See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/232490851

The Development and Implications of a Personal Problem-

Solving Inventory

Article  in  Journal of Counseling Psychology · January 1982

DOI: 10.1037/0022-0167.29.1.66

CITATIONS READS
1,321 14,301

2 authors, including:

Puncky Paul Heppner

University of Missouri
191 PUBLICATIONS   11,257 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Mentoring View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Puncky Paul Heppner on 17 November 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Counseling Psychology Copyright 1982 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.
1982, Vol. 29, No. 1,66-75 0022-0167/82/2901-0066$00.75

The Development and Implications

of a Personal Problem-Solving Inventory
P. Paul Heppner Chris H. Petersen
University of Missouri—Columbia Concordia University

Only a few studies have explicitly attended to the personal problem-solving

process within the counseling literature, perhaps due in part to the dearth of
relevant assessment instruments. This article examines _the dimensions
underlying the applied problem-solving process and describes the develop-
ment of a problem-solving instrument based on factor-analysis results. In ad-
dition, the article delineates initial reliability and validity estimates of the in-
strument. Data were collected from four samples of students (ns = 150, 62,
31, and 18). The factor analysis revealed three distinct constructs: problem-
solving confidence, approach-avoidance style, and personal control. Al-
though previous research has focused on stages within problem solving, these
results suggest the existence of underlying dimensions across stages within
people's perceptions of their real-life, personal problem solving. Reliability
estimates of the 32 items revealed that the constructs were internally consis-
tent and stable over time. Initial estimates of validity suggest that the instru-
ment is measuring constructs that are (a) amenable to change through specific
skill training in problem solving, (b) unrelated to conceptualizing means to
solving a hypothetical problem situation, (c) related to general perceptions of
problem-solving skills, (d) unrelated to intelligence or social desirability, and
(e) related to personality variables, most notably locus of control. The inves-
tigation has implications for future research on the personal problem-solving
process and provides a research instrument that is easily administered and
scored.

