included an increasing number of minorities, first

generation college students, and those who were not in college preparatory courses
in high school and therefore did not have strong academic skills prior to admission.
A needs assessment by the authors showed that academic failure, inability to keep
up with workloads, and test-taking were identified as priority concerns of the

students. Personal and family problems as well as financial concerns were also
important issues. A program was developed to assist in meeting both the personal

and academic needs of the students. The Success Program consisted of brief

courses in problem solving, medical terminology, time management and study
skills, as well as stress management and values clarification. McDonald et al.
reported an increase in retention from 65 per cent to 84 per cent after beginning

the Success Program.

4
As early as 1968, researchers studied the relationship of personality traits to

achievement in nursing education. Thurston, Brunclik and Feldhusen (1979)
evaluated the relationships between nursing school achievement as measured by

faculty rating, performance on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory
(MMPI) and the Rotter Incomplete Sentence Blank (ISB). Based on faculty

evaluation, three groups of students were identified: achievers (those who

graduated after working at full capability), underachievers (those who failed to
work to full capacity but who graduated), and failures (those who failed or left the

nursing program). The researchers concluded that the personality tests, designed

for other purposes, could not be extended to the prediction of success in nursing
education. Zagar, Arbit and Wengel (1982) studied personality factors as
predictors of grade point average and graduation from nursing school. Like
Thurston et al. (1979), these personality tests, although measuring motivational

and personality characteristics important in the nursing profession, were not found
to be predictive of success in a diploma nursing program.
Knopke (1979) studied enrollment data in a university school of nursing

over a six year period and identified several trends in student attrition. This
information was used as the basis for the development of a model to predict

student attrition. In addition to first semester grade point average and high school
class rank, the authors also measured personality trait variables to predict dropout

group measurement. The Edwards Personality Preference Schedule was used to

5
determine whether certain personality need variables were related to the learning

process of the nursing students studied. Three significant variables, order,

dominance, and aggression, depicted students in the dropout group as expressing a
greater need for structure and organization than those in the continuing group

(p. 226).

Weinstein, Brown and Wahlstrom (1979) advocated the need for selection
procedures capable of identifying potential successes and failures in nursing

programs. Their research examined student admission and selection procedures in
an effort to derive a new admissions policy. Data were collected regarding

selection practices currently utilized in all diploma nursing programs in Ontario.

These practices were compared with statistical data collected to calculate the
success rate for each nursing program. Results indicated that testing may be

valuable as an aid to selection and maximization of success. Pre-admission

questionnaires were shown to be useful under only one condition, namely when
used to screen for potential problems. This was especially true when potential

problems were of a personal nature like health, financial and family considerations

(Weinstein et al., 1979, p. 42).
Students who attend nursing programs in the presence of problems of a

personal nature may be more likely to underachieve or be unsuccessful. Although

certain life stressors are inevitable, the stressful nature of the academic and clinical
experience of nursing students could have deleterious effects on academic

6

performance. Not all students, however, suffer adverse effects of stress,
academically or physically.

Researchers have begun to study variables that serve as buffers or
mediators of the stress response. Social support, personality resources, and
exercise are among the moderating variables widely investigated in the literature

(Lambert, Klippie & Mewshaw, 1990; Pagana, 1990; Kobasa & Puccetti, 1983;
Kobasa, Maddi, Puccetti & Zola, 1985). Kobasa (1979) has proposed that a hardy

personality style encourages coping and serves as a source of resistance to the

negative effects of stressful life events. Hardy individuals are considered to
possess three personality characteristics: a) the belief that they control or influence

the events they experience, b) an ability to be involved in or committed to the
activities in their lives, and c) the anticipation of change as an exciting challenge

(Kobasa, 1979).

Investigation of the concept of hardiness and its presence in nursing school
applicants may aid in the selection of successful participants in a nursing program.

Pre-admission screening for the personality hardiness characteristic could also

assist in identifying those applicants at high risk for under achievement or failure.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to discover the relationship between personality

7

hardiness and academic performance in diploma nursing students. Educators can
make recommendations for admission criteria and program advisement by
identifying students at risk for failure due to their decreased ability to cope with

stress. This knowledge can also be used to address retention factors related to

coping and stress.

Statement of the Problem

This study will investigate the following research question:

Is there a significant relationship between personality hardiness score and

cumulative grade point average (CPA) in diploma nursing students?

Assumptions

This study is based on the following assumptions:

1. The Hardiness Test provides an accurate measure of the subjects' stress
resistance characteristics.

2. The subjects will respond honestly to the questions.

3. The subjects' participation in the first year of a diploma nursing
program exposes them to significant stress.

8
Limitations

1. This study is limited to students enrolled in one diploma nursing school
in northwest Pennsylvania. It is further limited to one class of students in this
program.

2. There will be no control over or examination of stress mediating

variables possessed by the subjects other than hardiness.

Definition of Terms

Personality Hardiness: Personality hardiness is a composite of commitment,

control and challenge. These three existential concepts are recognized as being
especially relevant to the ability to rise to the challenges of the environment and

turn stressful life events into possibilities or opportunities for personal growth and
benefit (Kobasa, 1979; Kobasa, Maddi & Kahn, 1982).

Stressful Life Events: Stressful life events are a wide array of events whose
occurance is either indicative of, or requires, a significant change in the ongoing

life pattern of the individual. These are events which require adaptation and

change on the part of the individual experiencing them.

Cumulative Grade Point Average:

The average of all course grades up to and

9

including those of the third trimester of the first year of study. CPA is computed

on a four point scale (A=4, B=3, C=2, D=l) and includes a total of 44 credit
hours of study. This is the means by which academic performance is measured in
this study.

Diploma Nursing Student: A student enrolled in a two-year diploma nursing

program, completing the third trimester of the first year of study.
Successful Nursing Student: A nursing student who is able to advance in a

diploma nursing program in accordance with program requirements.
Unsuccessful Nursing Student: A nursing student who is not able to advance in, or

who withdraws from, a diploma nursing program.

CHAPTER n

Review of Literature

This research deals with the significance and impact of various life events
on nursing students. It is the contention of the researcher that life changes cause

significant alterations in the psycho-physical system of the student nurse resulting
in stress.

Life changes associated with enrollment in a diploma nursing program
would likely require a great deal of readjustment and coping. This researcher

believes that, in the presence of personality characteristics thought to mediate

stress, a positive impact will be reflected in the student's grade point average.
The purpose of this literature review is to explore life events leading to

stress, to explore the mediating variables of hardiness, and to support the
contention that the presence of a hardy personality will have a positive impact on
academic performance in nursing students.

The review of literature is presented in four major categories:

1. Stressful life events
2. Mediators of stress

3. Personality Hardiness

4. Academic performance of nursing students.

10

11
Stressful Life Events

Interest in the concept of stress as a basis of ill health dates back to the
19th century.

