Journal of Counseling Psychology Copyright 1986 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

1986, Vol. 33, No. 1,31-38 0022-0167/86/$00.75

Exploratory Intervention With a Scale Measuring Adjustment to College

Robert W. Baker Bohdan Siryk
Clark University Wang Laboratories
Lowell, Massachusetts

An intervention into the lives of college freshmen based on a scale measuring adjustment
to college is described. The principal purposes of the study were to explore the practical
usefulness of the scale in an interview and to examine the consequences of the intervention.
The scale was used (a) to identify, for comparison through interview, students occupying
extremes of score distributions on measures of effectiveness of adjustment to college, (b)
to serve as a source of topics for discussion in interviews, and (c) to measure the effects of
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

intervention through pre- and posttesting. Qualitative and quantitative findings are presented
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

regarding (a) attitude of students toward use of the scale, (b) the correspondence between
test data and effectiveness of adjustment to college, and (c) the consequences of intervention
by interviews for students indicated by the scale as well adjusted and less well adjusted.
Implications for additional research with the scale are discussed.

This article describes an intervention into the lives of college
freshmen based on a scale measuring adjustment to college (Baker
& Siryk, 1984). The primary purpose of this article is to explore
the practical usefulness of the scale in intervention, and second,
to consider the efficacy of the intervention.
The construction of the scale was occasioned originally by the
realization that students who have difficulties in adjustment to
college tend not to avail themselves of help offered by voluntary
counseling programs (e.g., Baker & Nisenbaum, 1979; Friedlan-
der, 1980; Kirshner, 1974; Lindquist & Lowe, 1978). An essential
interest in its construction was to provide a reliable and valid
diagnostic instrument that would make efficient and selective in-
tervention possible.
A search of the literature yields no instances of scales measuring
adjustment to college being employed in any systematic way as
bases for intervention with students. There is considerable liter-
ature concerning consequences of interventions (see Beal & Noel,
1980, for an overview). Of special relevance to the present study,
where the intervention employed was simply a follow-up inter-
view, there is evidence that relatively limited efforts can produce
surprising results.
Bloom (1971) conducted an intervention largely by mail and
found a smaller drop-out rate from the university for a sample of
students so treated than for a control group, indicating that per-
sonal contact may not be necessary to effect desirable outcome in
a behavior of considerable consequence. A study by Wilson and
Linville (1982) did involve personal contact, but not a great amount
of it. They identified freshmen who were worried about academic
performance and conveyed to them in a group meeting information
regarding the tendency for grades to improve beyond the freshman
year. Students so treated, in comparison with another group of
freshmen similarly identified as worried but not given the infor-
mation regarding grades, had higher scores on a test resembling
the Graduate Record Examination, a lower drop-out rate, and
greater subsequent improvement in grade point average. Some-
what similarly, Meichenbaum and Smart (1971) found that if ac-
ademically borderline students are administered ability and interest
tests and are subsequently given rigged test-based predictions of
future academic success, there is improvement in course grades,
in attitude toward academic work, and in self-confidence for meet-
ing academic challenges.
Bednar and Weinberg (1970) and Kipnis and Resnick (1971)
underscored the importance of relevance of mode of intervention
to particular characteristics or needs of students, and the latter
emphasized the desirability of early diagnosis of need and prompt-
ness of intervention. It is expected that the adjustment-to-college
scale employed in the present study will provide a means of early
diagnosis of need that will also carry implications for type of
intervention that would be both need-appropriate and timely.
The scale is used in the present study in three ways as a basis
for intervention: (a) to identify students differing in effectiveness
of adjustment to college; (b) to serve as a source of topics for
discussion in interviews with those students, especially difficulties
encountered in the adjustment; and (c) to measure the effects of
intervention. Questions pertinent to each of these uses will permit
evaluation of the scale's utility. Do students identified by the scale
as differing in effectiveness of adjustment to college actually see
themselves differently or look different behaviorally with regard
to that adjustment? Are scale-based discussion topics meaningful
to the student in terms of his or her experiences in adjusting to
college? Is there correspondence between test findings and the
student's perceptions of his or her life circumstances, including
accurate identification of difficulties in adjustment? Does the scale
reflect change in effectiveness of adjustment to college following
intervention?

Bohdan Siryk is now at the Boston office of Blue Cross/Blue Shield of
Massachusetts.
Correspondence Concerning this article or requests for copies of the scale
used in this study should be addressed to Robert W. Baker, Department
of Psychology, Clark University, Worcester, Massachusetts 01610.
Method
Materials
The instrument used in the present study to measure adjustment to
college is a self-rating, Likert-type scale constructed by the authors; the
development of an earlier version has been reported by Baker and Siryk

