Commuter students: involvement and identification with an institution of higher education.

Newbold, John J. ; Mehta, Sanjay S. ; Forbus, Patricia 等

INTRODUCTION

Since the 1980's, many public universities in the United States have evolved from "state" universities to "state supported" universities. A "state-assisted" university is one that receives less than 50% of their budget from the state (Archibald and Feldman, 2004). In order to overcome this gap in resources, it is important for universities to become more marketing oriented.

The traditional student of yesterday is rare in today's world. There are not many of the typical residential colleges in which a full-time student enters immediately after high school, lives in a dormitory, and rarely works because the parents are their source of support. Less than a quarter of today's undergraduate population fits the description of a traditional student (Attewell and Lavin, 2007). Approximately seventy-five percent of college students are commuters (Recruitment and Retention in Higher Education, 2006). A commuter student is defined as one who does not live on campus (Recruitment and Retention in Higher Education, 2006), but attends the university from local and surrounding areas (Schibrowsky and Peltier, 1993). In today's competitive environment, it is essential to understand the needs, attitudes and opinions of the large group of the commuter students who ultimately pay many of the school's bills. Understanding group differences between the commuters and non-commuters is critical, as the commuter population nationwide continues to increase and universities are forced to compete for the patronage of these commuter students.

Commuting and non-commuting students may be differentiated among three basic dimensions: (1) socioeconomic and demographic differences; (2) academic differences; and (3) non-school obligations and activities. In general, the commuter student's average age and standard deviation of ages tend to be higher than non-commuters. Commuter students are more apt to come from blue collar families with less income and educational background. These commuter students are also more likely to be first generation college students and be less academically prepared for college (Schibrowsky and Peltier, 1993). Many of these commuting students are likely to cycle in and out of college. They may postpone re-enrolling in college and work more hours, so that they can afford the next semester's tuition. Conversely, they may discontinue enrollment in order to take care of their family needs and obligations. For many commuting students, a college degree is something that must be fit into the rest of their life and not the other way around (Attewell and Lavin, 2007).

Understanding the commuter student is becoming more and more important. Yet, their lives are becoming increasingly complex. Universities need to consider whether it makes sense for the commuting student to pay fees for programs that they will almost certainly never use. The commuter student is less likely to use the recreational center or attend a sporting event, but they still pay the fees. It is important to understand what is significant to the commuting student from the standpoint of tuition and fees. Additional issues that may differentiate commuters and noncommuters include their motivation to attend college, their support groups, how they spend their time, their involvement in school, and their attitudes towards the university. With this growing trend in commuting students expected to continue into the future, understanding the commuter student allows universities to better meet their needs (which is exactly what the marketing concept is all about).

LITERATURE REVIEW

University education becomes more productive and complete as students develop relationships with their peers and faculty (Astin, 1993; Astin, 1999). Being involved in the university is thought to have a positive effect on the learning experience (Rubin, 2000). For a commuter student, these relationships on campus and involvement in activities may be more complicated. The commuting student tackles challenges that the non-commuting student typically doesn't face, especially feelings of isolation, multiple life roles and different support systems.

ALONE WITH OTHERS

Commuter students are projected to participate less in school activities, campus social events, and be less involved with fellow students and faculty. Research has shown that students benefit and are positively affected by social and academic integration (Lundberg, 2003). They are aware of the notion that they no longer fit the traditional student role. Further, they do not have great expectations that the college will have special programs to assist with the nontraditional students' academic goals (Newbold, Mehta, and Forbus, 2009-2). Multiple Life Roles

Commuter students are more apt to be older, work full time, and have a family or extended family to support (Bye, Pushkar, and Conway, 2007). This places them in the construct of a non-traditional, mature student. In general, mature students tend to be more diverse than younger students in their expectations of the college or university, in their motivations for attending, and their experiences with higher education (Compton, Cox, and Laanan, 2006). As would be expected from their age, the most common characteristic of non-traditional students is that they are generally more financially independent (Evelyn, 2002). However, a lack of financial management skills can result in withdrawal from higher education pursuits for older students because of their additional financial burdens (Hart, 2003).

