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

net/publication/234626169

The Draw a Scientist Test: A Different Population and a Somewhat Different

Story

Article  in  College student journal · January 2006

CITATIONS READS

30 464

3 authors, including:

Mark D. Thomas Tracy Henley

Albany State University Texas A&M University-Commerce
13 PUBLICATIONS   67 CITATIONS    79 PUBLICATIONS   1,221 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

William James View project

Prehistory of Psychology View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mark D. Thomas on 24 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 THE DRAW A SCIENTIST TEST:
A DIFFERENT POPULATION AND A SOMEWHAT
DIFFERENT STORY
MARK D. TRIOMAS
Departmentof Psychology
MississippiState University

TuAcy B. HENLEY
Department of Psychology and Special Education
Texas A & M University-Commerce

CATHERINE M. SNELL
Department of Psychology
MississippiState University

This study examined Draw-a-Scientist-Test (DAST) images

solicited from 212 undergraduate students for the presence of
traditional gender stereotypes. Participants were 100 males and
112 females enrolled in psychology or computer science cours-
es with a mean age of 21.02 years. A standard multiple
regression generated a model that accounts for the' variability in
the sexes of drawings consistent with past findings. The focus of
this research, however, was in comparing the results of our sam-
ple (college students) 'vith previous studies that have that have
used the DAST with much younger (e.g., elementary-aged) stu-
dents. Results were strikingly similar, suggesting either that
gender stereotypes are widely persistent even among college sci-
ence majors, or that the DAST may not be a particularly sensitive
measure despite its wide use.

The Draw a Scientist Test (DAST) was
first utilized by Chambers (1983) to exam-
ine stereotypic views of scientists among
school children. Chambers' initial study
examined the strength and presence of
"modem sanitized,' and "older mythic,"
stereotypic images-of the scientist in 4,807
children's (ages 5 to II years) drawings
that were collected from 1966 to 1977.
Chambers assessed the presence of'lab
coats, eyeglasses, facial hair, symbols of
research, symbols of knowledge, techno-
logical aspects, and captions that were
believed to represent a stereotypical view

Author Note
We thank Donna Reese for access to the computer science department.,We also wish to thank
her and Lisa Henderson for the recruitment of participants from computer science. Correspon-
dence concerning this article should be addressed to Tracy Henley, Department of Psychology
and Special Education, Texas A & M University - Commerce, Commerce, Texas 75429. E-mail:
thenley@tamu-commerce.edu.