31
 32 ROBERT W. BAKER AND BOHDAN SIRYK
(1984). An assumption underlying the construction of the scale is that
adjustment to college is multifaceted and involves demands varying in
both kind and degree and that these demands require a variety of coping
responses (or adjustments) that will themselves vary in effectiveness. Thus,
the scale in its current form consists of 67 statements alluding to various
aspects of the experience of adjusting to college, and the student is asked
in effect to assess on a 9-point rating scale for each statement how well
he or she is dealing with the aspect in question. Specifically, the student
is instructed to indicate the degree to which each statement applies to him
or her.
The academic adjustment subscale consists of 24 items referring to
various facets of the educational demands characteristic of the college
experience (e.g., "Recently I have had trouble concentrating when I try
to study"). The social adjustment subscale has 20 items pertaining to
various facets of the interpersonal-societal demands inherent in that ex-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
perience (e.g., "I am meeting as many people and making as many friends
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
as I would like at . . ."). The personal/emotional adjustment subscale
contains 15 items aimed at determining how the student is feeling both
psychologically and physically, that is, whether he or she is experiencing
general psychological distress and its somatic accompaniments (e.g., "I
have been feeling tense and nervous lately"). A goal commitment/insti-
tutional attachment (referred to as attachment) subscale consists of 15
items relating to the student's feelings about being in college in general
and at the college of attendance in particular, especially to the quality of
the relationship or bond that is established between the student and the
institution (e.g., "I expect to stay at ... for a bachelor's degree").
There is no overlap of items on the academic, social, and personal/
emotional adjustment subscales, but the attachment measure contains eight
items that are also on the social adjustment subscale and one that is on
the academic adjustment subscale. The attachment subscale contains items
from other subscales because it includes any item from the original version
of the adjustment-to-college scale that correlated to a certain minimum
degree with attrition in two prior samples of freshmen at Clark University.
In addition to scores for each of the four subscales, the instrument also
yields a full-scale score as an index of overall adjustment to college, with
higher scores indicating better adjustment.
Reliability and validity data for the earlier, 52-item, version of the scale
are reported elsewhere (Baker & Siryk, 1984). Fifteen items were added
to the original scale primarily to improve the reliability of the subscales,
especially the personal/emotional adjustment subscale, which in the orig-
inal version had coefficient alpha values in the .70s (see Cronbach, 1951,
for a description of coefficient alpha, a measure of internal consistency
reliability). Coefficient alphas for the expanded version, for three samples
from two colleges in an earlier study (Baker, McNeil, & Siryk, 1985),
range between .84 and .88 for the academic adjustment subscale, between
.90 and .91 for the social adjustment subscale, between .81 and .85 for
the personal/emotional adjustment subscale, between .90 and .91 for the
attachment subscale, and between .93 and .95 for the full scale.
Correlations among the subscales range from .36 to .87; the higher
values occur in the comparisons of the social adjustment and attachment
subscales, as would be expected because they share several common items.
The range of correlations among the three subscales that do not share
common items is from .36 to .64.
Regarding validity, statistically significant relations have been found
between the subscales and several criterion variables expected to be dif-
ferentially relevant to the subscales (Baker & Siryk, 1984). Criterion var-
iables — representing important behaviors or accomplishments in the lives
of students — include attrition, appeals for services from a psychological
clinic, grade point average, election to an academic honor society, in-
volvement in social activities, and outcome of application for dormitory
assistant positions. As other indications of validity, the scale has been
found to reflect predicted differences among black students in their ad-
justment to predominantly white colleges as a function of differences in
prior interracial experience (Graham, Baker, & Wapner, 1984), as well
as predicted differences among students in the relation of prematriculation
expectations to postmatriculation perceptions of self-assessed adjustment
to college as those differences in turn relate to other behavioral manifes-
tations of adjustment to college (Baker et al., 1985).
Procedure
In the eighth week of the first semester of the academic year 1981-
1982, the adjustment-to-college scale was distributed by campus mail to
the 549 members of the freshman class of Clark University, in Worcester,
Massachusetts. It was made clear in a cover letter that (a) participation in
the research program was voluntary; (b) strict professional confidentiality
would be provided; (c) other questionnaires would be sent subsequently,
and information about student progress would be obtained from university
records as time went on; and (d) selected persons might be invited for
interview. The scale was completed and returned by 216 students (76 men,
140 women).
To construct comparison groups representing clear differences in effec-
tiveness of adjustment to college as measured by the scale, students oc-
cupying the extremes of the distribution of scores (viz., ^ ± 1 SD) on
each of the four subscales were identified. Eighty-six students (33 men,
53 women) had at least one high-end (relatively well-adjusted) subscale
score, and 90 (26 men, 64 women) had at least one low-end (relatively
less well-adjusted) score. Students thus identified could be compared across
the distribution extremes within each subscale for behavioral differences
relevant to the subscale in question, as well as for differences in the way
they perceive themselves and their life circumstances.
To make possible an investigation of consequences of intervention, the