Commuter students are likely to limit their time on campus because of a more complex lifestyle than non-commuting students (Recruitment and Retention in Higher Education, 2006). Traditional students spend a majority of their time on or around campus, while commuters often have other requirements such as working (possibly more than one job) or taking care of their own (or extended) family, all the while being encumbered with commuting to and from campus for classes (Jacoby, 2000). With these other responsibilities, the commuter student is more likely to schedule classes during the same blocks of time (Jacoby, 2000). In other words, commuters register for Monday, Wednesday, and Friday or Tuesday and Thursday classes. Optimizing their time for other facets of their life reduces the amount of time spent on campus and the time spent developing relationships with peers and faculty. This lack of on-campus interaction hampers student involvement and engagement which are presumed to lead to success (Lundberg, 2004). Further, absenteeism from classes has been shown to be positively correlated to lower levels of academic achievement (Sauers, McVay and Deppa, 2005). Approximately 70 percent of commuter students reported working while continuing their careers (Smith, 1989). This results in a more "vocational" mind set. These students would prefer to spend the time and effort on their career, which is providing the financial support for their lifestyle, than on acquiring what may be considered theoretical knowledge that cannot be readily applied to the job setting. The commuter is pursuing a degree as a credential (Smith, 1989) whereas the non-commuter is considered to be interested in gaining knowledge for continued development and growth as a person.

DIFFERENT SUPPORT SYSTEMS

The fact that commuter students lead complex lifestyles may also mean that they have different support systems than the non-commuter students. Since they live and work away from the campus, their support systems are also off campus. The traditional residential student has support systems on campus readily available when faced with a problem. Counselors, advisement centers, and professors are there to help with school troubles. Peers, friends, and roommates lend support with other potential problems that they understand and are also facing (Ruchti, Mehta, and Newbold, 2008).

The commuter student may have no one in their support group who is experiencing the same situations. Their support is usually made up of family members, coworkers, and friends. It is difficult for these support group members to relate both to the stresses and the demands of higher education (Jacoby, 2000). Members of their support group may not understand why commuter students spend time studying instead of with the family or on work projects.

Because they spend less time on campus, it is thought that commuter students are less engaged in college activities. Since students learn while being involved, this hinders commuting students' success (Astin, 1999). It has been shown that "the more time and effort students invest in their learning and the more intensely they engage in their own education, the greater will be their achievement, growth, satisfaction with the college experience, and likelihood of persistence toward attainment of their educational goals" (Jacoby, 2000, p.9).

HYPOTHESES

Commuter Students as Non-traditional Students

In this research, the first goal is to establish whether commuter students today are significantly diverse from non-commuter students. Previous research has shown that commuter students are more likely to show the characteristics of the non-traditional student: characteristics such as being over 24 years of age, working full time, and usually having dependents to support (Bye, Pushkar, and Conway, 2007).

[H.sub.1]: Commuter students are more apt to be non-traditional students than non-commuter students.

Commuter Students Itinerant Nature

The variables relating to transferring students, number of colleges/universities attended, and numbers of years at the graduating university, helps to illustrate the differences between commuter and non-commuter students. These characteristics speak to the general itinerant nature of the typical commuter student's educational experience. In fact, transferring students generally tend to feel isolated and disconnected from the student body at a new school. It is shown that commuter students tend to cycle in and out of college, fitting classes in when it coincides with the rest of their life (Attewell and Lavin, 2007).

[H.sub.2]: Commuter students are more likely to be transfer students than non-commuter students.

Commuter Students' Work and Income

Schibrowsky and Peltier (1993) determined that commuter students typically work more hours than non-commuters students. This does not necessary mean they are working towards enhancing their career. In fact, many of them are working to pay their bills. Since commuter students are playing multiple roles, they tend to be time-deprived, work more hours, and spend time commuting to and from campus during the week (Jacoby, 2000).

[H.sub.3]: Commuter students are more likely to work more hours per week than non-commuter students.

[H.sub.4]: Commuter students are more likely to earn more income than non-commuter students.

Commuter Students Assimilation

Commuter students often lack a sense of belonging to the university. The limited time on campus allows students less interaction with peers and faculty, and as a result fewer relationships are believed to be developed. Commuter students rarely feel connected to a place where they have no significant relationships (Jacoby, 2000). Generally, commuter students spend a lot of time "out of the loop", unaware of campus events, or unable to attend. Many will focus on getting their degree and graduating rather than interaction with their peers and forming lasting relationships (Pemberton, 2009). Research has shown that success in college and a feeling of a fulfilling college life is correlated to involvement in the university (Astin, 1993).