Osler commented that the stress and strain to which a Jewish

businessman was subjected was a basic factor in many cases of angina pectoris
(Lazarus & Folkman, 1984, p.2 ). In 1936, Selye's publication "A Syndrome
Produced by Diverse Nocuous Agents” opened the door for a multitude of

contemporary views on the concept of stress as it applies to many fields.
Selye, whose early work seemed to focus on the physiologic aspects of

stress, defined stress as "the non-specific response of the body to any demand
made upon it (Selye, 1974)." These demands then cause a non-specific increase in
the need for the body to perform adaptive functions and re-establish normalcy. It

is immaterial, according to Selye, whether the agent or situation faced is pleasant

or unpleasant. All that counts is the intensity of the demand for readjustment.

In the 1940's to 1950’s, Wolff (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) also wrote
about life stress and disease. Like Selye, he considered stress a physical process

or state of the body with emphasis on a dynamic state involving adaptation to
demands. This emphasis on a dynamic state, as used in the physical sciences,

refers to an inactive body that is strained by environmental loads with stress as the
active process of "fighting back” (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).

Stress as a biological process of defense offers an interesting analogy to the

12

study of psychological stress. Lazarus and Folkman (1984) defined psychological
stress as "a particular relationship between the person and the environment that is

appraised by the person as taxing or exceeding his or her resources and

endangering his or her well-being" (p.19). What causes psychological stress?
Two processes must be examined to answer this question: cognitive appraisal and

coping.

The key feature of cognitive appraisal and Lazarus’s cognitive appraisal

theory of stress is that a person appraises each transaction with the environment

with respect to the significance of that person's well-being. Each transaction with

the environment is considered a life event and the individual's perception of the
event determines if it is stressful or not. In other words, an event can only be
considered stressful if an individual perceives it as such.

Meyer was an early contributor to life events study. In the 1930's, he

advocated the use of the "life chart" as a tool in medical diagnosis (Dohrenwend &
Dohren wend, 1974). In addition to collecting data regarding periods of disorders

of the various organs, Meyer also noted if his patients had experienced ... the

changes of habitat, of school entrance, graduations or changes, or failures, the
dates of possibly important births and deaths m the family, and other
fundamentally important environmental incidents (p.3)”. Meyer thus believed that

life events need not be catastrophic or bizarre to potentially contribute to the
development of a pathologic condition.

13
In 1949, Holmes and his colleagues at the University of Washington,

Seattle, began developing Meyers' "life chart" concept into a tool for measuring
the magnitude of stressful life events. Holmes and Masuda (1974) studied more

than 5000 patients to identify the quality and quantity of life events that were
observed to cluster around the onset of disease. They noted that two categories of

items emerged from their research:

those indicative of the life style of the

individual and those indicative of occurrences involving the individual. The
researchers found that these events pertained to major areas of significance in the
social structure of the American way of life.

Numerous life event scaling tools evolved from Holmes's collaboration with
other researchers. Possibly most well known are the 1967 efforts of Holmes and

Rahe, an Associate Professor of Psychiatry at the University of California. ThenSchedule of Recent Events (SRE) consists of 43 life events that were empirically

derived from clinical experience. Such items included death of a spouse, personal
injury, retirement, change in financial status as well as change in work

responsibilities, beginning or ending school, and change in eating habits. A
questionnaire containing these 43 events was given to 394 subjects who were asked

to rate the life events as to their relative degree of necessary adjustment. Marriage
was assigned an arbitrary value of 500. As the questionnaire was completed, the
subjects were asked to indicate if the remaining events required more or less

readjustment than marriage. Participants would then choose a proportionately

14
larger or smaller number than that assigned to marriage. The evaluation of these

results yielded the more familiar Social Readjustment Rating Scale (SRRS). The

SRRS contained the identical 43 life events as the SRE but Holmes and Rahe
added the relative readjustment values to each event.

Other researchers adapted these life events scaling tools to apply to their
own research requirements.

Coddington, in 1972, modified the SRRS to include

a different list of experiences specifically related to childhood life style. This new

scale was used to quantify recent childhood experiences and construct an agerelated curve of average social readjustment scores (Holmes, 1974).
Antonovsky (1974), in studying adult Jewish Israelis in an urban area of

Jerusalem, developed an instrument that would measure both life crisis and

resistance resources. He rejected the use of the Holmes and Rahe SRRS as a
measure of life crisis to derive a series of items that would be more applicable to

the population being studied as well as cover the full life span. Antonovsky's life

crisis history ultimately included such items as "life in danger", "separation from
someone close as a child", "incarceration in a concentration camp" and "exposure
to war or similar situation".
Additional research included life events scaling tools related to, or including

reference to, students or life changes associated with school attendance.

Modifications of the SRE and the SRRS were carried out by Bramwell

(Dohrenwend & Dohrenwend, 1974) and utilized to evaluate life change and

15

injuries in college athletes. In this replication, a new item, entering college,

replaced marriage with the assigned value of 500.
The Life Events Survey (LES) was another attempt to quantify and qualify

life changes (Sarason, Levine & Sarason, 1982). Two major features distinguish

the LES from the SRE and SRRS. First, the LES addresses both positive and
negative life change, and second, it permits the individual to rate the impact and

desirability of events. Subjects are also able to indicate events that are not on the
original questionnaire. In addition, a supplementary list of 10 events relevant to

the student population is available. Of the 10 school related items, nine are not
listed on the SRE.

In a review of literature relating to life events and stress, it is noted that

most instruments are a unidimensional scale providing a single total. An
alternative strategy was examined by Skinner and Lei in 1980. They believed that

the practice of computing a single score obscured the existence of meaningful
subsets of stressful events. Their study, aimed at determining empirically the
multidimensionality of the 43 SRE life events, provided a basis for the

development of a multiple scale instrument. Three hundred and fifty three

individuals were asked to complete the self-administered checklist of 43 SRE life
events. A correlation matrix and factor analysis performed based on their

responses identified six distinct clusters of life events. These relatively

homogenous subsets factored as follows: a) personal and social activities, b) work

16
changes, c) marital problems, d) residence changes, e) family issues, and f) school

changes. Key events in the school changes subset included beginning or ending
school, change in school, and vacations. This study emphasized the use of
multiple scale instruments, or the study of distinct clusters of events, to provide

more specific indices of life changes.
Although a school changes subset was identified, research related to nursing
students indicates that school is but one of the many factors leading to stress. If
studied, a homogenous cluster of events specific to this population may emerge.

Stressful life events specific to the population of nursing students have been

identified by those researching causes for dropping out of, and attrition from,
nursing education programs.
Lindop (1989) examined the experience of student nurses who left their
training as a result of stress. Interviews were conducted with the 23 subjects, and

a number of questions were used to stimulate thought about the topic of stress
during nursing training. Two questions, however, elicited interesting information

regarding stress induced by the learning experience itself. The subjects were asked

to identify stressors in the educational as well as the clinical environment. While

in the academic environment, less than one-half of the subjects experienced stress;

where they had, it was associated mainly with self-image and problems related to
study material. Greater distress was experienced in the clinical environment,
mainly arising from negative staff attitudes, rigid routines, and feelings of physical

17

exhaustion due to the weight of the workload (Lindop, 1989, p. 175).
In addition to the stressful nature of the clinical experience itself, nursing

literature has focused on outside stressors to which nursing students are exposed.
In a study by Cameron-Buccheri and Trygstad (1989) exploring nursing student

retention, students shared information about personal problems in sessions with
faculty advisors. Such difficulties as homesickness, illness of themselves or family

members, and loneliness, as well as difficulty adjusting to a new city and new

people, and loss of sleep were reported during the first year of study.
Munro (1980) defined categories of dropping out by drawing subjects from
a nationwide longitudinal study. In analysis of students’ self-reported reasons for
dropping out, Associate Degree and Baccalaureate students listed financial
difficulties as the most prevalent reason for leaving during the first year.

