Dr. Lokesh Gupta

प्रस्तुत पुस्तक "समाज विज्ञानों के लिए मूलभूत सांख्यिकी (Fundamental Statistics for Social Sciences)" समाज विज्ञानं (विशेषकर मनोविज्ञान, भूगोल, समाजशास्त्र ), शिक्षा तथा वाणिज्य संकाय के M.A. & B.A. के विधार्थी, शोधकर्ताओं तथा अध्यापको के लिए बहुउपयोगी सिद्ध होगी। इस पुस्तक को चार भागो में बाँटा गया है 1. विवरणात्मक सांख्यिकी, 2. सहसंबंध एवं समाश्रयण, 3. अनुमानिक सांख्यिकी-प्राचलिक और 4. अनुमानिक सांख्यिकी- अप्राचलिक। इन सभी भागों के अंर्तगत आने वाले अध्यायों में सामान्य से लेकर बहुकारक/बहुपरिवर्त्य प्रविधियों (Multivariate techniques) का वर्णन किया गया है। प्रमुख अप्राचालिक परीक्षणों को भी पुस्तक में सम्मिलित किया गया है। इस पुस्तक में विधार्थियो और शोधकर्ताओं की सुविधा का ध्यान रखते हुए प्रत्येक अध्याय के पश्चात अभ्यास के प्रश्न भी दिए गए है। आजकल शोधकर्ता प्रदत्त विश्लेषण के लिए बहुतायत से कम्प्यूटर्स का उपयोग करते हैं। यह पुस्तक उन सभी के लिए उपयोगी और सार्थक साबित होगी। पुस्तक की भाषा हिंदी है तथा तकनीकी शब्दों की हिंदी तकनीकी शब्दावली आयोग द्वारा प्रकाशित शब्द संग्रह के अनुसार के गयी है। पुस्तक हिंदी भाषी राज्यों के विधार्थियो, शोधकर्ताओं तथा अध्यापकों के लिए उपयोगी साबित होगी।

The present study was conducted to refine the construct of psychological preparedness and to construct a test on psychological preparedness. Psychological preparedness involves the processes and capacities such as knowledge, anticipation, recognition, thinking, feeling, decision making and management of thoughts, feeling and action. It can play a critical role in improving one’s ability to carry out standard physical preparedness advice, cope up with stress and reduce the effects of post incident distress (APS). Learning and utilizing skills such as stress inoculation, stress reduction and emotion management can enhance psychological preparedness. Psychological preparedness can assist people to feel more confident and more in control and to use rational and clear thinking when responding to a situation, leading to an enhanced ability to assist others and a consequent reduction in injury and loss of life. It appears that we know unpleasant things will happen: we simply deny that these will not happen to us. In other words, we are psychologically unprepared for misfortune. Paton (2003) suggests the three phases of a Social-Cognitive model of natural hazard preparedness, each phase influenced by a specific set of variables. The first concerned factor is that to motivate people (precursor variable). The second concerned is the variables that linked this initial motivation with the formation of intentions. The third phase describes the relationship between preparatory intentions and actual preparation.
A number of studies have dealt with the role of psychological preparedness in disaster or specific kind of problem related to health (cancer, stroke, surgery etc.) Review exhibits that psychological preparedness is a frequently used concept in the area of disaster and health management these days.
Thus, in view of the large body of research, it is observed that all researches focused on community, disaster and specific health related problems. But no research is focused on individual preparedness for day-to-day short term and long term life events, episodes and stages. It is necessary to measure the individual preparedness to deal effectively with normal routine matters like: exam, interview, transfer, job joining, long joining, training courses etc. Since psychological preparedness seems to be phenomena with such broad scope, it is a matter of serious concern that no scale has been developed to focus on individual’s preparedness to deal with day-to-day matters. The present research is focused on that to fill this lacuna. Thus, the aim of the present study is to refine the construct of psychological preparedness and to construct a test measuring psychological preparedness in adults.
Objectives:-
I. Refinement of the construct of Psychological Preparedness.
II. Construction of items related to measurement of psychological preparedness for adults (Hindi).
To achieve the objectives of current research 5 steps have been taken.