140

of scientists. Chambers reported that 49%
of this sample consisted of girls, but par-
ticipants produced only 28 drawings of
female scientists (0.56%). All of these
female scientists were drawn by female
participants.
Subsequently, Fort and Varney (1989)
gathered 1,654 drawings of scientists
through a national contest for 2nd through
12th grade school students. Fort and Var-
ney received 135 drawings of female
scientists. They reported that, "the 8%
depicted by our respondents is close to
reflecting reality," (p. 9) given their esti-
mate that women then made up roughly
6% of the scientific and engineering work-
force at that time.
A careful analysis of DAST images
reported by Newton and Newton's (1992)
survey of 1,143 primary school children
(ages 4-11) suggests children draw more
females at a younger age, but by the sixth
school year, males were drawn by 83% of
the participants. Following up, Newton and
Newton (1998) surveyed 1000 children
from reception (the UK equivalent of
preschool/kindergarten) to grade 6 and,
"...concluded that there were few signifi-
cant changes to primary pupils'
conceptions of science and scientist...' (p.
1148).
Over time, the number of female sci-
entists drawn has slightly increased. This
may be due to changes in social percep-
tions, or to refinements in the measure. For
example, Matthews (1994) had 132 chil-
dren from years 7, 8, and 10 generate two
different drawings, out of this total, 66%
of the images were male, while 34% were
female.
Likewise, Maoldomhnaigh and Mho-
College Student DAST Images...!/141
lain (1990) considered the effects of test
administration instructions, eventually
changing the DAST instructions to "Draw
a Man or Woman Scientist:' Stated thus-
ly, 367 children (299 females and 68 males)
between the ages of 11 and 16 years pro-
vided drawings. Although boys in this
sample almost exclusively drew males,
49% of the girls drew a female. Brosnan
(1999) modified the task by re-framing it
as a, "draw-a-computer-user-test." For
Brosnan, whose sample consisted of 395
children ages 5 to 11 years, males per-
formed similar to males who complete the
standard DAST. Interestingly, 70% of the
females drew a female computer user,
while only 4% of males drew a female
computer user.
Variations of the DAST have been uti-
lized in the U.S. and Canada (e.g., Parsons,
1997), Ireland (e.g., Maoldomhnaigh &
Hunt, 1990), Finland (e.g., Raty, 1997),
England (e.g., Brosnan, 1999), Korea (e.g.,
Song & Kim, 1999); and Taiwan (e.g., She,
1998) with similar results. A recurrent find-
ing in the DAST literature is that scientists
are stereotyped as being male by girls and
this may serve as a limiting factor in their
self-efficacy toward becomifig scientists.
Maoldomhnaigh and Mholain (1990)
observed, "If boys are at all possessed of
the image of the female scientist, it is too
deeply hidden to be uncovered by the strat-
agems used in this study," (p. 72) and
Chambers (1983) speculated, "...that, when
asked to, 'draw a scientist,' even scientists
themselves utilize the standard image" (p.
256).
At times, the DAST literature has been
used to emphasize the need for teaching
reforms with respect to gender bias (e.g.,
142 / College Student Journal
Kahle, et. al, 1993; Newton & Newton,
1998). Perhaps not surprisingly, media has
also been seen as perpetuating this male
scientist stereotype. Steinke and Long
(1995) noted that twice as many male sci-
entists were represented as female
scientists on the four major television sci-
ence programs. Having noted that, at least
some dramatic perceptual changes on mat-
ters of gender and science have occurred
in recent decades. For example, in an arti-
cle titled The College-Student Image of
the Scientist(Beardslee & O'Dowd, 1961),
male college students were asked about
the attractiveness of various scientific dis-
ciplines, while female college students
were asked about their preferences for hav-
ing men of science for husbands.
The purpose of this study is twofold.
First, it is to examine DAST drawings pro-
duced by college students for the presence
of traditionally interpreted stereotypes.
That is, to attempt to replicate the basic
findings of the DAST as gender stereo-
types are presumptively dynamic, and as
such, subject to change over time. Sec-
ondly, our goal is to explore the similarities
and differences between a college-aged
sample with the previous results obtained
from school children.
Method
Participants
The participants were 212 undergrad-
uate students enrolled in psychology or
computer science service courses at Mis-
sissippi State University. The sample
consisted of 47 freshmen (22.2%), 48
sophomores (22.6%), 62 juniors (29.2%),
and 55 seniors (26%), who voluntarily par-
ticipated, or participated for class credit
(age m = 21.02, sd= 3.14, range = 18-31).
The sample was 52.8 % female (n = 112)
and 47.2 % male (n = 100). Participants
represented 41 different majors with 62.9%
(n = 132) having majors in scientific dis-
ciplines, 34.3% (n = 72) having majors in
nonscientific disciplines, and 2.8% (n = 6)
were undeclared students. Participants
were tested in extant courses or experi-
mental groups. Testing took place in
classrooms in either the psychology depart-
ment (n = 131, 61.8%) or the computer
science department (n = 81, 38.2%).
Materials
The study consisted of completing two
forms. The first form was a standard size
sheet of paper with the following instruc-
tions printed one-half inch from the top
margin:
You have up to 15 minutes to com-
plete this portion of your
participation. It would be reasonable
to utilize the entire 15 minutes.
Please do not talk to the other peo-
ple who are participating in this
study, as they are busy working as
well. In the space below, please
DRAW A SCIENTIST.
The second form was a brief question-
naire used to ascertain age, year in school,
major, participant's sex, sex of drawing,
whether the participant drew a famous sci-
entist (and his/her identity), identity of the
participant's favorite scientist (and reason
for being such), type of scientist drawn,
number of instructors for the current
semester in the department tested, current
number of male and female instructors in
the department tested, and sex of the last