Problem solving is of special concern for psychology has been concerned with prob-
professionals who are interested in helping lem solving (e.g., Davis, 1966; Gagne, 1964;
others solve problems that are particularly Maier, 1970; Newell, Shaw, & Simon, 1958),
troublesome. Counselors are such profes- most of the research within counseling has
sionals, as Krumboltz (1965) so aptly remained at the conceptual level (e.g.,
states, Clarke, Gelatt, & Levine, 1965; Urban &
Ford, 1971). In addition, a review of the
The central reason for the existence of counseling is counseling literature revealed that only a few
based on the fact that people have problems that they
are unable to resolve by themselves. They come to a .studies have explicitly attended to the
counselor because they have been led to believe that the problem-solving process (Heppner, 1978).
counselor will be of some assistance to them in resolving In short, researchers within counseling have
their problems. The central purpose of counseling, not developed a technology for helping
then, is to help each client resolve those problems for
which he requests help. (pp. 383-384) clients-with problem solving and decision
making (Horan, 1979). Perhaps contribut-
Although a great deal of research within ing to the lack of research is the dearth of
instruments that measure aspects of the
personal problem-solving process. The
An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Means-Ends Problem Solving Procedure
annual meeting of the American Psychological Associ-
ation, Los Angeles, August 1981. (MEPS) developed by Platt and Spivack
The authors extend their gratitude to Lynne Reeder (1975) is a notable exception.
and Janet Hibel for their assistance in some phases of Another reason for the lack of research on
the data collection, and to Charles J. Krauskopf for his problem solving in counseling is the appar-
technical assistance in developing the instrument.
Requests for reprints should be sent to P. Paul ent irrelevancy of the problem-solving re-
Heppner, 210 McAlester Hall, Psychology Department, search for the practitioner. For example,
University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri 65211. the utility of research that uses water jar
66
 PROBLEM-SOLVING INVENTORY
problems (e.g., Jacobus & Johnson, 1964),
anagram problems (e.g., Tresselt & Mayzner,
1960), or arithmetic problems (e.g., Klaus-
meier & Loughlin, 1961) may not be readily
apparent to the practitioner. Wickelgrin
(1974) noted that such research methodol-
ogies examine how people solve predefined
laboratory problems (i.e., formal problems),
which may be different or less complex than
how people solve real-life, applied personal
problems.
Earlier investigators postulated the exis-
tence of several "stages" within the prob-
lem-solving process (Clarke et al, 1965;
Dewey, 1933; D'Zurilla & Goldfried, 1971;
Goldfried & Goldfried, 1975; Urban & Ford,
1971). Five stages are common to most
models of problem solving: general orien-
tation, problem definition, generation of
alternatives, decision making, and evalua-
tion. In addition, training programs de-
signed to enhance subjects' problem-solving
skills often are developed around various
stages (e.g., Dixon, Heppner, Petersen, &
Ronning, 1979; D'Zurilla & Goldfried, 1971;
Mendonca & Siess, 1976). Although some
evidence has suggested that problem solving
is a function of different activities (Johnson,
Parrott, & Stratton, 1968; Spivack & Shure,
1974), no research has empirically investi-
gated the existence of these stages and con-
comitant problem-solving skills in applied
problem-solving situations. In addition, it
is unclear whether there are dimensions
underlying the applied problem-solving
process, and whether the process is most
accurately described in terms of distinct
stages or perhaps dimensions that cut across
The purpose of this investigation was to
examine the dimensions underlying the
real-life, personal problem-solving process
through an exploratory factor analysis. We
also describe in this article the development
of a problem-solving instrument based on
the factor-analysis results and delineate re-
liability and validity estimates of the in-
strument.
Method
Subjects
The initial sample (n - 150) consisted of under-
graduate university students enrolled in an introductory
67
psychology class during the spring of 1980. They vol-
unteered to respond to three instruments: The Prob-
lem Solving Inventory (PSI), Level of Problem Solving
Skills Estimate Form (LPSSEF), and Rotter Internal-
External (I-E) Locus of Control, Subjects were told
that the experimenter was interested in how people
solve personal problems and that their responses to the
three questionnaires were part of the investigation. In
addition, the experimenter asked permission to collect
the subjects' entrance examination scores: The School
and College Ability Test (SCAT, Series II), Missouri
College English Test (MCET), and Missouri Mathe-
matics Placement Test (MMPT). All subjects received
laboratory credit for their participation. The subjects'
mean age was 19.2 years, they were primarily freshmen
and sophomores (45% and 41%, respectively), 38% were
male and 62% were female, and they were largely single
(96%) and largely Caucasian (95%).
A second sample consisted of an additional 62 un-
dergraduate university students enrolled in an intro-
ductory psychology class during the fall of 1980; these
subjects volunteered to respond to six instruments:
PSI, LPSSEF, Social Desirability Scale (SDS), Myers-
Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), Means-Ends Problem
Solving procedure (MEPS), and the Unusual Uses Ac-
tivity (UUA) from the Torrance Test of Creative
Thinking. They were told that the experimenter was
interested in how people solve personal problems; all
subjects received laboratory credit for their participa-
tion. The subjects' mean age was 18.9 years, they were
primarily freshmen (77%), 24% were male and 76% were
female, and they were largely single (93%) and largely
Caucasian (91%). Half of this group (n = 31) consti-
tuted the third sample of subjects; they were asked to
return 2 weeks later and .were readministered the
PSI.
A final group of subjects (n = 18) consisted of un-
dergraduate students who registered to participate in
a problem-solving workshop offered by the guidance
center at a Canadian university. The subjects' mean
age was 33.9 years; 39% were male and 61% were fe-'
male.
\
Instruments
The present PSI consisted of a 6-point, Likert-type
format of 35 items constructed by the authors as face
valid measures of each of the five problem-solving
