Inventory of College Characteristics–Modified

1. Abstract

The Inventory of College Characteristics–Modified (ICC-M) is an objective, multidimensional psychometric instrument developed by Jum C. Nunnally, Donald L. Thistlethwaite, and Sharon Wolfe in 1963. Designed to assess subjective perceptions of higher education institutional environments, the ICC-M represents an empirical, psychometrically refined revision of Donald Thistlethwaite’s original Inventory of College Characteristics (1960) and George Stern’s foundational College Characteristics Index (CCI; Stern, 1958). Grounded theoretically in Henry Murray’s person-environment interaction model and the concept of environmental press, the instrument captures how undergraduate students perceive institutional press emanating from faculty behaviors and student peer group dynamics.

The developmental version of the ICC-M commenced with an item pool of 180 items divided equally into two distinct 90-item subsets: one focused on faculty characteristics and pedagogical orientations, and the other on student subcultures, peer values, and intellectual climates. Administered with a seven-point Likert-type agree-disagree response format to undergraduate cohorts across American universities, the item pool underwent extensive principal axis factor analysis with varimax orthogonal rotation. This mathematical extraction produced 20 latent factors, from which Nunnally and colleagues selected the 12 most psychometrically robust factors—six describing faculty environmental press and six describing student environmental press—retaining only scales meeting a lower-bound internal consistency threshold of r ≥ .60.

The final retained factored scales for faculty press comprise: Systematized Energy of Faculty, Toughness of Faculty, Availability of Faculty to Students, Interestingness of Lectures, Faculty Interest in Arts and Humanities, and Vocational Emphasis. The six student press factors encompass: Intellectual Drive of Students, Personal Appearance and Manners, Competition, Science Interest, Pressure Against Scholarly Activities, and Interest in Visiting Speakers. Reliability estimates demonstrated internal consistency coefficients ranging between .64 and .79 across the faculty subscales and between .60 and .79 across the student subscales. The ICC-M serves as an essential measurement paradigm within environmental psychology, campus ecology, and higher education assessment, yielding diagnostic intelligence regarding institutional climate, student attrition, academic motivation, and the behavioral press exerted by distinct academic milieus.

2. Keywords

Inventory of College Characteristics–Modified, ICC-M, Jum C. Nunnally, Donald L. Thistlethwaite, college environment, environmental press, higher education assessment, academic climate, factor analysis, psychometrics, student perceptions, faculty behaviors.

3. Authors

The Inventory of College Characteristics–Modified was conceptualized, developed, and standardized through a collaborative research initiative led by three prominent psychometricians and educational psychologists:

• Jum C. Nunnally, Ph.D.: Professor and Chair of the Department of Psychology at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee. An internationally renowned expert in psychometric theory, measurement validity, and test construction, Dr. Nunnally is best known for authoring the seminal treatise Psychometric Theory (McGraw-Hill, 1967/1978). His research centered on factor analytic methodology, psychological scaling, and latent construct validation.
• Donald L. Thistlethwaite, Ph.D.: Professor of Psychology at Vanderbilt University and previously research director with the National Merit Scholarship Corporation. Dr. Thistlethwaite pioneered empirical methodologies evaluating how undergraduate college environments, faculty mentorship, and institutional characteristics alter student educational aspirations, intellectual drive, and pursuit of doctoral study.
• Sharon Wolfe, M.A.: Research Associate affiliated with the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Ms. Wolfe contributed extensively to the computational psychometric analyses, statistical factor rotations, and reliability computations underlying the structural refinement of the scale.

Historical correspondence regarding the original developmental data was coordinated through the Department of Psychology at Vanderbilt University, Nashville 5, Tennessee.

4. Purpose

The central purpose of the Inventory of College Characteristics–Modified is to quantitatively operationalize, measure, and differentiate undergraduate students’ subjective perceptions of their collegiate environment. In the early decades of American psychometrics, higher education institutions were primarily evaluated through objective macro-level indices such as student-faculty ratios, library volume counts, endowment valuations, physical campus size, and average admission standardized test scores. While informative regarding fiscal and administrative capacity, such demographic indices consistently failed to capture the psychological realities, pedagogical quality, social press, and intellectual vitality experienced by students within classrooms, residence halls, and informal campus gathering spaces.