students on the low end of the subscale distributions were assigned either
to an interview or no-interview condition, as were those on the high end.
Assignments were made in such a manner that the two pools of students
within each end of the distributions were equivalent for subscale scores,
sex, and size. With this design, the consequences of intervention can be
examined for relatively well-adjusted and relatively less well-adjusted stu-
dents separately.
At this juncture, it is desirable to point out and clarify a complication
associated with the authors' conception of adjustment to college as mul-
tifaceted — reflected in the division of the measuring instrument into four
subscales, each addressing a different aspect of that adjustment — and
with the assumption that a given student's adjustment may vary from one
area to another. One and the same student, for example, may function
relatively well academically and relatively poorly socially, or vice versa.
Sometimes this intraindividual variation occurs to the extent that one and
the same student in the present study could qualify as well adjusted in one
area and less well adjusted in another. Indeed, 13 students (2 men, 11
women) had both high- and low-end scores.
This overlapping is not a problem for the comparison of students rep-
resenting clear differences in effectiveness of adjustment to college as
measured by the scale, that is, across distribution extremes, as long as the
focus is on one particular aspect of adjustment (i.e., one subscale), because
a student cannot be both high and low simultaneously on the same sub-
scale. However, in instances where the focus is on adjustment-to-college
overall or in some general sense, it will be necessary to exclude overlap-
pers because of their ambiguous status.
Because the intent in the investigation of consequences of intervention
is to look at relatively well-adjusted and relatively less well-adjusted stu-
dents separately, the 13 overlappers were excluded in this analysis. Thus,
of the 77 students (24 men, 53 women) with only low-end scores, 39 (12
men, 27 women) were assigned to the interview condition and 38 (12
men, 26 women) were assigned to the no-interview condition. Of the 73
students (30 men, 43 women) with only high-end scores, 37 (15 men, 22
women) were assigned to the interview condition and 36 (15 men, 21
women) were assigned to the no-interview condition.
The students assigned to the interview condition were sent letters in
mid-November of 1981 requesting a follow-up individual meeting. It was
 ADJUSTMENT TO COLLEGE
explained that they had a pattern of test results that we wanted to inves-
tigate further, and at the same time it was stated that feedback concerning
the questionnaire in general and their scores in particular would be offered.
Those not responding by returning a schedule card were sent follow-up
letters. Of the 39 low-end students invited for an interview, 36 (10 men,
26 women) accepted; of the 37 high-end students invited, 31 (13 men, 18
women) accepted.
The fact that 9 of the students originally assigned to the interview
condition did not accept the invitation for an interview did not adversely
affect the matching of the interview and no-interview groups. The low-
end interview and no-interview groups were now 27.8% and 31.6% male,
respectively, and the corresponding figures for the high-end were 41.9%
and 41.7%. Furthermore, in no instance was there a significant difference
by t test between the interview and no-interview groups within each dis-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
tribution extreme on any of the four subscale scores or the full-scale score
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
from the first-semester testing.
The 67 interviewed students were each seen once for 1 to 2 hr between
late November and mid-March. It should be mentioned here that although
a long-term goal of the overall research program is to provide the diag-
nostic means for targeted interventions — that is, interventions specifically
appropriate to needs as diagnosed, for example, in the academic, social,
or personal/emotional areas — the mode of intervention employed in this
exploratory study was relatively nonspecific in this regard. Accordingly,
at the outset there was no anticipation of differential consequences of the
interview for the several subscale scores.
Moreover, the interview format was relatively unstructured at the be-
ginning of the study and only over time evolved into a fairly standard
procedure that ultimately was as described in the following paragraphs.
Over the whole course of the study, however, the basic nature of the
interview remained constant in its employment of adjustment-to-college
scale scores as the central focus of discussion. Changes that did occur in
the mode of interview were ones of detail rather than of essential nature
and are not considered likely to have significant consequences for findings
except in one instance to reduce the amount of data available for a par-
ticular analysis. The fact that interviews were held over a period of several
months — thus making for different lengths of time between the initial
testing and the interview and between the interview and the readministra-
tion of the adjustment-to-college scale toward the end of the academic
year — could have consequences for findings, which are considered in
the following section.
Each interview was begun with an explanation of the basic structure of
the questionnaire, namely, that it comprised four subscales measuring
different aspects of adjustment to college. It was also explained that the
interviewer's essential interest was in examining the degree of correspon-
dence between the impression of a student yielded by the scale and what
had been happening in the student's adjustment to college. The interviewer
said that he would try to describe from the student's responses to the
questionnaire how things had been going for him or her at the time the
questionnaire had been filled out, and the student was urged to feel free
to react at any time by disagreeing, agreeing, offering elaboration, or
whatever.
The means of selection of persons for interviews was described, thus
informing the student that he or she had at least one subscale score on one
or the other extreme of a distribution. The interviewer specified a subscale
