Locus of Control Test Questionnaire by J. Rotter

Test questionnaire developed by E.F. Bazhin and others based on the J. Rotter locus of control scale

Study of subjective control

Instruction to the subject. “The questionnaire offered to you contains 44 statements. Read them and answer whether you agree with this statement or not. If you agree, put a “+” sign in front of the corresponding number in the answer sheet, if you do not agree, put a “-” sign. Remember that there are no "bad" and "good" answers in the test. Express your opinion freely and sincerely. The preferred answer is the one that comes to your mind first.

Questionnaire

1. Promotion depends more on luck than on the ability and effort of a person.

2. Most divorces are due to the fact that people did not want to adapt to each other.

3. Illness is a matter of chance, if you are destined to get sick, then nothing can be done.

4. People find themselves lonely because they themselves do not show interest and friendliness to others.

5. The fulfillment of my desires often depends on luck.

6. It is useless to make efforts in order to win the sympathy of other people.

7. External circumstances (parents, wealth) affect family happiness no less than the relationship of spouses.

8. I often feel like I have little influence on what happens to me.

9. As a rule, management is more effective when it fully controls the actions of subordinates, and does not rely on their independence.

10. My grades in school often depended on random circumstances (for example, on the mood of the teacher), and not on my own efforts.

11. When I make plans, I generally believe that I can carry them out.

12. What many people think is luck or good luck is actually the result of long, focused efforts.

13. I think that correct image life can help health more than doctors and medicines.

14. If people are not suitable for each other, then no matter how hard they try, they still will not be able to establish family life.

15. The good that I do is usually appreciated by others.

16. Children grow up the way their parents raise them.

17. I think that chance or fate does not play important role in my life.

18. I try not to plan too far ahead because a lot depends on how things turn out.

19. My grades in school depended most of all on my efforts and degree of preparedness.

20. In family conflicts, I often feel guilty for myself than for the opposite side.

21. The life of most people depends on a combination of circumstances.

22. I prefer a guide where you can decide for yourself what to do and how to do it.

23. I think that my lifestyle is in no way the cause of my illnesses.

24. As a rule, it is an unfortunate set of circumstances that prevents people from succeeding in their business.

25. In the end, the people who work in it are responsible for the poor management of the organization.

26. I often feel that I cannot change anything in the existing relationships in the family.

27. If I really want, I can win over almost anyone.

28. The rising generation is affected by so many different circumstances that the efforts of parents to educate them are often futile.

29. What happens to me is the work of my own hands.

30. It is difficult to understand why leaders act in this way and not otherwise.

31. A person who has not been able to succeed in his work, most likely, did not show enough effort.

32. More often than not, I can get what I want from my family members.

33. In the troubles and failures that were in my life, other people were more often to blame than me.

34. A child can always be protected from colds if he is monitored and dressed correctly.

35. In difficult circumstances, I prefer to wait until the problem resolves itself.

36. Success is the result of hard work and little depends on chance or luck.

37. I feel that the happiness of my family depends on me more than on anyone else.

38. It has always been difficult for me to understand why some people like me and others don't like me.

39. I always prefer to make a decision and act on my own, rather than relying on the help of other people or on fate.

40. Unfortunately, the merits of a person often remain unrecognized, despite all his efforts.

41. In family life There are situations that cannot be resolved even with the strongest desire.

42. Capable people who failed to realize their potential should only blame themselves for this.

43. Many of my successes were only possible with the help of other people.

44. Most of the failures in my life came from inability, ignorance or laziness and depended little on luck or bad luck.

Results processing

The purpose of processing the results is to obtain an indicator of the locus of subjective control, that is, an indicator of the overall internality of "Io". It is the sum of the matches of the answers of the subject with the answers to the questions given in the key.

Analysis of results

Locus of control is a characteristic of a person's volitional sphere, which reflects his tendency to attribute responsibility for the results of his activities to external forces or his own abilities and efforts. Attributing responsibility for the results of one's activities to external forces is called an external, or external, locus of control, and attributing responsibility to one's own abilities and efforts is called an internal, internal, locus of control.

Thus, two polar types of personalities are possible depending on the localization of control: external and internal. Each person has a certain position on a continuum that extends from the external to the internal type.

0 _______________¦______________ 44

external internal

The indicator of the locus of control (IO) obtained in the process of processing the results is deciphered in the following way:

In general, the greater the value of internality, the less externality.