person with whom the participant had a
substanative conversation.
Procedures
All surveys were administered by one
female experimenter or one male experi-
menter. During class-time administrations
(n = 3), the instructors were not present in
two classes, and a female instructor was
present in one. The instructors' sexes were
1 male and 2 female. Participants were told
the study consisted of 2 tasks and their
instructions were on the forms. Partici-
pants were also told they would get no
clarification about the instructions and no
participant asked for clarification. After
the 15 minutes for drawing elapsed, par-
ticipants were asked to cease drawing and
turn their drawings face down. Participants
then received the questionnaire. After com-
pleting the questionnaire, participants were
debriefed. One participant withdrew his
drawing after debriefing, but allowed his
questionnaire to be used.
Chambers' (1983) original scoring sys-
tem was used for all but one of the
stereotypical science indicators. Lab coats
were scored for presence (without regard
to color), eyeglasses were defined as two
lenses (with or without arms), and facial
hair was any facial hair growth (e.g., mous-
taches, beards, jaw length or longer
sideburns, 5 o'clock shadow). Symbols of
research were scientific instruments and
laboratory equipment (e.g., microscopes,
pencils in pockets, test tubes, Bunsen burn-
ers, clip boards). Symbols of knowledge
were items that represent having knowl-
edge (e.g., books, filing cabinets,
blackboards, posters with the periodic
College Student DAST Images...!/143
table, a double helix, or other figures and
tables). Symbols of technology were any
products of science (e.g., computers, tele-
phones). Captions were scored differently
than the traditional method, as they were
scored just for presence or absence, and
not for content.
The operational criteria for technical
aspects of the drawings were defined a pri-
ori by consensus between the researchers.
Drawings generated by 17 graduate stu-
dents (not used in this study) were jointly
scored by the raters in order for training.
All drawings were independently rated by
2 clinical psychology graduate students.
Results
Sex of Scientists
The reported sexes of the drawings were
82% male (n = 173), 12.3% female (n =
26), and 5.7% nonspecified (n = 12). The
drawings indicated as nonspecified includ-
ed stick people, a drawing with members
of both sexes, and a drawing of a cartoon
dog. Female participants generated 2 non-
specified (1.8%), 92 male (82.1%), and 18
female (16.1%) drawings, while male par-
ticipants drew 10 nonspecified (10.1%),
80 male (81.8%), and 8 female (8.1%)
drawings. An ANOVA found a significant
difference between sex of drawing and par-
ticipants' sex (F = 8.123, p < .005).
Types of Scientists
Participants reported the types of sci-
entist drawn as chemists (55.2%, n = 117),
biologists (13.7%, n = 29), psychologists
(4.7%, n = 10), physicists (4.2%, n = 9),
computer scientists (2.8%, n = 6), non-
specific (8.5%, n = 18), an astronomer (n
 -------------------
144 / College Student Journal
=1, .5%), a natural scientist (n = 1, .5%),
and 11 participants failed to report the type
of scientist drawn (5.2%). The 10 remain-
ing cases (4.7%) are believed to be
sarcastic, or noncompliant, responses and
include 3 mad/deranged scientists (1.4%),
3 nerd/geek scientists (1.4%), and 4 other
comic responses (1.9%) with one each,
"Elvis," "pothead" "dumb," and an "elec-
tric" scientist (that is, one who was being
electrocuted).
Analysis of Drawings
Interobserver agreement was calculat-
ed on 17 items for 211 drawings. The
raters' separate data were compared to
detect rater differences. Initial agreement
was 3,381 out of 3,587 chances to agree
(94.3%). The 206 disagreements were
independently rated a second time by the
same raters and agreement was 3,533
(98.5%). The remaining 54 disagreements
were resolved by conference and the major-
ity of those involved lab coats, symbols of
knowledge, facial hair, and captions.
Lab coats occurred in 54.5% (n = 115)
of the drawings. Scientists wore eyeglass-
es in 145 drawings (68.4%) and had facial
hair in 44 drawings (20.8%). Evidence of
research was present in 148 drawings
(69.8%). Symbols of knowledge were pre-
sent in 27 drawings (12.7%), and symbols
of technology were present in 21 drawings
(9.9%). Captions were present in 71
(33.5%) drawings.
The mean number of 'stereotypical'
indicators present is 2.92 per drawing,
which compares to Chambers (1983)
reported 3.05 for 4th grade children and
3.26 for 5th grade children. An ANOVA
detected a significant difference between
class year and lab coats (F = 3.31, p <
.021). All other indicators were not sig-
nificantly different between class years.
While 41 drawings (19.3%) had smoke
coming from apparatuses, in 2 drawings
the scientists (1%) were smoking tobacco
(or possibly marijuana), and 1 (0.5%) had
smoke coming from the scientist's ears.
Computers were present in 10 drawings
(4.7%). A name tag was present on 29
(13.7%) scientists, with 8 being illegible
and the others representing either well-
known fictional or nonfictional scientists,
including 5 local computer science and
psychology faculty members, Kevorkian
and Einstein were among others named.
Most DAST scientists had a tradition-
al hairstyle (n = 117, 55.2%). However, 44
had wild hair (20.8%), 38 were bald
(17.9%), 4 (1.9%) had nontraditional hair
(e.g., males with long hair, or bald females
- excluding stick figures), and 8 (4.2%)
were undeterminable due to being covered
by hats/scarfs, or being headless. Earrings
were visible on 3 males scientists (1.4%)
and no female scientists. The scientist was
represented by a simplistic stick person in
12 drawings (5.7%), or an elaborate and
more "artistic" stick person in 9 drawings
(4.2%).
FavoriteScientist
The favorite scientist reported was
Albert Einstein (n = 105,49.5%). Given the
principle result, it was curious that Marie
Curie was the second favorite (n = 7, 3.3%).
The third favorites were instructors with
whom the participant had classes (n = 6,
2.8%), which included 2 current psychol-
ogy department faculty members, 2
computer science department faculty mem-
bers (n = 3), and a former middle school

