- The purpose of this study was to evaluate the student personnel
services rendered at a public two-year community college. The institution
chosen for the study was Lethbridge Community College, located
in Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada.
Six hundred and one people, representing seven population groups,
were randomly selected for participation in this study. Two hundred
and seventy-one respondents (45.1%) completed and returned the
questionnaire. The groups selected, and the percentage of return are
as follows: present college students (45.5%); Lethbridge Community
College graduates (May, 1975) (59%); full-time faculty members (59%);
all surviving members of the board of governors, 1968 - 1975 (68%);
parents of present students (26%); members of the student personnel
staff (100%); and officers of Lethbridge Community College (70%).
The responses of this population to a 30 item questionnaire
provided the basic data for the study. Additional demographic data
collected from the two student groups were also considered in the study.
An analysis of variance design was used to determine the significance
of the differences in the evaluation of the 30 student personnel
service statements by the seven groups selected for the study. A
similar procedure was employed in assessing the differences that
might occur as a result of age, sex, educational background,
financial aid or sponsorship, and use of selected student services.
Within the limitations of this study, the following major conclusions
1. There were significant differences in the evaluation of 18
of the 30 statements, by the seven groups selected for this
study. Of the differences that occurred, most appeared
in the responses given by parents and faculty members.
2. Significant differences were found between the evaluation of
the student personnel services staff and the remaining six
groups, on 16 of the 30 statements. There was a high degree
of congruency in the evaluations assigned by the student
personnel services group, students, board members, and
officers of the college.
3. No significant differences were found between the evaluation
of the 30 statements by males and females.
4. There was no significant difference in the evaluation of the
30 statements by 97% of the respondents represented by
three age groups. The remaining 3%, represented by two groups,
under 18 and over 45, accounted for the only significant
differences according to age. A larger sample of respondents
would be required before a reliable conclusion could be
drawn regarding the presence of significant differences
in the evaluations assigned by the latter groups.
5. The results provided by the question regarding educational
background indicated that only two statements were evaluated
significantly different by the various groups. Thus, there
was essentially little difference in the way that students
from varying educational backgrounds evaluated the 30 statements.
6. Students receiving financial aid or sponsorship did not differ
widely in their assessment of the 30 student personnel
services statements. Significant differences were present in
the evaluation of only two of the statements. The two
statements represented "basic skill development" and "applicant
7. There was no significant difference in the evaluation of the
30 statements by students who used the selected student
services and those who had not.
8. The reliability study, conducted as part of this project,
resulted in a reliability coefficient of .97.
9. Ranking of the 30 statements by each of the seven groups
on the basis of means provided favorable evidence to support
the premise that a high degree of similarity exists between
the evaluations assigned by the student personnel services
group and the other college population groups.