Motivational and unspecified personal problems were also listed by first year drop
outs.

The National League for Nursing's (NLN’s) annual survey of nursing

education programs provided a large, accurate data base of class enrollment data
(Rosenfeld, 1988). In addition to a statistical measure of retention, Rosenfeld's
research sought to gain information from nursing program directors regarding

factors that contributed to their retention problems. Directors of diploma, ADN,
and Baccalaureate programs ranked "students having difficulty with required
courses" as the number one factor that contributed to retention problems. Diploma

18
and ADN program directors agreed that the number two factor was "personal
problems/family obligations" and that the number three factor was "financial
difficulties". BSN program directors indicated that "financial difficulties" and

"personal problems/family obligations" were equally ranked number two factors
(Rosenfeld, 1988, p. 202).
Smith (1990) surveyed 227 non-returning nursing students to identify
factors contributing to their attrition. Smith's results identify the primary reasons

for students leaving school before completing their degrees. Questions on the data
collection instrument were based on major attrition areas of academic and financial
problems. The questionnaire was also given to 24 randomly selected university

faculty members. The primary five factors identified by students seemed to
implicate school-work time management problems. Correlation between student

and faculty responses indicated that former students and faculty are in agreement

with the importance of financial-employment influences on the student's decision
not to continue enrollment (p. 217). The literature confirms that nursing students

are indeed under tremendous stress. This stress is generally thought to be derived
from numerous sources.

Mediators of Stress

Like much of the research related to stressful life events, the literature

19

presented has focused on the negative impact of stress on the nursing students. A
certain amount of stress, it seems, is inevitable. Not all students, however, suffer

adverse effects. A common theme in each life event studied by Holmes and Rahe
was that it was associated with some degree of adaptation or coping on the part of
the individual (Holmes & Masuda, 1974, p.46).

People vary in how they are affected by actual or potential stressors. An

important question concerns the nature of the variables that determine which
individuals are likely to be most adversely affected by stressful life events or life

change. Factors that mediate the impact of stressful life events are often classified
into two general categories: subjective or intrapsychic, and objective or

environmental (Dohrenwend & Dohrenwend, 1982, p. 98).
Lazarus and Folkman (1984) refer to this mediation as coping. They
defined coping "as the process through which the individual manages the demands
of the person-environment relationship that are appraised as stressful and the

emotions they generate (p.19)". Antonovsky (1979) believed that an individual
utilizes generalized resistance resources to mediate stressful life events. He

defined generalized resistance resources as "any characteristic of the person or

environment that can facilitate effective tension management (p.99)".
Dealing with stress is a complex process involving numerous internal and

external factors that influence an individual's level of coping, adaptation and
resistance. Both of the above definitions of stress mediation include reference to

20

the individual and the environment.
A frequently studied external factor in stress mediation is the presence or

perceived presence of social support (Kobasa & Puccetti, 1983; Lambert, Klippie
& Mewshaw, 1990; Sarason, Johnson & Siegel, 1982; Pagana, 1990). Social

support is commonly defined as the existence or availability of people on whom an

individual can rely; people who care, value, and love the individual. The amount
of social support and the individual’s satisfaction with the level of support are both

important aspects of this support. Schaefer, Coyne and Lazarus discuss three
types of support: emotional support, tangible support, and informational support.
Emotional support is considered the attachment to others and reassurance;
tangible support is direct aid, loans, and services; and informational support is the
advice and feedback received from others (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984, p. 250).

Lambert and Lambert (1987) studied social support as well as a personality

characteristic to determine whether psychological well-being could be predicted in

women with controlled rheumatoid arthritis. Their findings suggested that social
support was indeed a significant predictor of well-being in this population.

The stressful nature of the clinical experience of nursing students was

studied within the context of social support (Pagana, 1990). The author
hypothesized that social support would be significantly related to the student’s

evaluation of an initial clinical nursing situation. Results, however, showed that

the social support score did not correlate significantly with the student's evaluation

21

of the experience as being either a threat or a challenge.
Possession of other social resources has also been regarded as an important

basis for stress resistance. Some social resources studied in addition to support
include level of education, wealth, possession of social assets that are valued by

society, and quality interactions within the work place (Kobasa & Puccetti, 1983,

Kobasa et al. 1985). Lazarus and Folkman also note the importance of social
skills to an individual. It is these skills with which people manage social demands

that enable them to draw upon social supports and resources. Social skills
facilitate problem solving with other people and increase the opportunity of

enlisting the cooperation and aid of others (1984, p. 163).
A basic theme in the study of personality characteristics has been that a

person’s general orientation toward life, characteristic interests, and motivations
would influence how a stressful life event was perceived and dealt with.
Personality characteristics are a frequently studied internal source of stress

moderating variables. Such characteristics include sensation seeking, locus of
control and commitment.
Sensation seeking as a personality attribute may serve as an important
moderator of life stress. Some people appear to thrive on exciting and stimulating
activities while others may avoid the stimulation of the unfamiliar or activities that

increase arousal. High sensation seekers might then be expected to be less affected

by life changes. They may be better able to deal with the increased arousal

22

experienced. People low in sensation seeking may be less able to cope with the

stimulating input from even everyday situations. In this case, life change

experiences may have a negative effect on these individuals (Sarason, Levine &
Sarason, 1982, p. 385).
Two similar studies by Sarason and his colleagues Smith, Johnson and
Siegel both showed, as a major result, that low sensation-seekers reported high

levels of distress when high negative change scores were reported. Negative

change was also related to anxiety and hostility in low sensation-seeking

individuals (Sarason, Johnson & Siegel, 1978).

Predictability and controllability are aspects of stressful situations that
influence one's response to those situations. The more predictable an event, the
more confident an individual may feel about handing it. Individuals who perceive
that they have little control over an event may be more adversely affected than

those who feel capable of exerting control over the event.

Perhaps the best known theory about control is the concept of internal
versus external locus of control. An internal locus of control refers to the belief

that events are controlled by one s own behaviors. An external locus of control

refers to the belief that events are more contingent on luck, chance, fate, or the

control of others (Sarason, Levine & Sarason, 1982, p.386).
When a situation is unpredictable, a person with an internal locus of control

as controllable. A person with an external

23
locus of control might see the same situation as uncontrollable. Based on research

findings concerning controllability, Sarason et al. predicted that anxiety and
depression would correlate with stressful life events only among subjects with an

external locus of control orientation (1982, p.386). It stands to reason that
undesirable life events may be threatening and exert a negative impact on those

who feel they have little or no control over their environment.
The concept of challenge focuses on the predictability of an event.

Challenge is based on the belief that change, rather than stability, is the normative
mode of life (Kobasa et al., 1982). Challenge focuses on the potential for gain or

growth and is characterized by pleasurable emotions such as eagerness and
excitement. Threat, on the other hand, focuses on the potential harms of an event
and is accompanied by negative emotions such as fear, anxiety, and anger (Lazarus
& Folkman, 1984, p.83).