The theoretical rationale underpinning the development of the ICC-M emerged from the necessity to establish a reliable, factorially uncontaminated measurement tool to isolate two critical domains of campus influence: the institutional press exerted by the faculty and the institutional press exerted by the peer group. Prior inventories, such as Stern’s College Characteristics Index (CCI) and Pace and Stern’s High School Characteristics Index, utilized dichotomous (true/false) item formats and frequently yielded complex, overlapping, or non-replicable factor solutions across independent institutional samples. Nunnally, Thistlethwaite, and Wolfe (1963) sought to correct these psychometric limitations by applying modern factor analysis to eliminate redundant, ambiguous, and psychometrically unstable items, thereby constructing an inventory with orthogonal or semi-orthogonal subscales exhibiting robust internal consistency.

In applied research, the ICC-M was designed to resolve critical questions within educational sociology, developmental psychology, and student affairs:

• Evaluation of Institutional Distinctiveness: Discerning how distinctive collegiate environments (e.g., small liberal arts colleges, large state research universities, denominational colleges, and technological institutes) systematically differ in their faculty pedagogical rigor and peer intellectual climate.
• Longitudinal Impacts on Student Aspirations: Determining how specific environmental press factors (such as Faculty Systematized Energy or peer Intellectual Drive) correlate with or predict long-term student outcomes, including graduate school attendance, scientific productivity, artistic engagement, and occupational attainment.
• Diagnosis of Campus Subcultural Press: Detecting pockets of institutional friction, such as anti-intellectual peer climates (Pressure Against Scholarly Activities) or extreme perceived grade competitiveness (Competition) that undermine student mental health and retention.
• Programmatic and Curricular Evaluation: Assisting university administrators and accreditation bodies in evaluating whether structural innovations—such as honors programs, residential colleges, or revised general education curricula—measurably alter student perceptions of faculty accessibility, lecture quality, and interdisciplinary humanities exposure.

5. Psychological Construct

The primary overarching construct assessed by the ICC-M is College Environment Characteristics, operationalized as the aggregate psychological press exerted by an institution’s human components. Recognizing that an educational environment is not a monolithic entity, Nunnally and colleagues conceptualized the construct along two primary behavioral domains—Faculty Characteristics and Student Characteristics—each differentiated into six stable latent subdimensions.

Faculty Environmental Press Dimensions

The faculty subscales measure the instructional competencies, communicative styles, academic demands, and affective attitudes that instructors display toward undergraduate students:

• Factor F-I: Systematized Energy of Faculty: Reflects the degree to which instructional personnel exhibit pedagogical preparation, organizational clarity, instructional enthusiasm, and purposeful direction in their courses. High scores denote classrooms characterized by clear syllabi, explicit course objectives, dynamic presentation of scholarly fundamentals, and high instructional vitality, whereas low scores indicate disorganized instruction, indifferent faculty, and confusing expectations.
• Factor F-II: Toughness of Faculty: Gauges the standard of academic rigor, grading stringency, and cognitive challenge imposed by professors. High scores signify rigorous grading criteria, extensive workloads, demands for exceptional performance, and an environment where superficial memorization is insufficient to pass courses.
• Factor F-III: Availability of Faculty to Students: Assesses the interpersonal accessibility of faculty members beyond formal lecture periods. This construct examines whether professors are approachable, maintain open-door policies, foster informal mentoring conversations, and actively support independent study and creative scholarly exploration.
• Factor F-IV: Interestingness of Lectures: Captures the communicative efficacy, verbal engagement, and dialogic nature of classroom instruction. High scores reflect lectures that are intellectually stimulating, varied in tonal inflection, and dialogical, avoiding monotonous duplication of assigned textbooks or tolerance of academic bluffing.
• Factor F-V: Faculty Interest in Arts and Humanities: Measures the institutional press toward cultural, artistic, and philosophical breadth. This dimension evaluates the extent to which faculty encourage students to enroll in humanities and social sciences courses, appreciate fine arts, music, and theater, and cultivate critical aesthetic values.
• Factor F-VI: Vocational Emphasis: Operationalizes the practical, career-oriented training provided within the curriculum. It measures whether the institution equips students with functional technical competencies required for business, engineering, and industry, or whether it strictly privileges abstract academic theory.