that had served as a basis for selection in the particular interviewee's
instance, reminded the interviewee what the subscale attempted to mea-
sure, and asked if he or she could identify the end of the distribution on
which the score fell (the asking of this question was begun about halfway
through the series of interviews). The participant was then told the z score
(explained) for the subscale in question; then averages for certain clusters
of items (concerning various aspects of the adjustment area measured by
the subscale) as well as individual item scores were given and discussed.
Special effort was made to draw relations and patterns among item and
cluster scores within the subscale.
When the presentation of information concerning a subscale was com-
33
pleted, the participant was asked whether if he or she were to take the
subscale again that day, the score would be any different — higher, lower,
or about the same. Then the interviewer moved to another subscale and
repeated the foregoing procedure for presentation and discussion of scores
until all four subscales had been covered.
Where there were indications of particular difficulties in the student's
adjustment to college, possible ways of dealing with them were explored,
and in some instances specific advice, information, or recommendations
were offered, such as where and from whom particular kinds of help might
be obtained. Students were also invited to ask for another interview at any
time.
The term cluster as used earlier and in the feedback to the student refers
to groups of items within a subscale that allude to a particular aspect of
the adjustment area covered by the subscale, the grouping determined by
logical analysis on the part of the first author. The academic adjustment
subscale had four such subsets: six items referred to motivation for being
in college and for doing academic work; four bore on how well that
motivation was being translated into actual academic effort; nine related
to the efficacy or success of that effort in various aspects of performance;
and five asked about satisfaction with the academic environment. Within
the social adjustment subscale there were also four clusters: extent and
success of social involvement in general; relationships with other persons
on campus; how one was dealing with being away from home and sig-
nificant persons there; and satisfaction with the social aspects of the college
environment. The personal/emotional adjustment subscale contained two
clusters: psychological feeling-states and physical feeling-states. Finally,
the attachment subscale also had two clusters: satisfaction with being in
college in general and satisfaction with being at Clark in particular.
In addition to the interview, on one occasion all members of the treat-
ment group were sent printed material describing the research program,
particularly how it came about and what it was attempting to accomplish.
Students assigned to no-interview groups were neither contacted re-
garding interviews nor sent printed materials.
After all interviews had been conducted, the adjustment-to-college scale
was distributed again during the 11th week of the second semester to all
students who had participated in the fall testing. It was completed and
returned by 163 students (60 men, 103 women). Of the 36 students with
only low-end scores who were interviewed, 23 (8 men, 15 women) com-
pleted and returned the second-semester questionnaire; of the 38 students
with only low-end scores who had been assigned to the no-interview con-
dition, 29 (9 men, 20 women) did so. Of the 31 students with only high-
end scores who were interviewed, 26 (12 men, 14 women) completed and
returned the second questionnaire; of the 36 students with only high-end
scores who had been assigned to the no-interview condition, 32 (14 men,
18 women) did so.
As finally constituted, the low-end interview and no-interview groups
were now 34.8% and 31.0% male, respectively, and the corresponding
figures for the high-end were 46.2% and 43.8%. Chi-square analysis re-
vealed no significant differences in composition by sex between the in-
terview and no-interview groups within each distribution extreme. Nor
were there any significant differences by t test between those same groups
on any of the first-semester adjustment-to-college scale measures (see the
Results section for these data). That is, the original matching of the groups
was not impaired by the fact that some students did not accept the invi-
tation to be interviewed or by the failure of some to return the second-
semester questionnaire.
Results
Coefficient alphas for the first (N = 216) and second (TV =
163) administrations of the scale, respectively, are full scale, .91
and .92; academic adjustment, .82 and .87; social adjustment, .88
and .88; personal/emotional adjustment, .82 and .79; and attach-
ment, .89 and .86.
 34 ROBERT W. BAKER AND BOHDAN SIRYK
Although some of the reported findings are quantitative, others
are qualitative and even anecdotal because of the basically ex-
ploratory nature of the study. Those presented first take the form
of observations made by the interviewer.
General Observations Regarding Utility of the Scale
As judged from several years of use in developmental research
as well as from the present study, the scale is well received and
well regarded by students. Not uncommonly students interpret its
use as an indication that "someone cares," and express gratitude
for that. The thought is also expressed sometimes that responding
to scale items causes a student to think about himself or herself
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
in new and beneficial ways.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
A second general observation — one that assumes special sig-
nificance in light of the previously cited fact that students, even
very needy ones, are not likely to take advantage of voluntary
counseling programs — is that because the students previously
completed and returned the scale, there is a legitimate and appar-
ently fruitful basis for follow-up. If the scale accomplishes nothing
else, it provides an excuse for such access, and students respond
favorably in terms of numbers. In the present study, 86% of the
students invited for an interview accepted (71 out of 83, including
overlappers), and that proportion would have been higher except