Personality Hardiness

The possibility of a connection between stress and illness is certainly not a
new one. A great deal of the literature related to stress has focused on the stressillness link, suggesting that stressful life events precipitate somatic and
psychological disease. A topic frequently overlooked in professional literature is

the presence of subjects with high stress scores that are not succumbing to illness.

24

Kobasa, in 1979, began to study how highly stressed subjects who remain

healthy differ from those who show illness along with high stress. Kobasa’s 1979
doctoral thesis

Stressful Life Events, Personality and Health: An Inquiry into

Hardiness emphasized personality as the factor in the stress reaction that served to

deflect the negative impact of stressful life events. The proposition of her study
was that persons who experience high degrees of stress without falling ill have a
personality structure differentiating them from persons who become sick under

stress. This personality difference is characterized by Kobasa by the term
’’hardiness" (Kobasa, 1979). Incorporating various theoretical and empirical
aspects, Kobasa proposed that hardiness is a constellation of personality

characteristics that function as a resistance resource in the encounter with stressful

life events. The personality dispositions of hardiness are commitment, control and
challenge.
An existential theory of personality has greatly influenced Kobasa’s

research. This theory has emerged as more relevant to stress than the more
traditional theories of personality (Kobasa et al„ 1982). Existentialism represents
an attitude or outlook that emphasizes human existence or distinct qualities of the

individual. It is a philosophy concerned with describing and diagnosing the human

predicament. "Existentialism as a universal element in all thinking is the attempt

of man to describe his existence and its conflicts, the origin of the conflicts, and

25

the anticipation of overcoming thiiem (Titus, Smith & Nolan, 1979, p. 325)".
Existentialism portrays life as always changing and therefore inevitably stressful.

The mission of existentialists has been to describe how best to confront, utilize and
shape this life (Kobasa et al., 1982).

Hardy individuals are considered to possess three existential characteristics:
a) the belief that they have control or influence over the events they experience, b)

an ability to be involved in or committed to the activities in their lives, and c) the
anticipation of change as an exciting challenge (Kobasa, 1979).
Control refers to the ability to believe and act as if one can influence the

course of events. It allows individuals to perceive many stressful life events as

predictable consequences of their own activity. They feel capable of acting

effectively on their own, and can transform stressful events into something

consistent with their ongoing life plans, thereby decreasing the negative effects. In
contrast, a highly stressed person who becomes ill is powerless and low in

motivation for achievement (Kobasa, 1979).
Commitment is the ability to believe in the truth, importance and interest
value of who one is and what one is doing (Kobasa et al., 1982). Committed

persons have a belief system that minimizes the perceived threat of any given

stressful life event (Kobasa, 1979). The committed person knows not only in what
he or she is involved, but also why they are involved. Committed persons have

both the skill and the desire to cope successfully with stress (Kobasa et al., 1982).

26

Challenge is based on the belief that change, rather than stability, is the
norm. Persons who see change as positive are well practiced in responding to the

unexpected, and value interesting experiences (Kobasa, 1979). From the

prospective of challenge, most of the disruption associated with stressful life events
can be anticipated as an opportunity for personal growth rather than a threat to the

individual. Kobasa characterizes challenge as the tendency to value change and
unpredictability in living (Pagana, 1990).
Possession of the three hardiness characteristics of commitment, control and

challenge should help a person remain healthy in spite of encounters with life

events that are usually considered stressful (Kobasa et al., 1982). Kobasa argues
that this type of stress appraisal mediates the potentially unhealthy effect of stress

and prevents the response that often leads to illness.

The concept of hardiness, though widely studied from the aspect of the
stress-illness relationship, has not been fully developed in the area of nursing and

nursing education. Lambert and Lambert (1987) studied the relevance of the

concept of hardiness to nursing practice. In their descriptive study, they suggested
that nurses and other health care providers test clients for hardiness and take the

appropriate interventions with low hardiness individuals before illness-producing
stress is experienced. These authors also contended that nurses, nurse educators,

and administrators, possessing an awareness of their hardiness level, may better

27

deal with the inevitable stresses of their jobs. Certainly, hardy staff nurses and

educators could prove to be positive role models for today’s nursing students.
Although Pagana (1990) has investigated the relationship of hardiness to
nursing students' appraisal of stress in the clinical environment, exploring the
relationship of hardiness to academic performance is also of interest. Nursing

students, experiencing the inevitable and well documented stress of nursing
education, benefit from the presence of a hardy personality. This benefit may

surface, in the tangible sense, in the form of higher grades and increased success
in the academic arena.

Academic Performance

Holmes's Schedule of Recent Events (SRE) and Social Readjustment
Rating Scale (SRRS) have been used as tools to investigate the relationship of life

change to the occurrence of disease. In addition, the SRE has reportedly been
used as an instrument for research in the area of academic performance.

Harris, in a 1972 unpublished doctoral thesis, investigated the relationship
of life change to academic performance among selected college freshmen. A

student's grade point average was utilized as the measure of academic performance
in this study. He found that grade point average is inversely proportional to life

28
change experienced by the subjects (Holmes & Masuda, 1974, p.64).

In a 1978 study relating life change and college grades, Wildman attempted
to bring additional evidence to this topic. He found that life change had a weak

inverse relationship to college grades in sociology students at a midwestem
university. Wildman concluded that replication of this type of study was essential

to furthering knowledge in the area of life change and role-performance variables.

LLoyd, Alexander, Rice and Greenfield (1980) took up this task and also
researched life events as predictors of academic performance. The purpose of
their study was to provide additional information about the relationship of life

change stress and academic role performance. Two hundred eight students
completed a life change questionnaire. Grade point averages were collected for the
first, second, and third years of study. The authors of this study believed that

their results corroborated findings from the two previously discussed studies.

They, too, found that life event stress showed a negative correlation with academic
performance, thus strengthening a causal interpretation (Lloyd et al., 1980, p.23).
Sarason, et al. (1978) utilized the Life Experiences Survey (LES) for the

measurement of life changes to study their impact on grade point average. The

LES includes Section 1 for use with general population subjects, and Section 2
dealing with changes experienced in the academic environment. Both sections

were administered to college students enrolled in psychology courses at the

University of Washington in 1975. Positive, negative and total life change scores

29
were all found to be negatively correlated with grade point average. Negative and

total scores showed the most significant correlation. These authors also noted that

little research had been directed toward investigating the role of moderator

variables on life change. They questioned whether relationships such as those
reported in their study reflected the effects of life stress or simply the effects of

moderator variables on the reporting of life change.

The next natural step in this research process would be the examination of

the relationship of resistance resources to academic performance. As early as

1968, this was beginning to be studied in the area of personality characteristics in
nursing education. Thurston, Brunclik and Feldhusen (1968) focused on the

relationship of personality to achievement in nursing education. Nursing school

achievement status as measured by the Nursing Education Scale (NES) was studied
in relationship to three personality inventory examinations. The researcher

concluded that these personality tests, designed for other purposes, could not be
extended to the prediction of success in nursing education.