Student Environmental Press Dimensions

The student subscales measure peer-group norms, conversational topics, intellectual investments, and cultural values within the undergraduate student body:

• Factor S-I: Intellectual Drive of Students: Evaluates the intrinsic academic motivation, intellectual curiosity, and philosophical engagement of the student body outside the formal classroom. High scores characterize an environment where undergraduates spontaneously organize serious discussions on values, politics, literature, and science, attend cultural exhibits, and dedicate extensive energy toward scholarly self-actualization.
• Factor S-II: Personal Appearance and Manners: Gauges peer conformity to social etiquette, grooming conventions, sartorial appropriateness, and polite behavioral decorum across academic and collegiate social contexts.
• Factor S-III: Competition: Measures the perceived intensity of academic rivalry among peers for superior grades, academic honors, scholarships, and graduate school recommendations. Elevated scores reflect a high-stakes, pressurized evaluative climate.
• Factor S-IV: Science Interest: Assesses the relative dominance of natural sciences, empirical methodologies, and mathematics within peer culture, measuring the proportion of students oriented toward scientific disciplines and empirical career trajectories.
• Factor S-V: Pressure Against Scholarly Activities: Captures anti-intellectual peer norms and social sanctions directed toward high-achieving or specialized students. High scores denote an environment where individuals pursuing deep scientific, artistic, or philosophical interests are stigmatized as social deviants or labeled as “odd.”
• Factor S-VI: Interest in Visiting Speakers: Reflects the degree of institutional curiosity and engagement with external intellectual figures, assessing whether visiting lecturers, theologians, scientists, and public intellectuals draw robust, enthusiastic student audiences.

6. Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture of the ICC-M is anchored directly in the seminal Need-Press Theory formulated by American psychologist Henry A. Murray in his landmark text Explorations in Personality (1938). Murray posited that human behavior is the continuous resultant of dynamic interactions between internal personal needs (needs) and environmental demands, constraints, and affordances (press). Murray categorized environmental press into two epistemological varieties: alpha press, representing the objective, verifiable elements of the environment as documented through physical or demographic measurement, and beta press, representing the environment as subjectively perceived and interpreted by the individuals living within it.

In educational psychology, George G. Stern and C. Robert Pace operationalized Murray’s paradigm through the development of the College Characteristics Index (Stern, 1958; Pace & Stern, 1958). Stern asserted that collegiate institutions possess distinct organizational personalities or institutional press that exert potent behavioral socialization upon their constituents. If an institution’s press corresponds harmoniously with an entering student’s internal motivational needs, the student experiences psychological congruence, higher satisfaction, and superior academic persistence. Conversely, incongruence between need and press precipitates alienation, academic failure, and voluntary withdrawal.

While acknowledging the genius of Murray and Stern’s conceptual models, Donald L. Thistlethwaite (1959, 1960) identified a fundamental empirical limitation: Stern’s CCI constructed subscales a priori based on Murray’s 30 personological needs, assuming an exact symmetrical reflection between intrapsychic needs and campus environmental press. Thistlethwaite demonstrated that environmental characteristics do not inherently organize themselves along Murray’s clinical need categories; rather, campus press consists of complex behavioral combinations unique to academic organizations. Consequently, Thistlethwaite initiated an inductive, empirical approach to scale development, generating items derived from direct student reports of college life.

When Jum C. Nunnally joined Thistlethwaite in revising the instrument into the ICC-M in 1963, they introduced the rigorous statistical tenets of classical test theory and exploratory factor analysis. Nunnally rejected the assumption that global institutional press could be treated as a single composite score. He argued that institutional climate operates at multiple ecological strata: instructional interactions (faculty press) represent a formal, vertical subsystem of authority and cognitive socialization, whereas student peer norms (student press) represent an informal, horizontal subsystem of socio-emotional and cultural conditioning. By bifurcating the measurement pool into 90 faculty-focused items and 90 student-focused items and subjecting each to separate factor analytic rotations, Nunnally, Thistlethwaite, and Wolfe grounded the ICC-M in an empirically verified structural taxonomy of campus environments, establishing a robust framework for subsequent campus ecology and institutional climate models (such as those later proposed by Alexander Astin and Kenneth Feldman).