The locus of control characteristic of a person is universal in relation to any types of events and situations that he has to face. The same type of control is manifested both in cases of failures and in cases of achievements, and this is observed in different spheres of the subject's life.

To determine the level of locus of control, the following boundaries of the internality scale are used.

At low level of internality people rarely trace the connection between their actions and life events that are significant for them. They do not consider themselves capable of controlling the development of such events and believe that most of them are the result of chance or the actions of other people. Therefore, "externals" are emotionally unstable, prone to informal communication and behavior, uncommunicative, they have poor self-control and high tension.

High level of internality corresponds high level subjective control over any significant situations. People with this locus of control believe that most important events in their lives was the result of their own actions, that they can control them and feel responsible for these events, and for how their life develops in general. "Internals" with high rates of subjective control have emotional stability, perseverance, determination, are distinguished by sociability, good self-control and restraint.

Average level internalities characteristic of most people. The features of their subjective control may vary somewhat depending on whether the situation is difficult or simple, pleasant or unpleasant, etc., for a person. But although their behavior and the psychological sense of responsibility for it depends on specific social situations, it is still possible to establish the predominance of one or another type of locus of control in them.

Thus, the subjective locus of control is associated with a person's feeling of his strength, dignity, responsibility for what is happening, with self-respect, social maturity and independence of the individual. Therefore, when making recommendations for self-improvement, it should be taken into account that:

Conformal, compliant behavior is to a large extent inherent in people with an external locus of control; internals are less inclined to submit to pressure (opinion, emotions, etc.) of other people;

A person with an internal locus of control works better alone.

· internals are more actively seeking information and are usually more aware of the situation than externals;

· Internals have a more active position in relation to their health than externals.

Studies have shown that internals are more popular, occupy a favorable position in the system of interpersonal relationships. They are more benevolent, more self-confident and more tolerant.

Persons with an internal locus of control prefer non-directive methods of education and psychocorrection. And in working with externals, it is important to take care of reducing anxiety and depression that are often observed.

Methodology for studying personality self-esteem
Instruction: Carefully read the words characterizing individual personality traits (character traits):

Make two rows of words, 10-20 each.
In the first column - let's call it "My ideal" - put the words that characterize your ideal.

In the second - let's call it "Antiideal" - words denoting features that the ideal should not have.

From the first ("positive") and second ("negative") rows, select the traits that you think you have. At the same time, the choice must be made according to the “yes - no” system: do you have this feature or not, regardless of the degree of its severity.

Processing, results and conclusions

Number positive traits, which you attribute to yourself, divide by the number of words placed in the "My ideal" column. If the result is close to one, you are most likely overestimating yourself; a result close to zero indicates underestimation and increased self-criticism; with a result close to 0.5 - a normal average self-esteem, and you perceive yourself quite critically.

In the same way, conclusions are drawn based on a comparison of the selected negative qualities with the "Antiideal" column. Here, a result close to zero indicates an overestimated self-esteem, to one - underestimated, to 0.5 - normal.

UDC 159.9:34.01

QUESTIONNAIRE OF DEPERSONALIZATION BY THE PROFESSIONAL SYSTEM (DPS)

Burtseva E.V.

Vladivostok branch of the Federal State Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education Far Eastern Law Institute of the Ministry of Internal Affairs Russian Federation, Russia, 690087, Vladivostok, st. Kotelnikova 21,[email protected] .

The professional system produces a depersonalizing effect on the personality. The subjective response to the depersonalizing influence of the environment is coping-personalization, or the ability of a person to coping-personal behavior - the conscious use of adaptive coping strategies to cope with the depersonalizing influence of the environment. A person must personalize in the environment, present himself in professional field, to present as a person and as a professional. The article presents the author's questionnaire of depersonalization by the professional system (DPS) with a description and explanation of the issues that make up its scale, the results of standardization and testing, interpretation and recommendations for use. The level of coping-personification according to the DPS questionnaire has a pronounced correlation with the level of personal self-government. In order to develop coping-personal behavior, it is necessary to develop the ability of personal self-government.

Keywords: depersonalization, coping-personalization, coping-personal behavior, DPS questionnaire (depersonalization by a professional system).