In an additional study of 570 nursing students in a diploma nursing
program, the predictive validity coefficients were determined for the ACT score,

the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS), and for the Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality Invenilory (MMPI) relative to a measure of grade point
average (Zagar, Arbit & Wengel, 1982). Zagar et al. also found, on the basis of

their results, that the personality scales held little value as predictive variables of

30

academic success in a diploma nursing program.
DeMeuse (1985) investigated the relationship between stressful life events

and student performance in the classroom. He believed that students experiencing
many life changes in a short period of time may perform poorly in school work.

The SRRS responses of 159 students enrolled in a psychology course were

correlated with measures of classroom performance at the completion of their
course. As hypothesized, life stress was inversely related to exam scores and total

course points. Demeuse noted that the relationship between life stress and
performance is not a perfect one. Some students experiencing much life stress

performed well while others experiencing little stress performed poorly (p. 146).

He further indicated that variables thought to explain stress-resistance, such as

hardiness, social support and motivation, could be factors that influence students'
classroom performance (p. 148).
DeMeuse (1985) recommended further study of the relationship of stress

mediating variables to academic performance. Kobasa's configuration of traits
termed hardiness seems the logical place to begin. Nursing students who express a
greater sense of control, greater commitment to their educational activities, and

more positive feelings about the change that educational experiences bring, will
perform significantly better academically than students who do not possess these

characteristics.

CHAPTER IH

Methodology

The purpose of this study was to discover the relationship between
personality hardiness and academic performance in first year diploma nursing

students. Life changes associated with participation in a diploma nursing program
cause a great deal of stress, therefore requiring significant coping and

readjustment. The literature presented shows that individuals who remain healthy
in the face of stressful life events expressed a greater sense of commitment, control

and challenge. This configuration of traits is termed hardiness. Nursing students
who express a greater sense of control, greater commitment to their educational

activities and more positive feelings about changes that educational experiences can
bring, will perform significantly better academically than students not in possession

of these characteristics. The review of literature supported the need for this study.

Setting

This study took place at one diploma nursing school located in northwestern

31

32

Pennsylvania. The school of nursing in which this study took place is associated
with a 590 bed community teaching hospital. The institution offers a two year

diploma program in nursing designed to prepare a professional nurse. The
program consists of 89 credits of academic course and clinical work. Of the 89

credits, 22 are college credits awarded by a local university for course work
completed at the school of nursing. The first and second years of study each

include three trimesters. Forty-four credits are earned in the first year of the

program.
Academic advancement is the process by which a student passes from one
academic course to the next. A final grade of Cr­ or higher must be earned in the
theory component of all nursing courses. No more than two D grades can be

eamed in the non-nursing courses in the first year. No F grades can be earned in
any course for academic advancement.
Cumulative grade point averages (CPA) are calculated at the completion of
all required courses in a trimester. The school uses a grading system based on a
four point scale as indicated below.

Grade

Quality Point

A

93-100

4.0

B+

90-92

3.5

B

83-89

3.0

33

C+

80-82

C

73-79

D

65-72

F

<65

2.5

2.0
1.0

0

Cumulative grade point average at the end of the first year of study was
calculated by multiplying the student's course grade quality point equivalent by the

number of credits per course. This number was then divided by 44, or the total
number of credits earned in the first year of study.

Sample

A convenience sample consisting of 36 first year nursing students was used

for this research. The school of nursing at which this research was conducted
reported an overall attrition rate of 21-22 per cent in a 1992 report (Stiller,

Drexler, Chalupczynski, Weissner, Vickey, Scolio & Parenti, 1992). Data
gathered in this report indicated that most unsuccessful students departed during the

third trimester of the nursing program. The nursing course in which students are

enrolled during the third trimester reported one of the highest failure rates, with 23

per cent of students unsuccessful (Stiller et al., 1992).

34

This researcher, in an attempt to make the sample
utilized only those students completing their

nursing school. In addition to utilizing a

more homogeneous,

third trimester of study at one diploma

convenience sample, data was collected

at a time when the sample of students was most readily available to the researcher.

Instrumentation

Hardiness was measured by a third generation scale developed by Suzanne

C. Kobasa (see Appendix A). Because hardiness is a constellation of personality
characteristics, it has been found to be best measured by items from five scales
combined to form a composite score. Items from the alienation from self,

alienation from work, and powerless scales of the Alienation Test are used to

measure commitment. Portions of the Security Orientation Scale of the California
Life Goals Evaluation Schedules are used to measure challenge. The control

characteristic is measured through the Internal vs. External Locus of Control scale
(Kobasa & Puccetti, 1983). Each of these scales provides negative indicators of

hardiness. The composite Hardiness Test questionnaire consisted of 50 Likert
scale items (0=not at all true; 3=completely true) and provided a single hardiness

score for each student. Separate commitment, control and challenge scores were
computed for each student prior to obtaining the composite hardiness score. •

35
The cumulative grade point average for each student was collected from
academic records within 30 days from the end of the trimester.

Reliability and Validity

Estimates of internal consistency have yielded Coefficient alpha levels in
the .90 s for the total hardiness score. In terms of construct validity, the aim of

the author of the tool was to produce a refined test that replicates the major

findings regarding the stress-illness relationship reported in the scientific journals.
The author reports that this aim has been largely realized in the third generation

Hardiness Test. (S. Kobasa, personal communication, April 1994).

Collection of Data

Data were collected in one 20-minute period of time during the third
trimester of the first year of study. A completion time of 10 minutes for literate

adults and adolescents was estimated by the author of the Hardiness Test. All
subjects were able to complete the Hardiness Test within this time frame. Written
permission to collect data was obtained from the director of the diploma nursing

program and the academic institution’s Nursing Research Committee.

The questionnaire, along with a cover letter (Appendix B) explaining the

36

purpose of the research, was distributed to the students when they were assembled

for a course lecture. Students were asked to identify their questionnaire by social
security number only. Participants were assured complete confidentiality of their

results. By participating in this first phase of data collection, and including their

social security number, students implied consent for utilization of the cumulative
grade point average in the study. Students were informed of this implied consent
in the cover letter distributed with the questionnaire, and verbally, prior to

distribution of the questionnaire.
After the end of the third trimester, the cumulative grade point average for

each participant was obtained from the academic record of the participants. Only
the researcher and administrative secretary of the school had access to the student

names while collecting cumulative point averages. These results, once collected
from the records, were coded and identified only by social security number.

Data Analysis

The data collected from the Hardiness Test produced separate scores for
commitment, control and challenge, as well as a composite hardiness score for
each subject. Calculation of commitment, control and challenge scores was

required to compute the composite hardiness score. Corresponding cumulative

grade point averages were also treated as score data. The Pearson's r Product-

37

Moment Correlation Coefficient was calculated using the composite score. The
Pearson’s r, a descriptive statistic, summarized the magnitude and direction of a

relationship between the two variables.

CHAPTER IV

Presentation and Analysis of Data

This study discovered the relationship between personality hardiness and
cumulative grade point average in diploma nursing students at the completion of
their first year of study. A Hardiness Test score was obtained using a third

generation, 50 item Likert scale survey. Cumulative grade point averages were
obtained from students’ academic records at the completion of the last trimester of
their first year of study.