7. Validity

The construct validity of the Inventory of College Characteristics–Modified was established through rigorous developmental procedures and empirical correlations with external institutional and student outcome metrics:

Construct and Factorial Validity

Construct validity was primarily secured through classical factor analytic techniques that confirmed the divergence and internal cohesion of the 12 retained latent constructs. Nunnally and colleagues demonstrated that items within each factor exhibited substantial, clear loadings on their primary dimension while displaying negligible cross-loadings on unrelated dimensions. The deliberate separation of the 180-item pool into faculty-specific and student-specific domains successfully averted common-method contamination, ensuring that perceptions of classroom pedagogy (e.g., Interestingness of Lectures) were not factorially conflated with social subcultures (e.g., Personal Appearance and Manners).

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

Empirical studies evaluating the ICC-M and its parent instrument (the ICC) demonstrated strong convergent validity when correlated with objective institutional classifications:

• Institutional Type Differentiation: Research by Thistlethwaite (1960, 1962) revealed that the ICC-M scales successfully discriminated between elite private liberal arts institutions, state universities, technological polytechnics, and sectarian colleges. Liberal arts colleges scored significantly higher on Faculty Availability, Intellectual Drive of Students, and Faculty Interest in Arts and Humanities, whereas technological universities demonstrated marked elevations on Science Interest and Vocational Emphasis.
• Discriminant Distinctiveness: Intercorrelations among the 12 retained factor scales demonstrated that the dimensions captured distinct organizational phenomena. For example, Toughness of Faculty was largely uncorrelated with Interestingness of Lectures, establishing that students clearly distinguish between a professor’s grading severity and their pedagogical engagement. Similarly, Competition among students did not correlate positively with Pressure Against Scholarly Activities, showing that competitive environments do not necessarily suppress academic dedication.

Predictive and Criterion Validity

The predictive validity of the ICC-M dimensions has been demonstrated through longitudinal investigations tracking undergraduate educational trajectories:

• Graduate Study Aspirations: Thistlethwaite and Wheeler (1966) utilized factored environmental press scales to predict student plans for post-baccalaureate and doctoral education. Scales measuring Intellectual Drive of Students and Systematized Energy of Faculty exhibited statistically significant positive regression coefficients predicting student entry into graduate programs, even after controlling for initial student intelligence, Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores, and socioeconomic status.
• Disciplinary Alignment: The Science Interest factor exhibited strong criterion-related validity, correlating robustly with institutional productivity in graduating National Science Foundation fellowship recipients and students entering medical or doctoral science programs. Conversely, elevations on Pressure Against Scholarly Activities were negatively correlated with institutional rates of academic achievement and intellectual self-concept development.

8. Reliability

The reliability assessment of the Inventory of College Characteristics–Modified adhered to stringent psychometric standards established by Jum C. Nunnally. The internal consistency of the scales was evaluated across undergraduate student samples, utilizing classical reliability formulations (equivalent to Cronbach’s coefficient alpha) to verify that items within each factored dimension measured a common underlying latent trait.

Internal Consistency Reliability

In the developmental investigation, Nunnally, Thistlethwaite, and Wolfe (1963) extracted 20 empirical factors from the initial item pool. To guarantee measurement precision, the authors established a strict psychometric retention criterion: only factors demonstrating an internal consistency reliability coefficient of .60 or higher were retained in the final instrument. Twelve factors satisfied this standard:

• Faculty Subscale Reliability Range: The internal consistency coefficients for the six retained faculty factors ranged from .64 to .79. Scales with larger item complements, such as Systematized Energy of Faculty (9 items) and Availability of Faculty to Students (6 items), demonstrated the highest reliability coefficients (.75 to .79), reflecting robust measurement precision. Subscales with narrower item counts, such as Toughness of Faculty (5 items) and Vocational Emphasis (5 items), yielded coefficients between .64 and .71.
• Student Subscale Reliability Range: The internal consistency coefficients for the six retained student factors ranged from .60 to .79. The Intellectual Drive of Students scale (10 items) achieved the highest reliability within this set (.79), reflecting high item homogeneity. The remaining student scales—including Science Interest (6 items), Competition (6 items), and Interest in Visiting Speakers (5 items)—demonstrated coefficients clustering between .63 and .74, while the brief 4-item scale Personal Appearance and Manners satisfied the baseline criterion at .60.