stages, based on a revision of an earlier problem-solving
inventory (Heppner & Petersen, Note 1). The items
were randomly ordered and written to contain an equal
number of positive and negative statements about
problem solving. Low scores indicate behaviors and
attitudes typically associated with successful problem
solving.
On the LPSSEF, subjects rated their1 level of prob-
lem-solving skills (1-9) in comparison with other stu-
dents (1 = very much less, 9 = very much more;
Heppner, 1979). In addition, students rated their level
of satisfaction or dissatisfaction (1-6) with their present
level of problem-solving skills (1 = very dissatisfied, 6
= very satisfied). The respective test-retest reliability
coefficients over a 2-week period were .99 and .93 (n =
53).
The Rotter Internal-External (I-E) Locus of Control
68 P. PAUL HEPPNER AND CHRIS H. PETERSEN
is a 29-item forced-choice format test that measures a
person's belief or expectations about how reinforcement
is controlled (Rotter, 1966). Low scores indicate an
internal locus of control. Rotter (1966) reported several
estimates of internal consistency (a = .69 to .73), and
several estimates of testr-retest reliability (r = .55 to .78).
.Several studies have provided empirical support for
construct validity of the scale.
The SCAT, Series II is an intelligence test that pro-
vides estimates of basic verbal and mathematical ability
(Educational Testing Service, 1967). High scores in-
dicate greater verbal and mathematical ability. The
Educational Testing Service (1967) provides several
estimates of predictive validity between scores on the
SCAT and later academic achievement (r = .41 to .69),
concurrent validity between scores on the SCAT and the
Scholastic Aptitude Test (r = .52 to .86), and test-retest
reliability (r = .87 to ,94).
The MCET is a 90-item test that assesses students'
knowledge of the mechanics and effectiveness of written
communication (Callis & Johnson, 1965). Content
validity of the items and scoring was established by
using college English teachers as judges. Split-half
reliability coefficients range from .92 to .95 (Callis &
Johnson, 1965), High scores indicate greater knowl-
edge.
The MMPT provides information about the algebraic
skills of entering college freshmen (Krauskopf, Bur-
cham, & Willis, 1967). High scores indicate greater
mathematical knowledge. Estimates of reliability
provided a split-half reliability coefficient of .84, and
a test-retest correlation of .81 (Krauskopf et al., 1967).
The authors provided several estimates of predictive
validity and concurrent validity.
The SDS, a 33-item, true-false instrument, locates
individuals who describe themselves in favorable, so-
cially desirable terms in order to achieve the approval
of others (Crowne & Marlowe, 1964). High scores in-
dicate more socially desirable responses. Internal
consistency was estimated to be .88 and a test-retest
correlation over a 1-month interval also was reported
to be .88 (Crowne & Marlowe, 1964).
The MBTI is a personality inventory that assesses
basic differences in the way people prefer to use per-
ception and judgment (Myers, 1962). The indicator
contains separate indices for determining each of the
four basic preferences: extraversion or introversion,
sensing or intuition, thinking or feeling, judgment or
perception. Split-half reliability estimates of the four
indices ranged from .44 to .94 (Myers, 1962). Myers
also presented a wide range of data that provide esti-
mates of construct and concurrent validity.
The MEPS consists of 10 stories involving interper-
sonal problem situations and provides a measure of an
individual's ability to conceptualize means of moving
toward an effective solution (Platt & Spivack, 1975).
High scores indicate a greater ability to conceptualize
the means in solving problems. Estimates of reliability
include coefficients of internal consistency (.80-.84) and
test-retest correlations (.43-63). Platt & Spivack
(1975) also provided some evidence of discriminant and
concurrent validity, and considerable evidence for
construct validity (Platt, Scura, & Hannon, 1973; Platt,
Spivack, Altman, Altman, & Peizer, 1974). Interrater
reliabilities on scoring the number of means in each of
the first three stories between judges used in this study
were .83, .95, and .90, respectively.
The Unusual Uses Activity (Form A, Cardboard
Boxes) in the Torrance Test of. Creative Thinking
measures aspects of the creative-thinking process
(Torrance, 1966). High scores indicate greater fluency,
flexibility, and originality. Estimates of test-retest
reliability ranged from .60 to .75 across the three scores
(Mackler, 1963; Yamamoto, 1962). In addition, Tor-
rance (1966) provided additional data supporting the
construct, concurrent, and predictive validity of his tests
of creative thinking. Interrater reliabilities on scoring
the fluency and flexibility scores between two raters
used in this study were .99 and .97, respectively.
Procedure
Data were collected from the four samples of stu-
dents. A total of 150 students initially responded to the
PSI, and these data served as the basis for the factor
analysis. On the basis of the factor analysis, the 35-item
questionnaire was reduced to 32 items. Additional data
were collected from other students to establish an es-
timate of test-retest reliability and estimates of con-
current validity (rcs = 31, 62). Finally, a study was
conducted to provide further support for the construct
validity of the instrument.
Results
Factor Analyses
A principal-components factor analysis
was performed using the Statistical Package
for the Social Sciences (Nie, Hull, Jenkins,
Steinbrenner, & Bent, 1970). The analysis
yielded 10 factors having eigenvalues greater
than 1.00 and accounting for 65% of the
common variance. Using a scree test to
identify only the major common factors
(Cattell, 1965), three factors were extracted.
Using a varimax rotation and applying the
rule of retaining only those factor loadings
above .3, three factors were identified with
11,16, and 5 items. A summary of the items
that contribute to each of the three factors
is presented in Table 1. The first factor was
labeled by the experimenters "problem-
solving confidence," and as Table 1 indicates
it includes items that seem to assess confi-
dence in engaging in a wide range of prob-
lem-solving activities. The second factor
was labeled "approach-avoidance style,"
because a central theme among most of these
items involved whether an individual ap-
proaches or avoids different problem-solving
activities. The third factor was labeled
"personal control," since most of the items
 PROBLEM-SOLVING INVENTORY 69