Sample Description

Thirty-seven first year diploma nursing students completed Hardiness Test

surveys. This class of students originally numbered 40. Three students withdrew
from the program prior to completing a survey and were eliminated from the
study. One additional student was eliminated from the study due to an incomplete

survey. The sample was comprised of 36 students.

The sample ranged in age from 19 to 46 years with a mean age of 30.28
and a standard deviation of 8.175. Of the sample, 86.1% were female (31
38

students) and 13.9% were male (five students). This ratio of females to males is

consistent with the nursing population in general. The majority of the students,
94.4%, were Caucasian.

Four students, or 12.5% of the sample, were

subsequently unsuccessful in their studies and received a failing grade in this

nursing course.

Analysis of the Data

Personality hardiness was measured by a scale developed by Suzanne C.

Kobasa (see Appendix A) which provided a single hardiness score for each
student. The hardiness ranking score ranged from 0-100 with 100 being the

highest possible score obtainable. The sample's composite hardiness scores ranged
from 51.18 to 92.04, with a mean of 77.22 and a standard deviation of 8.523.

The cumulative grade point averages (CPA) for the sample were obtained
from academic records at the completion of the first year of study. Cumulative

grade point averages were based on a four-point scale (F=0; A=4.0). Cumulative
grade point averages ranged from 1.878 to 3.927, with a mean of 2.885 and a
standard deviation of 0.446.

Intercorrelations of all quantifiable variables were performed using a
computer software program called Mystat Statistical Applications. (Appendix C)

The Pearson's r Correlation Coefficient for the hardiness score and CPA was -

39

40
.020. This result did not support the contention that hardiness score and CPA
would be significantly related. It is interesting to note, however, that although a

significant relationship does not exist (with p<0.05; df=34), the direction of the

relationship was negative instead of positive.
Calculation of commitment, control and challenge scores was necessary for

computation of a composite hardiness score. Descriptive statistics for the three

characteristics of hardiness, commitment (COMM), control (CONT) and challenge
(CHALL), are shown in Table 1.

Table 1
Descriptive Statistics for Hardiness and Component Characteristics

N=

CPA

CHALL

36

36

CONT

HARD

AGE

36

36

36

36

COMM

MIN

1.878

45.100

43.750

54.900

51.180

19.000

MAX

3.927

88.240

97.920

96.080

92.040

46.000

MEAN

2.885

65.741

84.549

81.373

77.222

30.278

ST.DEV

0.446

9.096

11.426

9.521

8.523

8.175

The only positive relationship that existed when all variables were
intercorrelated was that between the subscore for challenge and CPA (r=.12).

41
This coefficient, although positive in its direction, was not of sufficient magnitude
to support statistical significance.

Additional information related to the variables was uncovered while
investigating the research question.

Students, in general, tended to score higher in

the areas of commitment and control than in the area of challenge. Twenty-four
students scored 80 or greater in the area of control, 25 students scored 80 or
greater in the area of commitment, while only two students scored 80 or greater in

the challenge characteristic. Histograms of score distribution show the relatively
low scores in the area of challenge compared with commitment and control

(Figures 1-3).
PROPORTION PER BAR
.417 --

count

.375

.333
.292

10

.250
.208

7
7

.167

5

.125

4

.083

2
1

.042 --

45.00

(

)
CHALL

Figure 1
Score Distribution for Challenge

105.00

42
PROPORTION PER BAR

.417 4COUNT
.375
.333

.292
. 250

.208

.167

.125 4.083
.042

40.00

100.00

COMM

Figure 2
Score Distribution for Commitment
PROPORTION PER BAR

COUNT

.417 4. 375
.333

.292
10

.250

.208

8

.167 4.125 4-

5

.083

4

.042 4-

2
1

50.00

(

)
CONT

Figure 3
Score Distribution for Control

110.00

43

An additional positive relationship was noted when age and CPA were
correlated. A correlation coefficient of .167 was obtained between the variables of

age and CPA. Although this relationship is a weak one, it appears to be the only

correlation that may provide hope for usefulness in predicting individuals at
academic risk.

CHAPTER V

Conclusion

Summary

This research study measured the level of personality hardiness in 36 first
year diploma nursing students. Personality hardiness was measured by a 50-item

survey that provided subscores of commitment, control and challenge in addition to
the composite hardiness score. Additional data pertaining to the students’
cumulative grade point averages, ages and success versus failure in the nursing

course were gathered from student files. The Pearson’s / Product Moment

Correlation was used to obtain correlation coefficients for all quantifiable
variables.

The purpose of this study was to discover the relationship between

personality hardiness and academic performance in diploma nursing students.
Data were analyzed in an attempt to answer the research question. Is there a

significant relationship between hardiness score and cumulative grade point average
in diploma nursing students?

The research findings showed no significant relationship between hardiness
score and cumulative grade point average. A correlation coefficient of -0.02 was

44

45
obtained between the variables of hardiness score and CPA. This non-significant
finding represents a lack of evidence for either truth or falsity of the research

question.

It is interesting to note that, although a level of statistical significance

was not found, a negative or inverse relationship existed between the two

variables. It was anticipated that high levels of hardiness would be associated with

higher grade point averages.

Discussion

This research dealt with the significance and impact of various life events
on nursing students.

Life changes associated with participation in a diploma

nursing program would likely require a great deal of readjustment and coping.
The literature supported the theory that, in the presence of personality

characteristics thought to mediate stress, a positive impact would be reflected in

the students academic performance. The purpose of this study was to discover the
relationship between personality hardiniless and cumulative grade point average in

diploma nursing students at the completion of their first year of study. Currently

there are no other published research studies investigating the relationship between
hardiness and grade point average in nursing students. No direct comparisons can

be made to previous studies of this nature.

46
The literature shows evidence that life changes cause significant alterations
in the psycho-physical system of the student resulting in stress (Dohrenwend &

Dohrenwend, 1974, Sarason et al., 1982).

This stress is generally thought to be

derived from numerous sources. The key feature of Lazarus’ cognitive appraisal

of stress theory is that a person appraises each transaction with the environment
with respect to the significance of that person's well being (Lazarus & Folkman,

1984). Each transaction with the environment is considered a life event. Life
events research concerning nursing students indicates that personal problems,

family obligations and financial difficulties result in stress (Cameron-Buccheri &
Trygstad, 1989; Munro, 1980; Rosenfeld, 1988). The inclusion of measurement

of life change, life events experienced or students' appraisal of the stressful nature
of their educational program would more directly support literature findings.

Also well documented in the literature is the relationship of stressful life
events and life changes to academic performance in students ( Sarason et al., 1978,

Lloyd et al., 1980, DeMeuse, 1985). Students' grade point averages were utilized

as the measure of academic performance in much research (Hams, 1972, Sarason

et al. 1978; Lloyd, 1980). These studies showed evidence that negative life

change adversely effect a student's grade point average.
The relationship between life stress and academic performance is not a
perfect one. Some students experiencing stress may perform well whereas other

students experiencing stress

may perform poorly. The literature proposes many

47
variables that help explain why some individuals appear more stress-resistant than
others (Sarason et al., 1978, Sarason et al., 1982, DeMeuse, 1985, Lambert &

Lambert, 1987). One such variable is the concept of personality hardiness. In
existing research, hardiness has been primarily related to its mediating and
moderating effects on stressful life events and illness (Kobasa, 1979; Kobasa,

Maddi & Courington, 1981; Kobasa, Maddi & Kahn, 1982; Pollack, 1985).
Kobasa has shown that those individuals with high levels of hardiness cope better

with stress and therefore remain healthy.