science teacher. Next were Isaac Newton
and George Washington Carver (n = 5,
2.4% each). StephenHawkings, Benjamin
Franklin, and Sigmund Freud were listed
(n = 4, 1.9% each), and Thomas Edison
and Dr. Frankenstein/mad scientist were
rated sixth most popular (n = 3, 1.4% for
each). Emmet Brown (from the Back to
the Future Movies), James Watson and
Francis Crick (reported together), Bill Nye
(from the television show Bill.Nye the Sci-
ence Guy), Alexander Graham Bell,
Galileo Galilei, Richard Feynman, and
Johannes Kepler were each listed twice
(0.9% each).
Twenty-three different scientists were
mentioned once (0.5% each) and includ-.
ed, among others, Robert Oppenheimer,
Charles Darwin, Erik Erikson, Michael
Faraday, Carl Sagan, Ivan Pavlov, Karen
Horney, Dmitri Mendeleev, and Jean
Piaget. Nonexistent scientists, such as The
Professor (from Gilligan'sIsland), Dex-
ter (from the cartoon, Dexter's
Laboratory), and Brain (from the cartoon
Pinky and the Brain), along with the par-
ticipant (self as favorite), a participant's
aunt, a participant's uncle, and a partici-
pant's father were also mentioned once.
Twenty-nine participants did not report
a favorite scientist and an additional 13
failed to report a reason for their selection.
The 170 reported reasons for being a par-
ticipant's favorite scientist can be classified
into 7 categories: the scientist's theories
or intellectual contributions (n = 66,
31.1%); being the only scientist the par-
ticipant could think of (n = 41, 19.3%); the
scientist was famous or funny (n = 22,
10.4%); the scientist was smart, brilliant,
College Student DAST Images.../145
or a genius (n = 20, 9.4%); the scientist's
hair or appearance (n = 11, 5.2%); the sci-
entist was the participant's instructor (n =
2, .9%); and 8 participants (3.8%) cited
other reasons that do not readily fit a clas-
sification scheme.
Multiple Regression
Using Mahalanobis distance to detect
outliers (Mertler & Vannatta, 2002), three
cases were identified as extreme. These
cases were inspected and determined to be
older students, or students with a heavy
class load whose instructors were all the
same sex. After due deliberation all of
these cases were included in the analysis.
An evaluation of linearity revealed no con-
cerns. However, drawings reported as
having a nonspecific sex were excluded
from analysis, because most people are
male or female and the nonspecific cases
may be instances of reactivity.
A standard multiple regression analy-
sis was conducted to evaluate the prediction
of DAST image sex from 10 variables (age,
year, participant sex, favorite scientist,
female instructors, male instructors, con-
versation, experimenter sex, science, and
Einstein). Regression results indicate that
the overall model significantly predicts
DAST image sex, R1 = .133, R2adj =.075,
F (10, 151) = 2.31, p < .015. The model
accounts for 13.3% of the variance in sex
of DAST images. A summary of regres-
sion coefficients is presented in Table 1
and indicates that only three (participant
sex, favorite scientist, and experimenter
sex) of the ten variables significantly con-
tributed to the model. The 95% confidence
interval slopes are participant sex .004 to
146 / College Student Journal