Table 1
Summary of Items Contributing to Each Factor, Factor Loadings, and Item-Part Correlations

Item-part
Item Loading correlation

Problem-solving confidence
5. I am usually able to think up creative and effective alternatives to solve a
problem. .42 .42
10. I have the ability to solve most problems even though initially no solution
is immediately apparent. .63 .62
11. Many problems I face are too complex for me to solve. .45 .42
12. I make decisions and am happy with them later. .51 .52
19. When I make plans to solve a problem, I am almost certain that I can make
them work. .63 .53
23. Given enough time and effort, I believe I can solVe most problems that
confront me. .73 .71
24. When faced with a novel situation I have confidence that I can handle
problems that may arise. .75 .70
27. I trust my ability to solve new and difficult problems. .71 .68
33. After making a decision, the outcome I expected usually matches the
actual outcome. .49 .47
34. When confronted with a problem, I am unsure of whether I can handle the
situation. .65 .64
35. When I become aware of a problem, one of the first things I do is to try to
find out exactly what the problem is. .46 .48
Approach avoidance style
1. When a solution to a problem was unsuccessful, I do not examine why it
didn't work. .33 .37
2. When I am confronted with a complex problem, I do not bother to develop
a strategy to collect information so I can define exactly what the problem
is. .40 .42
4. After I have solved a problem, I do not analyze what went right or what
went wrong. .38 .40
6. After I have tried to solve a problem with a certain course of action, I take
time and compare the actual outcome to what I thought should have
happened. .41 .39
7. When I have a problem, I think up as many possible ways to handle it as I
can until I can't come up with any more ideas. .53 .47
8. When confronted with a problem, I consistently examine my feelings to
find out what is going on in a problem situation. .30 .25
13. When confronted with a problem, I tend to do the first thing that I can
think of to solve it. .59 .57
15. When deciding on an idea or possible solution to a problem, I do not take
time to consider the chances of each alternative being successful. .49 .50
16. When confronted with a problem, I stop and think about it before deciding
on a next step. .46 .47
17. I generally go with the first good idea that comes to my mind. .45 .38
(table continued)
70 P. PAUL HEPPNER AND CHRIS H. PETERSEN

Table 1 (continued)
Item-part
Item Loading correlation

18. When making a decision, I weigh the consequences of each alternative and
compare them against each other. .71 .71
20. I try to predict the overall result of carrying out a particular course of
action, .44 .44
21. When I try to think up possible solutions to a problem, I do not come up
with very many alternatives. .37 .43
28. I have a systematic method for comparing alternatives and making
decisions. , .43 .43
30. When confronted with a problem, I do not usually examine what sort of
external things my environment may be contributing to my problem. .41 .40
31. When I am confused by a problem, one of the first things I do is survey the
situation and consider all the relevant pieces of information. .58 .58
Personal control
3. When my first efforts to solve a problem fail, I become uneasy about my
ability to handle the situation. .44 .40
14. Sometimes I do not stop and take time to deal with my problems, but just
kind of muddle ahead. .42 .46
25. Even though I work on a problem, sometimes I feel like I am groping or
wandering, and am not getting down to the real issue. .71 .61
26. I make snap judgments and later regret them. ;53 .46
32. Sometimes I get so charged up emotionally that I am unable to consider
many ways of dealing with my problems. .60 .51

that loaded on this factor involved elements A second sample (n = 62) from the same
of self-control. The factor loadings for each universe, undergraduate students from an
item are also presented in Table 1; an anal- introductory psychology class, provided
ysis of the factor loadings revealed the fol- cross-validation data. The similar norma-
lowing ranges of loadings: problem-solving tive data are as follows: Factor 1—f actorM
confidence, .42 to .75; approach-avoidance = 26.16, SD = 7.90 (item M = 2.38, SD =
style, .30 to .71; personal control, .42 to .71. .38); Factor 2—factor M = 43.68, SD = 11.40
(item M = 2.71, SD = .45); Factor 3—factor
M
Normative Data = 18-32, SD = 5.19 (item M = 3.66, SD =
.51); total inventory—inventory M = 88.16,
Based on the responses from 150 under- SD = 19.03 (item M = 2.75, SD = .54).
graduate students, the following normative
data based on exact scores were obtained for Estimates of Reliability
each of the three factors and the total in-
ventory:1 Factor 1 (problem-solving confi- An estimate of internal consistency was
dence)—factor M = 24.47, -SD = 7.53 (item computed for each of the three factors and
M = 2.44, SD .= .33); Factor 2 (approach-
avoidance style)—factor M = 46.21, SD = —
1
11.51 (item M = 2.88, SD = .47); Factor 3 Although the factors are orthogonal, a total PSI
(personal control)—factor M = 18.40, SD = acore was used as a conglomerate of the three factors
5.06 (item M = 3.68, SD = .44); total inven- (analogous to an IQ score) and thus a more general index
+ -~ „ 4. us nt CA on on oe of problem solving. Additional research is needed to
tory—inventory M = 91.50, SD = 20.65 determine the comparative utility of the total score
(item M = 2.86, SD = .58). versus factor scores.
 PROBLEM-SOLVING INVENTORY 71