The majority of research on hardiness has been done on white male
executives. Only recently has the characteristic been studied in relation to other

populations such as nursing students (Pagana, 1990). Pagana found that hardiness
was negatively related to a student's experience of feeling threatened in the clinical
environment (1990, pg. 258).

A fortuitous finding in this study was the relatively low challenge scores

compared to commitment and control scores. Mean challenge scores were
approximately 15-18 points lower than commitment and control scores. Pagana

also found that nursing students scored low in the area of challenge relative to
commitment and control. Her findings showed mean challenge scores were

approximately 13 points lower than commitment and control scores

(1990, pg. 258).
This researcher, based on

the literature, had anticipated finding support for

48
the following deductive theory: Nursing students are under tremendous stress
which has been shown to be related to lower academic performance; those

individuals with high levels of personality hardiness have been shown to cope

better with stress; therefore, high hardiness scores will be associated with higher

grade point averages. It is evident from the research findings that other factors
will need to be examined to add to the understanding of the mediating factors of

stress that have an impact on academic performance.
Examination of additional variables helps explain why some individuals

appear more stress-resistant than others. One limitation of this study, as noted by
the researcher, is the lack of examination of stress mediating variables other than

hardiness. Other factors such as social support, persistence, motivation and
numerous personality characteristics have been found to mediate the stress of

academia (Thurston, et al., 1968; Zagar, et al., 1982; DeMeuse, 1985).

Recom mendation s

Based on the results of this study, the following recommendations for future
research can be made:

1. further study into the stressM nature of the academic experience as it
relates to hardiness and gred. point average is indicated. This study implies that

49

life events can directly effect students’ academic performance. The addition of life
event or stress measurement will confirm its influence.

2. • further research to identify more prominent stress mediating variables is
indicated.

3. replication of this study using a more recent personality hardiness
adaptation specific to the academic population is indicated. Ideally, a new

instrument should be developed and refined for greater reliability and validity with

the population being studied.

4. replication of this study using a larger sample size is indicated. A

larger sample size may yield a more complete correlation of the variables.

REFERENCES

Antonovsky, A. (1974). Conceptual and methodological problems in the study of

resistance resources and stressful life events. In B.S. Dohrenwend & B.P.
Dohrenwend (Eds.), StressfaHifeeyents: Their nature and effects (245258). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Antonovsky, A. (1980). Health, stress, and coping. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Benda, E.J. (1991). The relationship among variables in Tinto's conceptual

model and attrition of bachelor's degree nursing students. Journal of
Professional Nursing. 7 (1), 16-24.
Cameron-Buccheri, R. & Trygstad, L. (1989). Retaining freshman nursing

students. Nursing & Health Care. 10 (7), 389-393.
DeMeuse, K.P. (1985). The relationship between life events and indices of

classroom performance. Teaching of Psychology. 12 (3), 146-149.
Dohrenwend, B.S. & Dohrenwend B.P. (1974). Stressful life events: Their

nature and effects (313-331). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Dohrenwend, B.S. & Dohrenwend, B.P. (1982). Some issues in research on
stressful life events. In T. Millon, C.Green & R. Meagher (Eds.),

Handbook of clinical psychology (91-102). New York: Plenum Press.

Holmes, T.H. & Masuda, M. (1974). Life change and illness susceptibility. In
B.S. Dohrenwend & B.P. Dohrenwend (Eds.), Stressftil life events:. Their

nature and effects (45-72). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

50

51
Hutcheson, J.D., Garland, L.M. & Lowe, L.D. (1979). Antecedents of

nursing school attrition: Attitudinal dimensions. Nursing Research. 28
(1), 57-62.
Knopke, H.J. (1979). Predicting student attrition in a baccalaureate curriculum.
Nursing Research. 28 (4), 224-227.

Kobasa, S.C. (1979). Stressful life events, personality, and health: An

inquiry into hardiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 37
(1), Ml.

Kobasa, S.C., Maddi, S.R. & Kahn, S. (1982). Hardiness and health: A

prospective study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 42 (1),
168-177.
Kobasa, S.C., Maddi, S.R., Puccetti, M.C. & Zola, M.A. (1985).

Effectiveness of hardiness, exercise and social support as resources

against illness. Journal of Psychosomatic Research. 29 (5), 525-533.
Kobasa, S.C. & Puccetti, M.C. (1983). Personality and social resources in

stress resistance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 45 (4),
839-850.

Lambert, C.E. & Lambert, V.A. (1987). Hardiness: Its development and
relevance to nursing. Iniggg. 12 (2), 92 95.

52
Lambert, V.A., Lambert, C.E., Klippie, G.L. & Mewshaw, E.A. (1990). Social

support, hardiness and psychological weU-being in women with arthritis.
Image. 21 (3), 128-131.

Lazarus, R.S. & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New

York: Springer .

Lindop, E. (1989). Individual stress and its relationship to termination of nurse
training. Nurse Education Today. 9 (3), 172-179.

Lloyd, C., Alexander, A.A., Rice, D.G. & Greenfield, N.S. (1980). Life events

as predictors of academic performance. Journal of Human Stress. 6 (3),
15-25.

McDonald, J.M., Collins, R.F. & Walker, A.R. (1983). Success: A program to
reduce student nurse attrition. Nurse Educator. (1), 17-20.

Munro, B.H. (1980). Dropouts from nursing education. Nursing Research. 29
(6), 371-377.
Pagana, K.D. (1990). The relationship of hardiness and social support to student
appraisal of stress in an initial clinical nursing situation. Journ.al of
Nursing Education. 29 (6), 255-261.

Rosenfeld, P. (1988). Measuring student retention: A national analysis.

Nursing and Health Care. 9 (4), 199 202.
Sarason, I.G., Johnson, J.H. & Siegel, J.M. (1978). Assessing the impact of life

changes: Development of the life experiences survey. JournaLflf

53

Consulting_and Clinical Psychology 45 (5^ 932.94g
Sarason, I.G., Levine, H.M. & Sarason, B.R. (1982). Assessing the impact of
life changes. In T. Millon, C. Green & R. Meagher (Eds.), Handbook of
clinical health psychology (377-399). New York: Plenum Press.

Selye, H. (1974).

Stress without distress. Philadelphia: Lippincott.

Skinner, H.A. & Lei, H.

(1980). The multidimensional assessment of stressful

life events. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. 168 (9),
535-541.

Smith, V.A. (1990). Nursing student attrition and implications for pre­

admission advisement. Journal of Nursing Education. 29 (5), 215-218.

Stiller, C., Drexler, L., Chalupczynski, C., Weissner, M., Vickey, T., Scolio,
A.Q. & Parenti, H. (1992). Retention Ad Hoc: Characteristics of
successful and unsuccessful nursing students. Unpublished report, Saint

Vincent Health Center School of Nursing. Erie, Pennsylvania.
Thurston, J.R., Brunclik, H.L. & Feldhusen, J. F. (1968). The relationship of

personality to achievement in nursing education. Nursing Research. 17

(3), 265-268.