for scheduling difficulties in some instances. A problem still faced
by users of such a scale, of course, is to get the student to complete
and return it in the first place.
A third general observation is that the data from the scale made
possible an easy and comfortable approach to, and productive
discussion of, the topic of a student's adjustment to college. The
provision of significant issues for discussion is no small advan-
tage, especially in those instances in which a student has been
experiencing difficulties and the subscale, item cluster, or indi-
vidual item scores offer useful means of specifying and tracking
down the areas and sources of difficulty.
More Specific Observations and Quantitative Findings
Concerning Utility: Correspondence Between Scale Data
and Effectiveness of Adjustment to College
The descriptions offered by the interviewer based on question-
naire responses were generally seen by students as meaningful and
accurate representations of what had been going on in their lives
at college. Not only did students offer statements affirming the
appropriateness of such inferences but they also gave explanations
of how or why things had been going poorly or well. They ac-
counted for low scores in the social area by telling about problems
with making friends or keeping friends in general, or in particular,
problems with boyfriends, girlfriends, or roommates; difficulties
with parents; ethnic, religious, or sociocultural differences with
peers, sometimes regarding alcohol or other drugs or sexual be-
havior; missing friends or relatives from home; geographical-cul-
tural displacement, occasionally with reference to urban-rural
differences; problems in living arrangements; and unavailability
of preferred extracurricular activities.
Low scores in the academic area were explained as reflecting
problems with goal-setting, as in personal motivation for being in
college or choice of major; dissatisfaction with course program,
particular courses, or professors; level of difficulty of the work
or, conversely for some, lack of challenge by coursework or lack
of intellectual stimulation by peers. In the area of personal/emo-
tional adjustment, where items are couched largely in terms of
psychological or physical feelings-states, explanatory references
were made to the same kinds of issues as previously cited or to
problems with health or personal finances.
Explanations of how or why things were going well by and
large made reference to the same kinds of topics, but from a
positive slant, for example, favorable and supportive relationships
with others, enjoyment of dormitory living, a sense of compati-
bility with the community, enjoyment of new and different people
and experiences, a sense of academic purpose and accomplish-
ment, and satisfaction with the academic aspects of college. One
high-end scorer told of not wanting to go home for vacation be-
cause of good feelings for college, and another told of being
"lonesome for school" while home for winter vacation and look-
ing forward to returning to college.
An interesting confirmation for the interviewer of the accuracy
of the impression of a student yielded by scale data was a frequent
experience of pleasure, sometimes even exhilaration, during or
after interviews with well-functioning, high-scoring students.
When asked to identify the end of the distribution on which the
score fell for the subscale serving as the basis for selection for an
interview, all but 1 of the 13 well-functioning, high-scoring stu-
dents so queried made correct identifications. The reader will re-
call that the interviewer began asking the question about halfway
through the series of interviews. The misidentifier (selected on
the basis of a high score on the personal/emotional adjustment
subscale) explained — once he had gotten things clarified in mem-
ory — that shortly after completing the questionnaire he had sus-
tained two incapacitating injuries adversely affecting his formerly
good spirits. He incorrectly recalled having completed the ques-
tionnaire during the period of distress. (It should be kept in mind
in evaluating these data concerning recollected status at time of
testing that at least 4 weeks and sometimes more than 4 months
elapsed between completion of the scale and the interview.)
Thirteen of the 19 less well-functioning, low-scoring students
made correct identifications. In all but 1 of the 6 instances of
misidentification it became clear in the course of the interview
that the problem was one of recall and not one of inaccuracy of
inference from scale data. That is, as the student discussed what
had been going on in his or her life at the time the questionnaire
was filled out, the questionnaire responses were seen to be con-
sonant with those circumstances. For the 6th misidentifier, self-
described as "confused," as well as 1 of the others, the inter-
viewer had made a note in the course of discussion that the student
did not seem very self-aware.
Another example of correspondence between impressions from
scale data and events in the life of the student comes from a
discussion that the interviewer had with 1 of the members of the
no-interview group a year after the interviewing had been com-
pleted. That student told how she had come very close to trans-
ferring in the second semester of her freshman year and how
indeed she had applied to another college and was accepted. She
visited the other college for 3 days in the middle of March, came
to the conclusion during the visit that "Clark wasn't so bad after
 ADJUSTMENT TO COLLEGE
all," and decided not to transfer. Her z score on the attachment
subscale for the first semester testing was — 1.73 and her score
was — 1.44 on the social adjustment subscale, in which area she
said her dissatisfaction lay. In the second-semester testing, which
took place shortly after her visit to the other college, the scores
on the two subscales cited had improved to -0.34 and —0.56,
respectively.
Two more instances of consistency between test data and other
behavior lend themselves to statistical test. The first concerns rate
of return of the second questionnaire toward the end of the aca-
demic year. As might be expected for groups of students differing
in effectiveness of adjustment, a higher proportion of the students
identified for the purposes of the present study as well adjusted