the total inventory (n = 150), which are as tively). Again, all correlations were statis-
follows: problem-solving confidence, a = tically nonsignificant (p s > .05). Thus, the
.85; approach-avoidance style, a. = .84; per- instrument is not correlated with intelligence
sonal control, a = .72; and total inventory, a measures or academic achievement.
= .90. The item to part correlations are also Campbell (1960) also maintained that in
presented in Table 1. Estimates of test- establishing construct validity each new test
retest reliability were established by ad- should be correlated with a general measure
ministering the inventory to an additional 31 of social desirability. Scores on the three
undergraduate students on two occasions factors and total PSI were correlated with
approximately 2 weeks apart. The test- the SDS (n = 62; rs = -.09, -.09, -.24, -.16,
retest reliabilities were as follows: prob- respectively). The correlations were sta-
lem-solving confidence, r = .85; approach- tistically nonsignificant (ps > .05), except
avoidance style, r = .88; personal control, r with the third factor (r = -.24, p < .05).
- .83; and the total inventory, r = .89. Thus scores on the PSI do not seem to be
highly correlated with scores on a general
Estimates of Validity measure of social desirability.
Validity coefficients were also computed
Estimates of concurrent and construct by correlating the scores on the three factors
validity were established through several and the total PSI with scores on the Rotter
means. First, scores on the three factors I-E scale (n = 33), the UUA (n = 62), and
and the total PSI were correlated with the MBTI (n = 62). All correlations were
the LPSSEF (n = 150), specifically with stu- statistically significant (ps < .01) with the
dents' ratings of their levels of problem- Rotter I-E scale (rs = .64, .53, .40, .61, re-
solving skills (rs = —.44, —.29, —.43, and spectively). Correlations between scores on
-.46, respectively), and students' perceived Factor 1, Factor 2, the total PSI and both the
satisfaction/dissatisfaction with their fluency and flexibility scores on the UUA
problem-solving skills (rs = -.42, -.24, -.39, were not statistically significant (all ps >
and -.42, respectively). All correlations .05). Correlations between scores on Factor
were statistically significant (ps < .0001). 3 (personal control), however, were moder-
Thus, scores on the PSI correlate moderately ately low but statistically significant (ps <
well with scores on a simple self-rating scale. .02) with both the fluency and flexibility
Scores on the PSI were also correlated with scores (rs = -.27 and -.34, respectively).
scores on the first three stories of the MEPS All correlations with the continuous scores
(n = 62). All correlations were statistically ' of each of the four type indicators on the
nonsignificant (ps > .05). MBTI were statistically nonsignificant (ps
Campbell (1960) maintained that in esr > .05), except between scores on the third
tablishing construct validity for any new test, factor and the thinking-feeling scores (r =
it is useful to correlate the new instrument .25,p<.05).
with an intelligence test. Scores on the PSI Finally, a small study (n = 18) was con-
were correlated with the SCAT, Series II (n ducted that supported the construct Validity
— 98); the scores on all three factors and the of the instrument. The study used a Post-
total PSI were correlated with scores on the test Only - Control Group Design (Campbell
Verbal section (rs = .09, .08, .11, .09, re- & Stanley, 1966; Design No. 6), and involved
spectively), with scores on the Quantitative a comparison of subjects who had received
section (rs = .14, .10, .12, .15, respectively), problem-solving training versus a control
and with the total score (rs = .13, .11, .11, .13, sample. Training consisted of a workshop
respectively). Scores on the three factors emphasizing a process approach to problem
and total PSI were also correlated with solving, and entailed six 1-hour sessions.
MCET scores (n = 98; rs = -.03, -.12, .16, Subjects received group and individual in-
-.02), and MMPT scores (n = 99; rs = .04, struction as well as homework assignments
-.02, .11, .08, respectively). In addition, covering a wide range of problem-solving
scores on the three factors and the total PSI skills. Since it was predicted that the ex-
were correlated with subjects' high school perimental subjects would rate themselves
rank (n = 88; rs = .14, -.01, .18, .06, respec- more positively on the PSI than the control
72 P. PAUL HEPPNER AND CHRIS H. PETERSEN
group would, a one-tailed test of significance
was conducted. Results indicated that the
group that was posttested immediately fol-
lowing the workshop scored significantly
lower on the PSI than the control group,
which was pretested immediately prior to
the workshop, t (16) = 1.86, p < .05.
Discussion
The results of the factor analysis indicate
that there are at least three dimensions
underlying the perceived personal prob-
lem-solving process of college students. An
analysis of the items that loaded on each