FIGURE-VII SHOWS 5 STEPS OF CURRENT RESEARCH

STEP-I
To fulfill the purpose of current research first step was to construct test on psychological preparedness. To fulfill this purpose psychological preparedness is operationally defined with the help of internet search engine and library review. On the basis, facets of psychological preparedness were identified. After operationally defining the facets of psychological preparedness it was dividing into a person’s general life situation. It was divided into three levels: life events, life episodes and life stages. For each dimension four items were constructed (two items in each life situation were positively worded and the remaining two were negatively worded). In case of intention and decision making facets there were 13 items in each. For each item, response has to be marked on a five point scale. In this manner, total 86 items were constructed.
STEP-II
179 subjects (96 males and 83 females) within the age range of 18-45 years (mean age 27.8±6.15) were assessed. Frequencies distributions help us in reducing irrelevant items. 55 items having extreme distributions i.e. either more than 75% or less than 25% respondents have picked a particular side (agree/disagree) were rejected, only 31 items which exhibited more even distribution were taken for further analysis.
STEP-III
The selected items (31) were analyzed by factor analysis. Extracted 11 principal components rotated factor matrix did not give us a simple structure. To get the simple structure 18 single loaded items were further factor analyzed.
STEP-IV
Factor analysis extracted 7 principal components (Eigen value greater than 1.00). 7 extracted factors were named after content analysis of significant loaded items. Seven emerged factors have been named as: General preparedness, Personal management, Lack of cognitive preparedness, Specified anxiety, Anticipation, Future orientation and generalized anxiety.




STEP-V
Defining the emerged 7 principal factor:
Factor-I General preparedness: - It explains 12.97% variance. General preparedness includes physical as well as psychological aspects of preparedness. This factor seems to be composed of various facets viz. arousal, anticipation and management.
Factor-II Personal management: - It explains 10.31% variance. Personal management is about mapping a plan for life that involves setting of short-range and long-range goals and investigating different ways to reach those goals.
Factor-III Lack of Cognitive Preparedness: - It explains 9.92% variance. Cognitive preparedness includes decision making, self-confidence and self-efficacy.
Factor-IV Specialized anxiety: - It explains 7.46% variance. It shows anxiety related to some specific situation. Sometime, we face a situation that evaluates us like: an exam, interview etc. Thus, kind of situation imposed anxiety on us for a specified time and duration. After completion of this specific task person feels relaxed and feels free from anxiety.
Factor-V Future orientation: - It explains 6.83% variance. Future orientation is an important component of psychological preparedness. The factor of future orientation is seems to be corresponding roughly with the motivational aspect of psychological preparedness.
Factor-VI Anticipation: - It explains 6.61% variance. Anticipation is an emotion involving pleasure, excitement and sometime anxiety. In considering some expected or longed-for good event. This factor seems to be related with the emotional angle of future orientation.
Factor-VII Generalized anxiety: - It explains 6.13% variance. This factor deals with general anxiety related to short term or long term life situation.