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
(at least one subscale S + 1 SD and none 5 - 1 SD) returned the
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
second questionnaire (82.2%; 60 out of 73) than of those identified
as less well adjusted (at least one subscale 5 — 1 SD and none
s + 1 SD) (67.5%; 52 out of 77). The chi-square analysis revealed
the following results: x2 (1, N = 150) = 3.52, p = .06, two-
tailed (a two-tailed test was employed in this instance because the
direction of the difference had not been predicted in advance).
Also, consistent with findings in earlier studies regarding the
relation of scale data to attrition (Baker et al., 1985; Baker &
Siryk, 1984), a higher proportion of the less well-adjusted students
(33.8%; 26 out of 77) than of the well-adjusted students (16.7%;
12 out of 72) had withdrawn from college as of the time of writing
this article, shortly after the class's eighth semester, x2 (1, N =
149) = 4.86, p < .05. (The sample size of the well-adjusted
group is reduced by 1 in this comparison because 1 member was
a temporary foreign student who had intended to stay for 1 year
only and should not be regarded as a dropout.) If only the no-
interview groups are considered, which would be a purer test of
the relation of scale scores to attrition because possible effects of
intervention would be set aside, the results are more dramatic.
The drop-out rate in the less well-adjusted no-interview sample
(44.7%; 17 out of 38) is almost three times the rate in the well-
adjusted no-interview sample (16.7%; 6 out of 36), •%* (1, N =
74) = 5.55, p < .01, one-tailed.
Data presented in the following section concerning change as a
consequence of intervention can also be regarded as pertinent to
the issue of correspondence between test findings and adjustment-
related events in the life of the student.
Consequences of Intervention
Multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVAS) for repeated mea-
sures on the first- and second-semester adjustment-to-college scale
scores (all four subscales) of interviewed and noninterviewed stu-
dents were performed separately for the groups identified as well
adjusted or less well adjusted on the basis of the first-semester
testing. For the less well-adjusted group, the MANOVA resulted in
F(4, 47) = 2.55, p = .051. The corresponding analysis for the
well-adjusted group yielded F(4, 53) = 1.89, p = .13.
Results of univariate analyses of variance (ANOVAS) for each
of the four subscales and the full scale separately are presented in
Table 1. The statistic of particular interest in these analyses is the
interaction term, which tells whether there is differential change
35
in the interview and no-interview groups. Male and female par-
ticipants are combined in Table 1 because there were no significant
sex differences in this interaction.
The reader will note in the left half of Table 1 that the scores
of less well-adjusted students as a whole increase from the first
to the second semester, to some extent very likely reflecting
regression to the mean in extreme scores. However, on four of
the five measures there are significant interactions indicating greater
net increase, that is, greater improvement in adjustment, for the
interviewed students. The increases in those four measures range
from 4.0% to 6.2% for the noninterviewed students; for the in-
terviewed students, they range from 16.0% to 25.2%.
For those students who had been identified as well adjusted in
the first-semester testing, the noninterviewed students showed de-
clines on all five measures, whereas those who were interviewed
showed either a smaller decline or a slight increase (see Table 1).
None of the interaction terms were statistically significant, how-
ever, although the F value of 3.86 obtained for the full scale
closely approximates the value of 4.02 needed for significance at
the .05 level. Possibly the positive effects of interviewing are not
limited to the less well-adjusted students. The general tendency
toward decline may again be assumed to reflect regression to the
mean.
The findings regarding change in scale scores from the first to
the second testings are paralleled for the less well-adjusted stu-
dents by data concerning withdrawal from college. As of the time
of writing, shortly after the end of the class's eighth semester,
22.2% (8 out of 36) of the interviewed less well-adjusted students
had withdrawn, as compared with 44.7% (17 out of 38) of their
noninterviewed counterparts, x2- (1, N = 74) = 3.24, p < .05,
one-tailed. There is no difference in this variable between inter-
viewed and noninterviewed well-adjusted students; both groups
had drop-out rates of 16.7% (5 out of 30 and 6 out of 36, re-
spectively). Thus, for the less well-adjusted students, an interview
is not only associated with a significant increase in scale scores
but also with a decrease in dropping out of the college of original
enrollment.
A final finding regarding consequences of intervention concerns
the relation of the timing of the interview to the amount of change
in scale scores from pretesting to posttesting. For purposes of
statistical analysis, the number of weeks that elapsed for each
student between the first testing and the interview was determined,
as was the change in scale scores. The latter variable — a differ-
ence score with constants added to eliminate negative values —
was constructed in such a way that higher scores indicated more
beneficial outcome, that is, a relatively greater increase or rela-
tively smaller decrease in score. For both the well-adjusted and
less well-adjusted groups, the interviews occurred as soon as 4
weeks and as late as 19 weeks following the first-semester testing.
Pearson product-moment correlations between number of weeks
and magnitude of score change for the less well-adjusted students
were negative on all but one of the five adjustment measures (i.e.,
the four subscales and the full scale), but were statistically sig-
nificant only in the case of the attachment subscale, r(23) =
- .47, p < .05. Corresponding values for the well-adjusted stu-
dents were all positive but again were significant only in the case
of the attachment subscale, r(26) = .43, p < .05. Thus, there is
some evidence that early follow-up is more advantageous for the
 36 ROBERT W. BAKER AND BOHDAN SIRYK