factor revealed constructs such as confidence
in one's problem-solving ability, an ap-
proach-avoidance style, and personal con-
trol. Estimates of reliability indicate these
constructs are internally consistent as well
as stable over time. In addition, cross vali-
dation data from two different samples in-
dicate that the normative data are consis-
tent across similar samples of college stu-
dents. It is important to note that the items
depicting each of the five general problem-
solving stages loaded in an almost random
fashion across each of three constructs.
Although several writers have described
distinct stages within the problem-solving
process (e.g., Clarke et al., 1965; Dewey, 1933,
D'Zurilla & Goldfried, 1971), the results can
be interpreted as suggesting the existence of
underlying dimensions across stages within
students' perception of their real-life per-
sonal problem solving. Such a notion may
more accurately portray the complexity of
real-life problem solving; describing applied
problem solving only in terms of content-
stages not only may be an oversimplification
but also may mask important individual
differences in the applied problem-solving
process.
The three dimensions of confidence in
one's problem-solving ability, an ap-
proach-avoidance style, and personal control
are consistent with some earlier research. In
examining generalized expectancies for
personal problem solving, Rotter (1978)
postulated that the most important prob-
lem-solving attitude was the expectancy that
one can affect, in part, what happens to
oneself. This seems to be closely related to
confidence in one's problem-solving ability
and somewhat related to personal control.
Furthermore, earlier investigations revealed
that people who expressed confidence in
their ability to control aspects of their envi-
ronment also tended to be better problem
solvers (Bloom & Broder, 1950; Lefcourt
& Loughlin, 1966; Rotter, 1966). Rotter
(1978) also postulated that actively seeking
alternatives was a functional problem-solv-
ing attitude, which seems to be consistent
with the second construct, approach-
avoidance style. In addition, some research
evidence supports the notion that successful
problem solvers are not impulsive and do not
avoid the problem, but rather systematically
engage in several problem-solving behaviors
(Bloom & Broder, 1950; Dollard & Miller,
1950; Osborn, 1963; Parnes, 1967; Shaftel &
Shaftel, 1967). Research on the self-control
process seems to support the third construct,
personal control; for example, investigators
have found that successful problem solvers
had more strategies to control their behavior,
and seemed to be more deliberate in that
process (Heffernan & Richards, 1981; Perri
& Richards, 1977).
The initial findings with regard to estab-
lishing concurrent and construct validity
provide additional information about the
instrument. First, it appears that the PSI
correlates moderately well with a simple
self-rating scale. Subjects who respond to
the PSI in ways that reflect behaviors and
attitudes typically associated with successful
problem solving also tend to rate themselves
as better problem solvers and to be more
satisfied with their problem-solving skills.
Second, the PSI is able to detect differences
between groups of students who have re-
ceived training in problem solving and those
who have not. Third, subjects' responses to
the PSI do not seem to be related to re-
sponses on another measure of problem
solving, the MEPS. This finding may in-
dicate that these two instruments measure
different aspects of the personal problem-
solving process; conceptualizing means to a
hypothetical problem situation is quite dif-
ferent from reflecting on what one actually
does in solving real-life personal problems.
Parenthetically, Janis and Mann (1977) note
that there is a growing body of evidence that
 PROBLEM-SOLVING INVENTORY
indicates that people respond differently to>
hypothetical situations than they do to
real-life situations (Collins & Hoyt, 1972;
Cooper, 1971; Deutsch, Krauss, Rosenau,
1962; Gerard, Blevans, & Malcolm, 1964;
N,el, Helmreich, & Aronson, 1969; Singer &
Kornfield, 1973; Taylor, 1975). Fourth, the
instrument does not seem to be another
variation of an intelligence test, nor does it
seem to be a mislabeled social desirability
inventory. Fifth, correlations with other
inventories indicate that scores on the PSI
are not strongly related to measures of cre-
ativity or to personality types as indicated by
the MBTI. People who report being more
like "the successful problem solver" also
tend to report having an internal locus of
control. The PSI seems to be more than a
measure of locus of control; for example, the
PSI correlates better with subjects' self-
ratings of problem solving (LPSSEP) than
does the Rotter I-E. In short, the findings
as an aggregate provide some initial esti-
mates of validity for the PSI.
There has been an absence of instruments
that attempt to measure constructs associ-
ated with applied problem solving. Thus,
the PSI may serve as a much needed re-
search tool for investigators who want to