Table 1
SAnmftY it SmrltmeoY,s ReVesion An al$sk PYeodkt-ig DASTImage Sex
II a I i
AZe -.0173 -.115 .325
YeUr -.0113 -.320 3749 -.009 -.026
Sex .10so 2.051 .042 .202 .165
Favofite 2.1700 2.12S .035 .207 .171
F1 .0500 .109 1.319 .139 .099 .107
MI .02S0 1.106 .271 .072 .090
Converation .0490 .077
~.101* .995 .321 .059 .0s1
Epeimenter -.1250 -2.095 -.132
Science .0890 .144 1.579 .022 .127
P17At
EinsWen 2047 WY,-)
11t71? MWJA W."
-------------

Note: Age - age of participmnt, Ytar - year in school, Sex - sex of pmticipant, Favoiite - sex oi
&volite scientist, El -nuMber of Lfmale instractols in the depulment teltd for the c'lTent
seester, MI - number of mate instnictors in the department ttzted for the clnuent Semester,
Conve•sation - sx oa the last person with whom the paticipant had a gennine convelsation,
Expeiimenter -sea ofI)AST adminiistrator, Science -in a science =jor, Einstein -Einstein as
favolite scientist.*p < .05.

.212, favorite scientist .015 to .418, and
administrator -.243 to -.007, and do not
contain the value zero.
Discussion
One could anticipate more complex rep-
resentations in drawings as an individual
develops a more complex knowledge of
the scientist, which may account for the
increase in stereotypic indicators from first
through fifth grade school children report-
ed by Chambers (1983). However, this
sample of college undergraduate students'
drawings exhibited similar stereotypic
characteristics to those of Chambers' fourth
and fifth grade children. Symington and
Spurling (1990) challenged the tradition-
al interpretation of the DAST and
speculated that children's drawings may
represent a perceived public stereotype and
not a personal belief or perception. It
appears that the drawings generated by this
sample support that idea.
Indeed, the DAST is a tool initially used
to reveal a child's attitudes and beliefs
about science, and the DAST has tradi-
tionally been interpreted the same way for
children in any grade. The drawings gen-
erated by these undergraduate students are
similar to those of children that appear in
the DAST literature, but at some level this
sample cannot have the same beliefs and
attitudes that are inferred by traditional
DAST interpretation, because 62.9% are
majors committed to a college science
degree. Thus, it appears that some changes
in attitudes and beliefs that occur between
kindergarten and college, may not be well
 College Student DAST Images...!/147