[H.sub.5]: Commuter students are less likely to be involved in school-sponsored activities than non-commuter students.

Commuter Students' Attitudes and Opinions

Individuals who identify strongly with their university and view it as being prestigious, distinctive, and competitive with other higher education institutions are more likely to display an attitude of support for the institution (Mael and Ashforth, 1992). Commuter status appears to be the biggest driver to precluding students from perceiving the school in a favorable light, identifying with it, and joining the Alumni Association (Newbold, Mehta, and Forbus, 2009-1)

[H.sub.6]: Commuter students are less likely to believe the university is distinct than non-commuter students

[H.sub.7]: Commuter students are less likely to believe that the university has a good reputation than non-commuter students

[H.sub.8]: Commuter students are less likely to identify with the university than non-commuter students

[H.sub.9]: Commuter students are less likely to be interested in joining the Alumni Association prior to graduation than non-commuter students

METHOD

The Survey Instrument

The instrument designed for this study was a self-administered, structured, undisguised questionnaire. Prior to the regular study, a pilot study was conducted with a representative sample of the population (Alreck and Settle, 2004). This was mainly done to determine accuracy of instructions, wording of the questions, appropriateness of scale, etc. Since the topic under investigation was somewhat sensitive, extra care was taken to eliminate any ambiguity in the questionnaire. Seven-point modified Likert scales were used extensively to assess the following: Student attitudes, opinions, and reasons for being in a university,

* Their level of involvement and participation in various university activities,

* Their attitudes towards their work (if they did not work, they could skip this section),

* Their social life and relationships with various reference group members,

* Their general opinions about attending and selecting their university,

* Their time management strategies,

* Their attitude towards stress,

* Their stress coping strategies.

Approximately 3-4 items were developed to represent each construct under investigation. Nominal to ratio scales were used to obtain classification information. The survey took between 10 and 12 minutes to complete. To encourage participation from respondents, all completed responses were eligible to participate in a random drawing.

Sampling and Data Collection

The study was conducted among a projectable sample of the 4th-year student (i.e., senior status was used as a filter question) population at a mid-sized southwestern state university. The overall ending sample was 453 students (from a population of approximately 3000 seniors), of which 108 met the criteria as commuter students. The university where this study was conducted has a significant amount of housing within five miles of the campus, which is typically occupied by students who have moved to the area to go to school. Commuting students are considered to be living outside of the county where the school operates and have not relocated to attend the school.

Factor Development

The items in the survey were developed based upon the literature review and the special circumstances of the institution where the research was conducted (Churchill and Brown, 2007). For each construct, correlations between the items were examined to determine if further inclusion of each item was warranted. Following the deletion of spurious items, exploratory factor analyses were conducted for each construct utilizing principal components with varimax rotation. Factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 were retained. Since this was primarily an exploratory study, a minimum factor loading of 0.30 (Nunnally, 1978) was used as a guideline for including items in a factor. The reliability of each factor was evaluated utilizing an internal consistency measure. Factors with Cronbach alpha less than 0.70 were not used for the analysis. Rather, the analysis was performed utilizing individual items. Table 1 summarizes the reliability of the factors utilized to test the various hypotheses.

Analyzing Differences between Commuter Students and Non-Commuter Students

Nominal data were analyzed primarily through Chi-square analysis. Findings at the 0.10 significance level were accepted. Differences in factors and scaled items were determined via ttests for means among independent groups. Again, findings at the 0.10 significance level were accepted.

FINDINGS

Demographics

Table 2 summarizes the findings from the first five hypotheses of the study. The first hypothesis stated that commuter students were more likely to be non-traditional students (i.e., more than 24 years old). This hypothesis was confirmed, as 53% of commuter students were classified as non-traditional, while only 10% of non-commuters were classified as nontraditional. Thus, the commuter students were more than 5 times more likely to be nontraditional students.

Commuter students were also more likely to be transfer students. Keep in mind, the survey was conducted among 4th year college students. Among commuters, 73% of the students had transferred into the school. For non-commuters, this figure was 42%. Thus, as predicted by Hypothesis #2, commuters were seen as being more prone to have transferred in.