assess people's perceptions of the problem-
solving process. An advantage of the PSI is
the ease with which it is administered and
scored, in contrast to the cumbersome and
difficult scoring of the MEPS. In addition,
whereas the MEPS provides information
about people's ability to conceptualize
means in solving hypothetical problems, the
PSI provides quite different information
about people's self-perceptions. Until fur-
ther research is conducted on the PSI, the
instrument would best be restricted to re-
search functions. Generalizations about the
instrument must also be restricted to college
students at this time; research has not been
extended to other populations.
Finally, the results of the study introduce
a wide range of research problems. What
are the relationships between people's per-
ceptions of their personal problem-solving
processes and (a) decision-making styles
(e.g., Barren, Note 2), (b) the decision
whether or not to seek counseling or career-
planning services, and (c) the effectiveness
73
of different counseling or career-planning
interventions? Would problem-solving
training be more effective if it attended to
the three underlying dimensions on the PSI?
And on a theoretical level, how do the three
dimensions relate to the real-life personal
problem-solving process across the previ-
ously hypothesized five stages? Additional
data are needed to investigate these and
many other research problems related to the
applied personal problem-solving process.
Reference Notes
1. Heppner, P. P., & Petersen, C. H. The develop-
ment, factor analysis, and initial validation of a
problem solving instrument. Paper presented at
the meeting of the American Education Research
Association, Toronto, March 1978.
2. Harren, B. A. Assessment of career decision-
making (ACDM): Counselor/instructor guide.
Unpublished manuscript, Southern Illinois Uni-
versity at Carbondale, 1978.
References
Bloom, B. S., & Broder, L. J. Problem solving processes
of college students. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1950.
Callis, R,, & Johnson, W. Missouri College English
Test. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1965.
Campbell, D. T. Recommendations for APA test
standards regarding construct, trait, and discriminant
validity. American Psychologist, 1960, 15, 546-
553.
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. Experimental and
quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago:
Rand McNally, 1966.
Cattell, R. B. Factor analysis: An introduction to es-
sentials. Biometrics, 1965,21,190-215.
Clarke, R., Gelatt, H. B., & Levine, L. A decision-
making paradigm for local guidance research. Per-
sonnel and Guidance Journal, 1965,44,40-51.
Collins, B. E., & Hoyt, M. F. Personal responsibility
for consequences: An integration and extension of
the "forced compliance" literature, Journal of Ex-
perimental Social Psychology, 1972,8,558-593.
Cooper, J. Personal responsibility and dissonance:
The role of foreseen consequences. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 1971,18,354-363.
Crowne, D., & Marlowe, D. The approval motive.
New York: Wiley, 1964.
Davis, G. A. Current status of research and theory in
human problem solving. Psychological Bulletin,
1966,66, 36-54.
Deutsch, M., Krauss, R. M., & Rosenau, N.. Dissonance
or defensiveness. Journal of Personality, 1962,30,
16-28.
Dewey, J. How we think. New York: Heath, 1933.
Dixon, D. N., Heppner, P. P., Petersen, C. H., & Ronri-
ing, R. R. Problem solving workshop training.
74 P. PAUL HEPPNER AND CHRIS H. PETERSEN
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1979, 26, 133-
139.
Bollard, J., & Miller, N. E. Personality and psycho-
therapy. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1950.
D'Zurilla, T. J., & Goldfried, M. R. Problem solving
and behavior modification. Journal -of Abnormal
Psychology, 1971, 78,107-126.
Educational Testing Service. Handbook: SCAT Se-
ries II. Princeton, N.J., 1967.
Gagne,R.M. Problem solving. In A. W. Melton (Ed.),
Categories of human learning. .New York: Aca-
demic Press, 1964.
Gerard, H. B., Blevans, S. A., & Malcolm, T. Self-
evaluation and the evaluation of choice alternatives.
Journal of Personality, 1964,32,395-410.
Goldfried, M. R., & Goldfried, A, P. Cognitive change
methods. In P. H. Kanfer & A. P. Goldstein (Eds.),
Helping people change. New York: Pergamon
Press, 1975.
Heffernan, T., & Richards, C. S, Self-control of study
behavior: Identification and evaluation of natural
methods. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1981,
28, 361-364.
Heppner, P.P. A review of the problem-solving liter-
ature and its relationship to the counseling process.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1978, 25, 366-
375.
Heppner, P. P. The effects of client perceived need and
counselor role on clients' behaviors (Doctoral dis-
sertation, University of Nebraska, 1979). Disserta-
tion Abstracts International, 1979,39,5950A-5951A.
(University Microfilms No. 79-07,542).
Horan, J. J. Counseling for effective decision making:
A cognitive-behavioral perspective. North Scituate,