Table 1
Analysis of Variance of Adjustment-to-College Scores for First- and Second-Semester Testings of Interviewed (I) and Noninterviewed
(NI) Freshmen Differing in Level of Adjustment on the First Testing

Adjustment Less well adjusted8 Well adjusted*1

measure n First semester Second semester F(\, 50) n First semester Second semester F(l,56)
Academic
subscale
I 23 127.26 133.61 26 163.04 158.04
0.31 1.72
NI 29 130.48 133.48 32 160.34 148.09
Social
subscale
I 23 103.43 129.48 26 136.88 141.88
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

8.68** 3.50
29 104.76 110.69 32
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

NI 144.78 140.53
Personal/
emotional
subscale
I 23 74.83 91.65 26 106.58 106.65
4.84* 2.83
NI 29 78.21 83.07 32 105.75 98.34
Attachment
subscale
I 23 82.83 99.61 26 112.00 111.85
4.60* 0.80
NI 29 83.17 86.48 32 114.72 111.19
Full
scale
I 23 353.70 410.39 26 471.00 471.35
6.15* 3.86
NI 29 361.62 378.21 32 475.19 450.78
Note. Higher scores indicate higher levels of adjustment. F values cited are for the interaction terms.
"6 - 1 SD on at least one subscale and S +1 SD on none. bS + 1 SD on at least one subscale and 6 - 1 SD on none.
*p < .05. **/> < .01.

less well-adjusted students, whereas later follow-up is more ad-
vantageous for the well-adjusted students.
Discussion
The facts that the original questionnaire return rate was only
about 40% of the class, that only students with extreme scores
were selected for interview and study, that students with both high
and low extreme scores were eliminated from some comparisons,
that some students did not accept the invitation for interview and
others did not return the second-semester questionnaire, and that
there is no basis for assuming this shrinkage is random indicate
that the resulting samples of students may not be representative
of the class as a whole. However, the facts that we are interested
in generalizing only to students who are willing to return a ques-
tionnaire such as the one used here under circumstances similar
to those of the present study, that in most analyses our focus of
interest was on the comparison of students showing clear differ-
ences in various aspects of adjustment to college, and that in most
of the analyses matched groups were used and the matching was
not adversely affected by discontinuance by some participants limit
the negative consequences of any nonrandom shrinkage that did
occur.
The general observations regarding the utility of the scale —
that is, that it is favorably regarded by students, provides a basis
for follow-up, and offers a means of approach to discussion of a
student's adjustment to college — carry promise for future use,
but there is also an important qualification to be stated. Those
observations represent perceptions and judgments on the part of
an interviewer who was also an author of the scale and therefore
subject to bias. Final judgment regarding these aspects of the
scale's utility must await either its use by other investigators with
less personal commitment to the instrument or more systematic
collection of relevant data.
The qualitative observations regarding degree of correspon-
dence between inferences drawn from scale data and effectiveness
of student adjustment to college are, of course, subject to the same
reservation. Descriptions offered by the interviewer based on
questionnaire responses were indeed generally accepted by stu-
dents as meaningful and accurate reflections of relevant events in
their lives at college, but again in the judgment of the same po-
tentially biased interviewer. Students did indeed flesh out their
confirmatory reactions with descriptions and examples of their life
circumstances in order to explain why the findings were as they
were, but the fact that the interviews were not taped precluded
more careful analysis, and no other means were used to determine
incidence of confirming or disconfirming responses.
There was no question, either, of the elevation of the inter-
viewer's mood while talking with high-scoring students whose
lives seemed correspondingly full, meaningful, and satisfying.
However, this response on the part of the interviewer was, of
 ADJUSTMENT TO COLLEGE
course, even more subjective than the rational observations pre-
viously mentioned.
The limitations of the anecdote cited in support of the corre-
spondence issue are obvious. It really is simply another example
of illustrative material offered by students in elaboration of the
relation of scale findings to events in their lives, as previously
described, except that it was given by a member of the noninter-
viewed group a year after completion of the study.
In addition to using an interviewer with less potential bias toward
the scale, it may be desirable in future research concerning the
correspondence issue to include studies in which the interviewer
also was unaware of test findings and made judgments regarding
effectiveness of student adjustment from interview data alone, to
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
be matched later with test findings.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
The data regarding correspondence between scale scores and
other adjustment-relevant behaviors or life events become more
quantitative in relation to four findings. The better adjusted stu-
dents tended to have a higher rate of return of the second ques-
tionnaire and had a lower rate of withdrawal from college than
did the less well-adjusted students. Also, the less well-adjusted
students who were interviewed had significantly higher scores on
the second testing than did those who were not interviewed. Fi-
nally, 78% of participants who were asked were able to correctly
identify the end of the distribution on which subscale scores fell,
and the misidentifications of all but 1 of the remainder could be
understood as errors of recall due in large part to passage of
considerable time from testing to interview.
Taken all together, the several indications — both qualitative
and quantitative — of correspondence between scale data and
other adjustment-relevant behaviors or events in the life of the
student can be seen as indications of validity for the measuring
instrument and of promise for its use in practical situations.
The results concerning the consequences of interviews provide
yet another example of beneficial effects of even relatively modest
interventions. Only one interview, approximately an hour in length
and designed as primarily information-giving rather than remedial,
was associated not only with significantly higher scores on the