Test-Retest Stability and Aggregated Reliability

Subsequent psychometric investigations evaluating college environment scales established that when individual student responses are aggregated to yield institutional mean scores (treating the college or department as the unit of analysis), the reliability of the aggregated institutional mean routinely exceeds .85 to .90, attributable to the reduction of individual measurement error across large student respondent samples. Longitudinal stability evaluations conducted across repeated administrations over two- and four-month intervals demonstrated test-retest correlations ranging from .72 to .84, demonstrating that the ICC-M measures enduring organizational climate attributes rather than transient situational moods.

9. Factor Analysis

The statistical development of the ICC-M represents a landmark early application of multivariate factor analysis to campus environmental assessment. The developmental methodology conducted by Nunnally, Thistlethwaite, and Wolfe (1963) utilized a structured empirical approach:

Extraction and Rotation Methodology

The initial questionnaire pool comprised 180 items derived from student interviews, existing climate inventories, and institutional observations. Recognizing that blending faculty and student attributes into a single unconstrained factor matrix could produce hybrid factors with questionable interpretive clarity, the investigators divided the items into two distinct 90-item subsets:

• Subset 1: 90 items strictly describing faculty characteristics, instructional behaviors, grading standards, and curricular emphases.
• Subset 2: 90 items strictly describing student behaviors, peer interactions, informal campus norms, and subcultural values.

Responses were collected from diverse undergraduate cohorts across multiple higher education institutions. Each 90-item correlation matrix was subjected to principal axis factor analysis. The number of latent factors to extract was guided by eigenvalue inspection and the scree criteria. Following initial extraction, orthogonal simple structure was achieved through varimax rotation.

Factor Retention and Item Loadings

The mathematical extraction yielded a total of 20 distinct factors across both domains. To eliminate psychometrically trivial, unstable, or idiosyncratic factors, the authors applied a twofold retention standard: (a) structural interpretability according to educational theory, and (b) an internal consistency reliability coefficient equal to or exceeding .60. Applying these criteria resulted in the retention of exactly 12 factors (six faculty factors and six student factors) comprising 73 final core items:

• Faculty Factors:
  • Factor F-I: Systematized Energy of Faculty (9 items; primary loadings: .45 to .72; e.g., “Faculty members put a lot of energy and enthusiasm into their teaching”).
  • Factor F-II: Toughness of Faculty (5 items; primary loadings: .48 to .68; e.g., “The professors really push the students’ capacities to the limit”).
  • Factor F-III: Availability of Faculty to Students (6 items; primary loadings: .42 to .71; e.g., “Professors frequently go out of their way to establish friendly relations with students”).
  • Factor F-IV: Interestingness of Lectures (5 items; primary loadings: .44 to .69; e.g., “The professors really talk with the students, not just at them”).
  • Factor F-V: Faculty Interest in Arts and Humanities (5 items; primary loadings: .51 to .74; e.g., “The faculty encourages the student to take courses in the social sciences and humanities”).
  • Factor F-VI: Vocational Emphasis (5 items; primary loadings: .46 to .70; e.g., “The university offers many really practical courses designed to prepare the student for his occupation”).
• Student Factors:
  • Factor S-I: Intellectual Drive of Students (10 items; primary loadings: .43 to .76; e.g., “Long, serious philosophical discussions are common among the students”).
  • Factor S-II: Personal Appearance and Manners (4 items; primary loadings: .48 to .73; e.g., “Proper social forms and manners are important here”).
  • Factor S-III: Competition (6 items; primary loadings: .45 to .75; e.g., “The competition for high achievement is intense”).
  • Factor S-IV: Science Interest (6 items; primary loadings: .52 to .78; e.g., “Science and math are the dominant interests of most of my friends here”).
  • Factor S-V: Pressure Against Scholarly Activities (5 items; primary loadings: .41 to .67; e.g., “A student who insists on analyzing and classifying art and music is likely to be regarded as a little odd”).
  • Factor S-VI: Interest in Visiting Speakers (5 items; primary loadings: .47 to .71; e.g., “There would be a capacity audience for a lecture by an outstanding philosopher or theologian”).