Interestingly, there were no significant differences between commuters and non-commuters when it comes to whether or not they were working. Roughly 80%--85 % of non-commuters and commuters, respectively, report working while going to school. However, as hypothesized, commuter students were found to work more hours per week than non-commuters. Over half of all commuters (51%) report working over 21 hours per week, while this figure for non-commuters is only 37%. These findings support Hypothesis #3.

Hypothesis #4 was also supported. Given the fact that they are non-traditional students and likely to be working more hours per week, commuter students are more likely to have higher personal incomes. While nearly 70% (69.4%) of non-commuters report earning less than $10,000 per year, only 31 % of commuters report earning commensurately low incomes. This is less than half the proportion of non-commuters.

The next hypotheses deal with students' sense of assimilation into the university culture. The results are seen in Table 3. As hypothesized (Hypothesis #5), commuters are significantly less likely to take part in university-sponsored events. This is not surprising, given their greater propensity to be non-traditional students who work significantly more hours per week, thereby reducing the time available to attend university sporting or social events. The commuter students' focus away from the university would explain their lack of familiarity with many of the alumni services and activities on campus.

Also as expected, commuter students are significantly less likely than non-commuters to view their school as either "distinct" or as having a "good reputation". These findings, which support Hypotheses 6 and 7, emanate from the itinerant education history of most commuter students, combined with their relatively lower involvement in campus-sponsored activities. All of the aforementioned leads to the finding that commuter students are significantly less prone to "identify" with the institution, confirming Hypothesis 8.

The preceding shortfalls in involvement, regard and identification, lead commuter students to be significantly less likely to want to join the Alumni Association (Note: Students who are close to graduation are often solicited to join the school's Alumni Association prior to graduation). This confirms Hypothesis 9.

DISCUSSION

The research conducted supported all of the hypotheses. The findings are instructive as to the special challenges facing institutions of higher learning and their administration and faculty when it comes to engaging commuter students and developing long-lasting relationships with them. More specifically, commuter students are found to be more apt to be non-traditional students, transfer students, work more hours, and earn more income. In addition, commuter students are less likely to be involved in school-sponsored activities, less likely to believe the university is distinct; less likely to believe the university has a good reputation, and less likely to identify with the university. Therefore, commuter students are less likely to be interested in joining the Alumni Association. In summary, they are less involved while in school and indicate they will continue that relatively low level of involvement once they graduate. This distinction between commuters and non-commuters is critical when universities are trying to raise funds to close the gap between state funding and their annual budgets.

A Typical Commuter Student

To further understand the implications of these challenges, let us consider the daily life of "Ralph", a hypothetical commuter student. Ralph shares his home life with a wife, two children, and a mother-in-law. He has a job with a local manufacturing company as a shop floor supervisor. He would like to complete his undergraduate degree to help facilitate his promotion to the next level of management. Ralph negotiated his work week with his employer so that his two days off would be Tuesday and Thursday rather than the traditional Saturday and Sunday. He spent two years at a community college completing the typical core requirements. Ralph enrolled in a university scheduling all his classes on his two days off from work. This arrangement required coordination with professors for access to classes that fit his time frame.

Ralph is responsible for transporting his children to their school each morning because his wife needs to be at her job early. His mother-in-law picks up the children after school. This means that Ralph leaves home at 7:00 am each morning to have the children at school by 7:30 am and to be at work or the university by 8:30 am. Some mornings there are traffic problems which cause delays in his commute. On Tuesday and Thursday, Ralph's four classes are from 9:00 am to 2:00 pm with a break at noon. The noon hour is typically spent studying while grabbing a bite in one of the restaurants in the student center. Immediately after his last class, Ralph heads home to study and complete class assignments.

When Ralph drives to the campus, he takes the same route each day and parks in the same parking lot, often times far away from his classes. He typically proceeds directly to his classroom, frequently making it there barely before class starts. Normally, Ralph does not engage any of his fellow students: "traditional" students cannot relate to his situation, and other commuter students do not have time to engage him. When Ralph has some issue with his finances or course schedule, he is most likely to ask one of his professors, as he is pretty much unfamiliar with how to navigate the administrative machinery of the institution.