Titus, H.H., Smith, M.S. & Nolan, R.T. (1979). Living.issues in philosophy
(7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wodsworth.
Weinstein, E.L., Brown, L. & Wahlstrom, M.W. (1979). Selection procedures

and attrition.

Tonmal of NursingtEducation. 18(4), 38-46.

54

Wildman, R.C. (1978). Life change with college grades as a role-performance
variable. Social Psychology. 41 (1), 34-46.

Zagar, R., Arbit, J. & Wengel, W. (1982). Personality factors as predictors of
grade point average and graduation from nursing school. Educational and
Psychological Measurement. 42 (4), 1169-1175.

PERSONAL VIEWS SURVEY

Appendix A
Below are some items that
indicate how you feel about you may agree or disagree with. Please
each one by circling a number from 0 to 3 in
the space provided. /_
true; circling a three ero indicates that you feel the item is not at all
you feel the item is comPletely true.
As you will see i inanv
--ny_ of the items
! are worded very strongly.
strongly, This is to
help you decide the extent to which you agree or disagree.
Please read all the items carefully. Be sure to answer all on the basis
of the way you feel now. Don’t spend too much time on any one item.
0
1
2
3

=
=
=
«=

Not at all true
A little true
Quite a bit true
Completely true

I often wake up eager to take up my life where it
left off the day before

0

1

2

3

2.

I like a lot of variety in my work

0

1

2

3

3.

Most of the time, my bosses or superiors will listen
to what I have to say

0

1

2

3

4.

Planning ahead can help avoid most future problems

0

1

2

3

5.

I usually feel that I can change what might happen
tomorrow, by what I do today

0

1

2

3

6.

I feel uncomfortable if I have to make any changes
in my everyday schedule

0

1

2

3

7.

No matter how hard I try, my efforts will accomplish
nothing
.

0

1

2

3

0

1

2

3

0

1

2

3

0

1

2

3

0

1

2

3

1.

8.

9.

10.

11.

I find it difficult to imagine getting excited about
working..
No matter what you do, the "tried and true" ways are
always the best...
II feel
feel that
that it
it’’ss almost impossible to change my spouse’s
mind about something....
living are just manipulated
Most people who work for a
by their bosses

55

0
1
2
3
12 .

13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.

19.

=
=
=
=

Not at all true
A little true
Quite a bit true
Completely true

56

New laws shouldn’t be made if they hurt a person's
income............................. . . „

0

1

2

3

When you marry and have children you have lost your
freedom of choice

0

1

2

3

No matter how hard you work, you never really seem
to reach your goals

0

1

2

3

A person whose mind seldom changes can usually be
depended on to have reliable judgement

0

1

2

3

I believe most of what happens in life is just meant
to happen

0

1

2

3

It doesn't matter if you work hard at your job, since
only the bosses profit by it anyway

0

1

2

3

I don't like conversations when others are confused
about what they mean to say

0

1

2

3

. .0

1

2

3

Most of the time it just doesn't pay to try hard,
since things never turn out right anyway

20.

The most exciting thing for me is my own fantasies

0

1

2

3

21.

I won't answer a person's questions until I am very
clear as to what he is asking

0

1

2

3

22.

When I make plans I'm certain I can make them work

0

1

2

3

23.

I really look forward to my work...

0

1

2

3

24.

It doesn't bother me to step aside for a while from
something I'm involved in, if I'm asked to do something
else

0

1

2

3

25.

-□ at work performing a difficult task I know
When I am
I need
to ask for help
when 1
---

0

1

2

3

26.

It's exciting for me to learn something about myself

0

1

2

3

27.

I enjoy being with people who are predictable

0

1

2

3

0
Not at all true
1 = A little true
2 = Quite a bit true
3 = Completely true

28.

57

I find it's usually very hard to change a friend's
mind about something

0

1

2

3

Thinking of yourself as free person just makes you
fell frustrated and unhappy

0

1

2

3

It bothers me when something unexpected interrupts my
daily routine

0

1

2

3

When I make a mistake, there's very little I can do
to make things right again

0

1

2

3

I feel no need to try my best at work, since it makes
no difference anyway
.................

0

1

2

3

33.

I respect rules because they guide me

0

1

2

3

34 .

One of the best ways to handle most problems is just
not to think about them

0

1

2

3

I believe that most athletes are just born good at
sports

0

1

2

3

36.

I don't like things to be uncertain or unpredictable

0

1

2

2

37.

People who do their best should get full financial
support from society................. .............

0

1

2

3

38.

Most of my life gets wasted doing things that don't
mean anything.................................

0

1

2

3

39.

Lots of times I don’t really know my own mind.,

0

1

2

3

40.

I have no use for theories that are not closely
tied to facts

0

1

2

3

29.
30.
31.

32.

35.

41.

Ordinary work is just too boring to be worth doing...

0

3

2

1

42.

When other people get angry at me, it's usually
for no good reason..............................

0

1

2

3

43.

Changes in routine bother me

0

1

2

3

44.

I find it hard to believe people who tell me that the
work they do is of value to society..............

0

1

2

3

0
1
2
3
45.

=
=
=
~

Not at all true
A little true
Quite a bit true
Completely true

I feel that if someone tries to hurt me, there's
usually not much I can do to try and stop him...

58

0

2

1

3

46.

Most days, life just isn't very exciting for me

0

1

2

3

47.

I think people believe in individuality only to
impress others

0

1

2

3

When I'm reprimanded at work, it usually seems to
be unjustified

0

1

2

3

49.

I want to be sure someone will take care of me when
I get old
............................

0

1

2

3

50.

Politicians run our lives

0

1

2

3

48.

Appendix B

NU 201 Learner:

I am a graduate student in the Masters of Science of Nursing Program at
Edinboro University of Pennsylvania. In partial fulfillment of my degree
requirements, I am conducting a study of the relationship of a personality
characteristic to academic performance.

Attached you will find a 50 item questionnaire. After reading the printed
instructions, please complete all items of the questionnaire. It should take
approximately 10 minutes.

Please, prior to turning in your questionnaire, write your Social Security
Number in the top right hand comer of the first page of the survey. Your name is
not required.
By writing your Social Security Number on the survey, you are giving me
permission to retrieve your Cumulative Point Average from your academic records
at the completion of this trimester. Your survey results and CPA will never be
published using your name or your Social Security Number. This only provides an
identifying number to link questionnaire results with CPA’s.
I would appreciate if you would take the time to complete this questionnaire
and return it to me at this time.
YOUR HELP IS GREATLY NEEDED!!

Sincerely,

Lisa Pett

59

Appendix C

PEARSON CORRELATION MATRIX
NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS

CPA

36

CHALL

COMM

CONT

HARD

CPA

1.000

CHALL

0.120

1.000

COMM

-0.088

0.496

1.000

CONT

-0.063

0.452

0.773

1.000

HARD

-0.020

0.746

0.911

0.879

1.000

AGE

0.167

0.019

0.078

0.035

0.055

60

AGE

1.000