Psychological preparedness is defined as a phenomenon to face challenges in life as you
are able to understand, anticipate, recognize and manage your anxieties, stress, emotional
responses, and feel more confident, efficient in controlling situation and successfully cope in an
emergency situation (APS, 2007). A person faces so many challenges in his/her life and stress is
inevitable; we can't avoid it. So, better to be psychologically prepared for upcoming emergency
situations; not only for emergency we should be prepared for day-to-day regular life. Each
individual needs to be psychologically prepared for different stages in his life. Psychologically
preparedness is a phenomenon that has been studied so many times by the disaster management
researchers and health management scientists. Psychological preparedness is not being
emotionally invincible but about understanding how we are likely to react in a stressful situation
and employ strategies for better management of those psychological responses while attending
emergency responsibilities. Preparedness, a multi-faceted construct, is manifested at three levels:
Cognitive level, Emotional level and Instrumental level (Mashiach, & Dekel, 2012).
Psychological preparedness plays a crucial role in motivating people to take action in emergency
situation. Learning and utilizing skills such as stress inoculation, stress reduction and emotional
management can enhance psychological preparedness. There has been less focus on individual
psychological preparedness by psychologists so far. Past researches show that previously used
tools have been constructed to measure psychological preparedness for a specific purpose. It is
equally necessary to measure the individual’s psychological preparedness to deal effectively with
normal routine matters.
Models of Psychological preparedness e.g., A Social-Cognitive model of preparedness by
Paton et al. (2001a, b); Virtues/Strengths based combat preparedness and resilience model (Singh
& Gupta, communicated) have been developed for understanding of the concept of psychological
preparedness. It is evident that psychological preparedness can be a good predictor of
success/failure for upcoming future events and may also reduce the anxiety and mental health
related problems. Resilience, self-efficacy, mobility, lability, future orientation and unrealistic
optimism have an interactive relation with psychological preparedness. These variables may play
vital role in leading success/failure. Research findings indicate that psychological preparedness
plays an important role in emergency situation. A few attempts have made to study the role of psychological preparedness in daily routine life situation like: examination, interview, marriage,
job joining, and admission in a new course etc. So, Individual general life situation can be
divided into three time frame works extending over different lengths, three different time frame
works: (A) Life Events, (B) Life Episodes, and (C) Life Stages.
Detail review also depicts a scattered position of the concept of psychological
preparedness and a well woven construct eludes-could it be due to the absence of a general
measure or tool of psychological preparedness. The detail literature review raise some questions:
Whether psychological preparedness is a personality trait or anything else? Whether
psychological preparedness help in reducing anxiety, high satisfaction or predictor of
success/failure for upcoming future events? Whether moderators like (Resilience, mobility,
lability, self-efficacy, unrealistic optimism, and future orientation) play crucial role in predicting
success/failure or not? To find answers for all questions a model of psychological preparedness
was proposed and empirically tested in the present research.
The present research was aimed to assess predictive validity of psychological
preparedness with the criterion as success/failure or performance level/coping on upcoming life
event, episodes and stage.
Objectives
The major objectives of the study are:
I. To study the construct of psychological preparedness.
II. To study the moderators (resilience, mobility, lability, self-efficacy, time perspective and
unrealistic optimism) of psychological preparedness for task outcomes.
III. To study the predictive validity of the test scores and as well the construct of
psychological preparedness for future task outcome.
Hypotheses
I. Either a general component or a multi componential model is likely to emerge.
II. Moderators will be part of a variate.
III. There shall be significant or sizeable correlation between psychological preparedness and
task outcome.
To fulfill above objectives, correlational design was employed and 263 Ss were
contacted and enrolled in to three groups. Two-level assessment were conducted: level one
named as testing level and level two named as feedback level for outcome. Group-I: Those, who
were in the schools and preparing for their next competitive examination (life event). Group-II:
Those, who were in the school/college and preparing for their board/semester examination (life
episode). Group-III: Those who were selected for the jobs and were receiving their appointment
letters (Life stage) to join soon.
Psychological Preparedness Scale, Resilience Scale for Adults, Mobility Scale, Lability
Scale, Self-Efficacy Scale, Unrealistic Optimism and Future Orientation (Lines and Circle Test)
tools were used in the study along with the participant’s background details were obtained.
Performance measured in Group-I: marks in competitive examination, Group-II: marks % of
Board/Semester examination and Group-III: Self performance appraisal.
Major Findings of the present study
1. Construct of psychological preparedness is emerging as general construct without facets.
2. Psychological preparedness did not differ at gender level.
3. Psychological preparedness is a trait and is significantly related with Mobility, Lability,
Resilience and Future orientation.
4. Discriminant Functional Analysis found to be Mobility and Lability as a major
contributor to the variate (Psychological preparedness). Therefore, it was named as
Temperamental discriminant function.
5. Moderators (Resilience, Mobility, Lability, Self-efficacy, Future orientation and
Unrealistic optimism) can correctly classify high or low prepared group membership up
to 84% as revealed by discriminant function analysis.
6. Factor analysis identified “temperamental preparedness and capability beliefs”.
7. The factor of temperamental preparedness and capability beliefs and examination
performance (criterion) were related to each other through self-efficacy.
8. There was no direct relationship between the psychological preparedness and the
(examination performance).
Limitation: A standardized tool for the measurement of psychological preparedness for general
life situations was not available and limited empirical studies were available, so trends and gaps
were sketchy.Dropout rate was more than 50% at the time of feedback. The end variable was
operationalized as single outcome.
Suggestion: Advance technology based analysis should be used like IRT. Qualitative technique
like interview, storytelling, and behavior observation may be employed in future study to assess
preparedness as well the performance/outcome. More outcome or performance indicators can be
studied. To reduce dropout rate of feedback some incentives should be given.
Implication: A standardized tool of psychological preparedness can be useful for the
identification of low or high-prepared person. It can be used in organizational settings for
screening, deployment, sorting for special operation etc. including military context, career and
work counseling, recruitment, transfer, assignment of new project in organization, useful in
hospital setup for care-giver, staff and patient.
Personality development program can also focus on preparedness with cautions of
unrealistic optimism and linked self-efficacy. Unrealistic optimism tend to enhance future
orientation. Stabile and inert temperamental persons tend to be less prepared with lesser feelings
of self-efficacy and resilience. Thus, they need to be attended more for training people in
psychological preparedness. Mobile and labile persons are likely to be well prepared.