The schedule Ralph keeps does not allow him time for partaking in school-sponsored activities, such as the homecoming football game or the annual lighting of the Christmas lights. In fact, he proceeds through his college career mostly unaware of these types of events. Implications for the Institution

As the "Ralph" scenario above illustrates, there are significant challenges to developing longer-term relationships with commuter students. Traditional events and marketing approaches go mostly unnoticed by busy commuters who shuffle to and from their classes and do not partake of the traditional student experiences. Commuter students may express feelings of being treated like a second-class student, and come to resent paying fees for services they do not use, while many of their particular needs (such as convenient parking) go unmet. Commuter students pay for such unused amenities as the recreational center, health center, student center, athletic fee, advisement fee, etc.

Perhaps the institution should take a more segmented approach to the fees it levies and the services it provides. Commuter students, for example, might be more amenable to fees for ancillary services such as lockers or a special locker room for changing prior to returning to a job after classes, a partnership with a gas station located on campus which offers student discounts, special (or even valet) parking for commuter students, and day care facility for their kids, etc. In an attempt to cater to the needs of the growing number of commuter students, universities could add a web page on their site with special issues for commuters such as time management tips or a link to area traffic information usually provided by the surrounding cities.

Implications for Individual Course Formats

The trend toward increasing numbers of commuter students also puts pressure on instructors at the class level. It is often difficult for commuters to maintain regular attendance at classes. As previously discussed, commuter students tend to leverage the course instructor for information and assistance in regard to university issues outside of normal classroom activities. Indeed, previous research has shown that faculty members may be best served by re-thinking their roles, and concentrating more on "learning delivery" aspects of courses, rather than the traditional "upstream" focus on content (Sasse, Schwering, and Dochterman, 2008) Hybrid classes represent a possible option, whereby students have the opportunity to meet with their professor part of the time and complete a certain portion of the coursework online. In these hybrid courses, instructors leverage the Internet and Internet-based course management systems to provide more flexibility and more around-the-clock access and support to class activities. Overall improvements in communication technology which affords more opportunity for synchronous communication has been posited as a facilitator of the increasing trend in online courses to meet the needs of non-traditional students (Gupta, Eastman & Swift, 2005) Finally, study groups can be formally incorporated into course designs and syllabi to provide for a support system outside of the course instructor.

FUTURE RESEARCH

Future research is needed to develop a more thorough understanding of the balance of family life, work life, and school life for both commuter and non-commuter students. Further learning in this area will assist institutions in better understanding student motivations and behaviors, and assist in developing programs and courses which better meet the needs of students. In addition, it is also relevant for universities to study the programs and fees structures that are levied on students. Future research could add to the information base and help conclude if commuters and non-commuters want different amenities paid for by their fees. It might be found that commuter students would prefer to pay one set of fees for things that they would need (e.g., lockers, commuter lounge, assigned parking, etc.), and non-commuter students would pay fees for the things that they use (e.g., the recreation center, climbing wall, sporting pass, etc.). Perhaps more positive attitudes and a greater sense of commitment could be achieved, once the university better meets the needs and desires of its various student subgroups. With great success, some universities (e.g., University of Phoenix, NOVA, etc.) have built their entire business model around the needs of both commuters and non-traditional students.

REFERENCES

Alreck, P. L. and Settle, R. (2004). The Survey Research Handbook. 3rd edition. McGraw-Hill

Anonymous. (2006, July). Commuter students: Myths, realities, helpful theoretical frameworks. Recruitment and Retention in Higher Education, 20(7), 5-6.

Archibald, R. and Feldman, D. (2004, February). A new compact for higher education in Virginia. The VirginianPilot, pp. B11.

Attewell, P. & Lavin, D. (2007, July). Distorted statistics on graduation rates. Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. B16.

Astin, A. W. (1999). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Development, 40, 518-529.

Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bye, D., Pushkar, D., and Conway, M. (2007, February). Motivation, interest, and positive affect in traditional and nontraditional undergraduate students. Adult Education Quarterly, Vol. 57, no 2, p. 141-158.

Churchill, G. and T. Brown. (2007). Basic Marketing Research. Thomson Southwest.

Compton, J. I., Cox, E., and Laanan, F. S. (Summer 2006). Adult Learners in Transition. New Directions for Student Services, no. 114.