captured by the DAST. 72% of the students enrolled in doctoral

Specifically, we submit that many fac- programs were women. It seems reason-
tors go into a drawing and some cognitive able to expect that a stereotype of the
idea(I)s may be expressed in drawings, scientist as being male might then not exist
while others may not be. In part this expres- in the field of psychology. Yet, even psy-
sion could be limited by such matters as chologists are subject to societal biases
subjective artistic ability, sex of task admin- and those women whose major was psy-
istrator, task demand, and motivation. chology (n = 52) predominately drew male
Chambers (1983) claimed the DAST was scientists (n = 43). These women are future
useful in identifying children's attitudes scientists, but traditional interpretation
because it doesn't rely on a verbal response would indicate that most (82.7%) believe
and can be utilized at an early age. Others that scientists are still best illustrated by
(e.g., She, 1998) have simply asked sub- men.
jects their views. With college students, Although we will conclude by observ-
either approach is potentially transparent ing that Symington and Spurling's (1990)
to the thoughtful subject. But, as these data public stereotype account is certainly a fea-
illustrate, that was not a problem with this sible explanation for these women's
sample. apparent dissonance, it should be noted
that, stick people were drawn by about
Conclusions 10% of the participants and it is doubtful
In theory, this sample with a mean age that even 10% of undergraduate students
of 21.02 years ranging from 18 to 31 years believe scientists are stick figures. In short,
old, represents the generation after Cham- perhaps another result of this study is to
bers' (1983) sample of 5 to 11 years old question the effectiveness of the DAST as
children from 1966 to 1977. The results a tool for truly understanding perceptions
can been seen as suggesting a shortcom- of scientists.
ing in the educational system, because
drawings generated by this sample are
remarkably similar to those of Chambers' References
Auguste, R., M., Wicherski, M., & Kohout, J. L.
study. From a perspective across time, (1999). APA Research Office.
exposure to years of science education has http://research.apa.org/mes96contents.html#c
seemingly had no effect on these partici- ontents
pants. Or, as a direct comparison between Beardslee, D. C., & O'Dowd, D. D. (1961). The
the two samples suggests, college students college student image of scientists. Science,
think no differently about science and gen- 133, 997-1001.
der than elementary school children. Brosnan, M. J. (1999). A new methodology, an old
The APA Research Office (Auguste, story? Gender differences in the "draw-a-com-
puter-user" test. European Journal of
Wicherski, & Kohout, 1999) reported that Psychology and Education, 14, 375-385.
72% of master's degree recipients in psy-
chology were women. They also reported
148 / College Student Journal
Chambers, D. W. (1983). Stereotyped images of
the scientist: The draw-a-scientist-test. Science
Education, 67, 255-265.
Fort, D. C., & Varney, H. L. (1989). How students
see the scientist: Mostly male, mostly white,
and mostly benevolent. Sci&nce and Children,
26, 8-13.
Kahle, J. B., Parker, L. H., Rennie, L. J., & Riley,
D. (1993). Gender differences in science edu-
cation: Building a model. Educational
Psychologist, 28, 379-404.
Maoldomhnaigh, M. C., & Hunt, A. (1988). Some
factors affecting the image of the scientist
drawn by older primary school pupils.
Research in Science and TechnologicalEdu-
cation, 6, 159-166.
Maoldomhnaigh, M. C., & Mholain (1990). The
perceived expectation of administrator as a fac-
tor affecting the sex of scientists drawn by
early adolescent girls. Research in Science and
Technological Education, 8, 69-75.
Matthews, B. (1994). What does a chemist look
like? Education in Chemistry, September,
127-129
Mertler, C. A., &Vannatta, R. A. (2002). Advanced
multivariate statistical methods: Practical
applicationand interpretation.(2nd ed.). Los
Angeles, CA: Pyrczak Publishing.
Newton, D. P., & Newton, L. D. (1992). Young
children's perception of science and the scien-
tist. International Journal of Science
Education, 14, 331-341.
Newton, L. D., & Newton, D. P. (1998). Primary
chilren's conceptions of science and the scien-
tist: Is the impact on the National Curriculum
breaking down the stereotype? International
Journalof Science Education, 20, 1137-1149.
Parsons, E. C. (1997). Black high school females'
images of the scientist: Expression of culture.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 7,
745-768.
Raty, H., & Snellman, L. (1997). Children's
images of an intelligent person. Journal of
Social Behavior and Personality,12, 773-784.
She, H.-C. (1998). Gender and grade level differ-
ences in Taiwan students' stereotypes of
science and scientists. Research in Science and
TechnologicalEducation, 16, 125-135.
Song, J., & Kim, K.-S. (1999). How Korean stu-
dents see scientists: The images of the scientist.
InternationalJournal of Science Education,
21, 957-977.
Steinke, J., & Long, M. (1995). A lab of her own?
Portrayalsoffemale characterson children's
educationalscience programs.(Report No. ED
384 937; CS 508 980). Paper resented at the
Annual Meeting of the International Commu-
nication Association, 45th, Albuquerque, NM,
May 25-29, 1995. (ERIC Document Repro-
duction Service, No. ED384937).
Symington, D., & Spurling, H. (1990). The 'draw
a scientist test': Interpreting the data. Research
in Science and Technological Education, 8,
75-77.
 COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

TITLE: The Draw a Scientist Test: A Different Population and a

Somewhat Different Story
SOURCE: Coll Stud J 40 no1 Mr 2006
WN: 0606003829017

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it

is reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article in
violation of the copyright is prohibited.

Copyright 1982-2006 The H.W. Wilson Company. All rights reserved.

View publication stats