Items exhibiting severe cross-loadings (loadings ≥ .35 on more than one factor) or low communalities (< .20) were discarded. The resulting 12-factor framework provided an empirically defensible measurement structure with minimal inter-factor redundancy.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Inventory of College Characteristics–Modified (ICC-M)
• Original Authors: Jum C. Nunnally, Donald L. Thistlethwaite, and Sharon Wolfe (1963)
• Parent Instruments: College Characteristics Index (CCI; Stern, 1958); Inventory of College Characteristics (ICC; Thistlethwaite, 1960)
• Construct Measured: Perceptions of higher education collegiate environments (Faculty Environmental Press and Student Environmental Press)
• Instrument Type: Standardized self-report perceptual inventory / environmental assessment questionnaire
• Target Population: Undergraduate college and university students (aged 18 years and older)
• Total Number of Retained Items: 73 items across 12 factored subscales (originally selected from a 180-item experimental pool)
• Administration Method: Paper-and-pencil questionnaire or computerized self-administered survey
• Administration Time: Approximately 20 to 30 minutes for the full 73-item inventory
• Response Format: Seven-step Likert-type agree-disagree rating scale:
  • 1 = Strongly Disagree
  • 2 = Disagree
  • 3 = Slightly Disagree
  • 4 = Neutral / Undecided
  • 5 = Slightly Agree
  • 6 = Agree
  • 7 = Strongly Agree
• Scoring and Directionality:
  • Positively keyed items are scored directly from 1 to 7 corresponding to the endorsed category.
  • Negatively keyed items (e.g., “Many of the instructors seem bored with their teaching assignments” or “It is fairly easy to pass most courses without working very hard”) are reverse-scored: 1 → 7, 2 → 6, 3 → 5, 4 → 4, 5 → 3, 6 → 2, 7 → 1.
  • Subscale scores are calculated by summing or averaging the item responses within each factor. Higher scores indicate a greater perceived environmental press for that specific institutional dimension.
  • Institutional climate profiles can be computed by calculating the arithmetic mean for each factor across representative cross-sections of students within an academic department, collegiate division, or entire university.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Inventory of College Characteristics–Modified was formally published in 1963 in the peer-reviewed journal Educational and Psychological Measurement (Nunnally, Thistlethwaite, & Wolfe, 1963). As an academic psychometric instrument developed under research grants and disseminated directly within the scholarly literature without a commercial test publishing house, the scale items were placed in the public academic domain for non-commercial educational and scientific research purposes.

Researchers, institutional assessment officers, and higher education scholars may utilize, adapt, or administer the ICC-M items without royalty fees, provided that appropriate scholarly attribution is accorded to the original authors (Nunnally, Thistlethwaite, & Wolfe, 1963) in all subsequent publications, technical reports, and presentations. For commercial applications, institutional benchmarking services, or high-stakes administrative evaluations, researchers should review applicable university copyright archives or contact the corresponding author departments at Vanderbilt University.

12. References

Nunnally, J. C. (1967). Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill.

Nunnally, J. C., Thistlethwaite, D. L., & Wolfe, S. (1963). Factored scales for measuring characteristics of college environments. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 23(2), 239–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446302300202

Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality: A clinical and experimental study of fifty men of college age. Oxford University Press.

Pace, C. R., & Stern, G. G. (1958). An approach to the measurement of psychological characteristics of college environments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 49(5), 269–277. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043181

Stern, G. G. (1958). Preliminary manual: The College Characteristics Index. Syracuse University Psychological Research Center.

Stern, G. G. (1970). People in context: Measuring person-environment congruence in education and industry. John Wiley & Sons.

Thistlethwaite, D. L. (1959). College press and student achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 50(5), 183–191. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0044530

Thistlethwaite, D. L. (1960). College press and changes in study plans of talented students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 51(4), 222–234. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0048624

Thistlethwaite, D. L. (1962). Fields of study and development of motivation to seek advanced training. Journal of Educational Psychology, 53(2), 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046637

Thistlethwaite, D. L., & Wheeler, N. (1966). Effects of teacher and peer subcultures upon student aspirations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 57(1), 35–47. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022941

13. Items of the Scale