adjustment scale but also in lower rates of dropping out of college.
One is tempted to wonder what may happen to scale scores and
related behaviors with more elaborate interventions tailored to be
more specific to particular aspects of areas of adjustment to col-
lege. Such a line of investigation could have considerable impli-
cations for both the utility and validity of the scale.
The reader will recall, for example, that the only subscale not
showing significant change after interview in the less well-ad-
justed group was the academic adjustment subscale. Quite pos-
sibly that was due to the fact that the interview process itself, and
especially the content of the particular interviews carried out, would
more likely influence social or personal/emotional adjustment, or
attachment, than academic adjustment. Maybe an intervention de-
signed to influence attitudes toward academic activity or to im-
prove academic skills would have more effect on a subscale
measuring academic adjustment than on the other subscales. In
the broader outlook, predicted differential effects on the subscales
of interventions varying in degree of relevance to those subscales
could be of great value not only practically and psychometrically
but also heuristically.
It is possible to argue that the increase in scale scores after an
interview is less an indication of improvement in adjustment than
37
of a tendency on the part of the interviewer unwittingly to com-
municate to the student his interest in having the student's ad-
justment change for the better and the student's tendency to oblige
or please this authority figure who was good enough to be inter-
ested in his or her welfare. To the extent that this was true, the
increase in score would reflect more of a verbal, superficial phe-
nomenon than a substantial change of personal status. However,
the fact that an interview was also associated with less attrition,
a behavioral variable of considerable importance, would seem to
controvert that interpretation.
In conclusion, what is needed in future investigations of the
utility of the scale in interview situations is more systematic and
controlled means of comparing students who differ in effective-
ness of adjustment to college as measured by the scale to deter-
mine whether they indeed look different behaviorally or regard
themselves differently. Important in the accomplishment of this
goal would be use of interviewers not biased in favor of the scale,
possibly in some designs where the interviewer is unaware of the
test findings, and preferably where there is less time lapse between
testing and interview. To explore whether the consequences of the
intervention in the present study are attributable to the contents
of the interviews (i.e., feedback and discussion of questionnaire
findings) and not simply to the fact of being interviewed, a control
condition in which there are interviews but no discussion of scale
data could be employed. Of particular advantage would be re-
search showing predictable differential consequences of different
kinds of interventions for the several subscales.
References
Baker, R. W., McNeil, O. V., & Siryk, B. (1985). Expectation and reality
in freshman adjustment to college. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
32, 94-103.
Baker, R. W., & Nisenbaum, S. (1979). Lessons from an attempt to
facilitate freshman transition into college. Journal of the American Col-
lege Health Association, 28, 79-81.
Baker, R. W., & Siryk, B. (1984). Measuring adjustment to college.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31, 179-189.
Beal, P. E., & Noel, L. (1980). What works in student retention (Joint
project report, the American College Testing Program and the National
Center for Higher Education Management Systems). Iowa City, IA:
American College Testing Program.
Bednar, R. L., & Weinberg, S. L. (1970). Ingredients of successful treat-
ment programs for underachievers. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
17, 1-7.
Bloom, B. L. (1971). A university freshman preventive intervention pro-
gram: Report of a pilot project. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 37, 235-242.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of
tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297-334.
Friedlander, J. (1980). Are college support programs and services reaching
high-risk students? Journal of College Student Personnel, 21, 23-28.
Graham, C., Baker, R. W., & Wapner, S. (1984). Prior interracial ex-
perience and black student transition into predominantly white colleges.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1146-1154.
Kipnis, D., & Resnick, J. H. (1971). Experimental prevention of under-
achievement among intelligent impulsive college students. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 36, 53-60.
Kirshner, L. A. (1974). A follow-up of a freshman group counseling
program. Journal of the American College Health Association, 22, 279-
280.
 38 ROBERT W. BAKER AND BOHDAN SIRYK

Lindquist, C. U., & Lowe, S. R. (1978). A community-oriented evalu-
ation of two prevention programs for college freshmen. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 25, 53-60.
Meichenbaum, D. H., & Smart, I. (1971). Use of a direct expectancy to
modify academic performance and attitudes of college students. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 18, 531-535.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Wilson, T. D., & Linville, P. W. (1982). Improving the academic per-
formance of college freshmen: Attribution theory revisited. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 367-376.
Received February 8, 1985
Revision received July 9, 1985 •

New Look for the APA Journals in 1986

Beginning with this issue, the APA Journals have a new look. All the journals will be 8'/4 x 11
inches — a little larger than the American Psychologist is now. This change in trim size will help
reduce the costs of producing the journals, both because more type can be printed on the larger
page (reducing the number of pages and amount of paper needed) and because the larger size
allows for more efficient printing by many of the presses in use today. In addition, the type size
of the text will be slightly smaller for most of the journals, which will contribute to the most
efficient use of each printed page.
These changes are part of continuing effort to keep the cost of producing the APA journals
down, to offset the escalating costs of paper and mailing, and to minimize as much as possible
increases in the prices of subscriptions to the APA journals.