Psychological preparedness can play a crucial role in human daily routine life. So it is defined as a process and capacities of a person. In present study, a tool was constructed of 86 items for the measurement of psychological preparedness construing seven facets with 12-13 items in each. Content analysis with domain and facet loading of items has been prepared & presented. IRT based analysis was done at the level of facets to sort the items which satisfy the θ parameter and model fitting using Rasch Rating Scale Model (RRSM). Findings though reveal normal distribution of all the facets however did not fit to the model. Within facets the internal consistency varied from -.123 to .504, however 0.747 for the total test. Hence, the measure suggests a general construct without facets. So the test shall accordingly be pursued.

Resilience is the positive capacity of people to cope with stress, the ability to bounce back to homeostasis after a disruption. It is an adaptive system that uses exposure to stress to provide resistance to future negative events. Resilience, thus, corresponds to cumulative “protective factors”. American Psychological Association (APA) suggests that maintaining good relationships with close family members, friends and others is the way to build resilience. In the current study, type of family at the time of childhood (0-10 years) is taken as a predictor to develop resilience in a person. The sample of 176 males was divided into two different groups, namely, young adults (Age 21-30years) and middle age adult (31-40years). These two groups were further divided into three subgroups on the bases of types of family: Joint-Joint (J-J), Joint-Nuclear (J-N) and Nuclear-Nuclear (N-N). Resilience Scale by Wagnild and Young (1993) was used to measure resilience. The main purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between type of family and resilience building in a person. The study, however, also attempts to verify the moderating role of resilience in the relationship between family background and well-being. Joint family system provides inbuilt mechanism of social support of both ways, i.e., giving and seeking besides was buffers the stress etc. The obtained data were analyzed by Analysis of Variance and it was found that middle age adult Joint-Nuclear family had better resilience. At the Young Adult age level a person with an experience of joint family and now he living in nuclear family or single showed lesser score on resilience in comparison to all other subgroups.