Evelyn, J. (2002, June). Nontraditional Students Dominate Undergraduate Enrollments, Study Finds. Chronicle of Higher Education, Vol. 48, Issue 40.

Gupta, S., Eastman, J., and Swift, C (2005). Creating An Effective Online learning Environment: A Shift in the Pedagogical Paradigm. Academy of Educational leadership Journal, Vol. 9, no 3.

Hart, N. K. (2003, Spring). Best Practices in Providing Nontraditional Students with Both Academic and Financial Support. New Directions for Higher Education, no. 121.

Jacoby, B. (2000, Spring). Why involve commuter students in learning? New Directions for Higher Education, 109, 3-12.

Lundberg, C. A. (2004). Working and learning: The role of involvement for employed students. NASPA Journal (Online), 41(2), 201-15.

Lundberg, Carol A. (Nov/Dec 2003). The Influence of Time Limitations, Faculty, and Peer Relationships on Adult Student Learning: A Casual Model. The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 74, No. 6.

Mael, F. and Ashforth, B. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, p. 103-123.

Newbold, J., Mehta, S., and Forbus, P. (2009-1, April). A university alumni relationship model. A paper presented at the April, 2009, General Business Conference, Huntsville, Texas.

Newbold, J., Mehta, S., and Forbus, P. (2009-2, September). Non-Traditional Students: Today's Higher Education Environment. A paper presented at the September, 2009, IABPAD Conference, Memphis, Tennessee.

Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric Theory 2nd edition. McGraw-Hill

Pemberton, S. (2009). Road to college. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education. http://colleges.collegetoolkit.com/guides/transfer/restransfer.aspx

Ruchti, A., J. Newbold, and S. Mehta (2008) "Understanding the Special Needs of Commuter Students", 13th Annual Marketing Management Association Fall Educators' Conference, September 24th--26th, Louisville KY.

Rubin, S. (2000, Spring). Developing community through experiential education. New Directions for Higher Education, 109, 43-50.

Sasse, C., Schwering, R. and Dochterman, S. (2008). Rethinking Faculty Role in a Knowledge Age. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal. Vol. 12, no. 2.

Sauers, D., McVay, G and Deppa, B., Absenteeism and Academic Performance in an Introduction to Business Course, Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, Vol. 9, no. 2.

Schibrowsky, J. & Peltier, J. (1993, Summer). A strategic marketing approach to marketing education at commuter campuses. Marketing Education Review, 3, 22-30.

Smith, B. (1989). The personal development of the commuter student: What is known from the comparisons with resident students? An ERIC Review. The Commuter Student, 17, 47-56.

John J. Newbold, Sam Houston State University

Sanjay S. Mehta, Sam Houston State University

Patricia Forbus, Sam Houston State University

Table 1: Summary of Factors Utilized

Factor (No. of Items)    Cronbach Alpha

Distinct (3)                  .713
Reputation (7)                .913
Involvement (3)               .721
Commitment (5)                .952

Table 2: Chi-Square Summary--Demographics

Hypothesis                                     Pearson
   Item                                       Chi-Square   p-value

[H.sub.1]    Non-Traditional Student Status     87.327     0.000 **
[H.sub.2]    Transfer Student Status            31.641     0.000 **
[H.sub.3]    Time Spent Working Per Week        6.540      0.038 *
[H.sub.4]    Personal Income                    59.410     0.000 **

* p-values are significant at alpha = .05

** p-values are significant at alpha = .01

Table 3: Means Test Summary--Attitudes/Behaviors

                                                            Non-
                                               Commuter   Commuter
Hypotheses   Item                                Mean       Mean

[H.sub.5]    Involvement in Institution-         3.40       4.84
             sponsored Activities

[H.sub.6]    University as Distinct              4.72       5.11

[H.sub.7]    University has Good Reputation      4.71       4.94

[H.sub.8]    Identification with University      5.06       5.36

[H.sub.9]    Interest in Joining the Alumni      3.36       3.79
             Association Prior to Graduation

Hypotheses   T-score   p-value

[H.sub.5]     7.990    .000 **

[H.sub.6]     3.248    .001 **

[H.sub.7]     1.747    .081 *

[H.sub.8]     1.940    .053 *

[H.sub.9]     2.089    .037 *

** p-values are significant at alpha = .05

* p-values are significant at alpha =. 10