Mass.: Duxbury Press, 1979.
Jacobus, K. A., & Johnson, N. F. An experimental set
to adopt a set. Psychological Reports, 1964, 15,
737.
Janis, I. L,, & Mann, L. Decision making: A psycho-
logical analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment
New York: Free Press, 1977.
Johnson, D. M., Parrott, G. R., & Stratton, R. P. Pro-
duction and judgment of solutions to five problems.
Journal of Educational Psychology Monograph,
1968,59,(6,Pt.2).
Johnson, F. Y. Political attitudes as related to inter-
nal and external control. Unpublished master's
thesis, Ohio State University, 1961.
Klausmeier, H. J., & Loughlin, L. J. Behaviors during
problem solving among children of low, average, and
high intelligence. Journal of Educational Psy-
chology, 1961,52,148-152.
Krauskopf, C. J., Burcham, P. B., & Willis, C. G. A
manual for the Missouri Mathematics Placement
Test. Testing and Counseling Service Report; 1967,
22(3), 1-13.
Krumboltz, J. D. Behavioral counseling: Rationale
and research. Personnel and Guidance Journal,
1965,44,383-387.
Lefcourt, H. J., & Loughlin, H. M. Internal versus ex-
ternal control of reinforcement: A review. Psy-
chological Bulletin, 1966,65, 206-220.
Mackler, B, Creativity and life styles (Doctoral dis-
sertation, University of Kansas, 1963) Dissertation
Abstracts International, 1963, 24, 5571-5572.
(University Microfilms No. 64-68,41)
Maier, N. R. F. Problem solving and creativity.
Belmont, Calif.: Brooks/Cole, 1970.
Mendonca, J. D., & Siess, T. F. Counseling for indeci-
siveness: Problem-solving and anxiety management
training. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1976,
23,.339-347.
Myers, I. B. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator:
Manual. Palo Alto, Calif.: Consulting Psychologists
Press, 1962.
Nel, E., Helmreich, R., & Aronson, E. Opinion change
in the advocate as a function of the persuasibility of
his audience: A clarification of the meaning of dis-
sonance. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 1969,12,117-124.
Newell, A,, Shaw, J. C., & Simon, H. A. Elements of a
theory of human problem solving. Psychological
Review, 1958,65,151-166.
Nie, N. H., Hull, C. H., Jenkins, J. G., Steinbrenner, K.,
& Bent, D. H. Statistical package for the Social
Sciences (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill,
1970.
Osborn, A, F. Applied imagination: Principles and
procedures of creative problem-solving (3rd ed.).
New York: Scribner's, 1963.
Fames, S, J. Creative behavior guidebook. New York:
Scribner's, 1967.
Perri, M. G., & Richards, C. S. An investigation of
naturally occurring episodes of self-controlled be-
haviors. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1977,
23,178-183.
Platt, J. J., Scura, W. C., & Hannon, J. R. Problem-
solving thinking of youthful incarcerated heroin ad-
dicts. Journal of Community Psychology, 1973, 7,
278-281.
Platt, J. J., & Spivack, G. Manual for the Means-Ends
Problem-Solving Procedure (MEPS): A measure
of interpersonal cognitive problem solving skill.
Philadelphia: Department of Mental Health Sci-
ences, Hahnemann Medical College and Hospital,
1975.
Platt, J. J., Spivack, G., Altman, N., Altman, D., &
Peizer, S. B. Adolescent problem-solving thinking.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1974,
42,787-793.
Rotter, J. B. Generalized expectancies for internal
versus external control of reinforcement. Psycho-
logical Monographs, 1966,80(1, Whole No. 609).
Rotter, J. B. Generalized expectancies for problem
solving and psychotherapy. Cognitive Therapy and
Research, 1978,2,1-10.
Shaftel, F. R., & Shaftel, G. Role playing for social
values: Decision making in the social studies.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1967.
Singer, D. G., & Kornfield, B. Conserving and con-
suming: A developmental study of abstract and ac-
tion choices. Developmental Psychology, 1973, 8,
314.
Spivack, G., & Shure, M. B. Social adjustment of
young children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,
1974.
Taylor, S. E. On inferring one's attitudes from one's
behavior: Some delimiting conditions. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 31,
1126-1133.
 PROBLEM-SOLVING INVENTORY
Torrance, E. P. Torrance tests of creative thinking:
Norms-technical manual. Princeton, N.J.: Per-
sonnel Press, 1966.'
Tresselt, M. E., & Mayzner, M. S. Switching behavior
in a problem solving task. Journal of Psychology,
1960,50,349-354.
Urban, H., & Ford, H. Some historical and conceptual
perspectives of psychotherapy and behavioral change.
In A. Bergin & S. Garfield (Eds.), Handbook of psy-
chotherapy and behavior change. New York:
Wiley, 1971.
View publication stats
75
Wickelgrin, W. A. How to solve problems. San
Francisco,Calif.: Freeman, 1974.
Yamamoto, K. A study of the relationships between
creative thinking abilities of fifth-grade teachers and
academic achievement and personal-social adjust-
ment of their pupils (Doctoral dissertation, Univer-
sity of Minnesota, 1962). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 1962, 23, 2801. (University Micro-
films No. 63-18,73)
Received Februaryl2,1981 •