In the course of its labor activity a person is objectively in certain conditions in which this activity is carried out. Opportunities, personal characteristics of a person are manifested within the professional system. Depending on the person's perception of the situation, these frames can be felt as "hard," limiting, or as supportive, reinforcing. In any case, the subject of activity must find the ratio of external and internal determinations, necessity and freedom, regulation, normativity, standardization and individualization. Any professional system, and especially with an authoritarian style of management, with a subject-object approach to vertical interaction between a boss and a subordinate, produces a depersonalizing effect on a person. Personalization according to A.V. Petrovsky is “the ability of an individual to cause changes in significant aspects of the individuality of other people, to be the subject of the transformation of the behavior and consciousness of others through their reflection (“personalization”) in them” . Accordingly, de-personalization is the reverse process of turning a person from a subject into an object that does not have any influence on the situation and people, respectively, is not reflected in others for himself and therefore is not perceived by himself, alienated from himself. Alienation from oneself in a professional environment shows, in our opinion, that a person is maladjusted, perhaps depressed state feels out of place. Maybe the reason lies in the lack of skills of self-presentation, self-representation, self-affirmation. Or maybe really, the surrounding professional environment exerts excessive pressure on the individual. In any case, a person must find the strength in himself to either change the situation (for example, leave a place of work that is unfavorable for his personality), or change his attitude to the situation, learn to cope with the depersonalizing effect of the system, personalize in the environment, imagine himself in the professional sphere, present as a person and as a professional.

The first step towards such self-change, we believe, should be awareness of the problem. A person must clearly see and realize what his sense of self is in a professional environment, in a team of employees. It is for this purpose that the questionnaire of depersonalization by the professional system (DPS) was created. In this article, we present the questionnaire itself with a description and explanation of the questions that make up its scale, with the results of standardization and testing.

The questionnaire consists of ten pairs of statements that are opposite in meaning, between which there are scales from "0" to "10" (Table 1). In the instructions, respondents are asked to evaluate their usual state and self-perception at the workplace, in a working environment, circling the appropriate score on the scale. The method of work can be both individual and group.

Table 1.

As a result of the standardization of the questionnaire on a sample of 300 police officers and researchers aged 23-47 years, the following norms were revealed:

0 - 29 - very high value DPS; 30 - 49 - high DPS value; 50-70 - average value of DPS; 71-90 - low DPS value; 91 - 100 - very low DPS value.

The lower the scores, that is, the more the circled values ​​deviate to the left, the stronger the depersonalizing influence of the professional system on the personality, the less the person's ability to resist this influence. The higher the scores, that is, the more the circled values ​​deviate to the right, the less people experiences the depersonalizing influence of the professional system, the greater the person's ability to resist this influence. For greater clarity, the respondents are invited to connect the circled numbers with a line, thus obtaining a graph - a "curve" of depersonalization.

Let us describe how the method was tested and standardized. At the first stage, the conceptual content was clarified, the statements that were the items of the questionnaire were formulated, the obvious validity and degree of understanding of the received text were assessed.

Comparisons of indicators of different sex and age groups carried out within the samples did not reveal significant differences. Contrary to our expectations, there were also no significant differences between the results of the two professional groups - employees of the internal affairs bodies and employees research institute. The distribution of responses did not differ significantly from normal. The internal consistency of questions in the DPS questionnaire, calculated on this sample, is quite high (Cronbach's α 0.7), which indicates that they all measure the same object - depersonalization by the professional system. Let's discuss each question.

Low scores on items 1 - "little depends on my decisions - a lot depends on my decisions" (average value 5.9) and 4 - "I still cannot influence the situation - I can strongly influence the situation" (average value 5.8) speak of "learned helplessness". This is the state that occurs in a situation where it seems that external events do not depend on us, and there is nothing we can do to prevent or modify them. A person feels helpless before the impact on him external environment. He is sure that he is not able to influence circumstances, he cannot control his life. There is a rejection of attempts to solve problems that can be solved on the basis of internal resources.

A low score on item 2 - “I feel my insignificance - I feel my significance” (average value 6.5) may indicate a depressive state, a loss of life meanings. Feeling like a cog in a big machine (item 6, mean 5.6) is not always a bad thing, sometimes it means teamwork if the scores for all other items of the questionnaire are high. If low scores prevail, such a response also indicates depersonalization. For a person, it is preferable to feel like a “solid well-oiled mechanism”, this reflects the psychological health of a person, professional adaptation, personalization.

For item 3 (I don’t get involved in solving official problems, usually “the authorities know better” - they can’t do without my participation in solving official problems) the lowest average value of all points (4.9) was obtained, since in an authoritarian system of subordination there are principles subordination and separation of powers. But still, this item also has agreement with all the others, so it was left in the questionnaire. In addition, a person, in any case, should strive to solve service problems on his own.

Items 5 - "I prefer to keep my opinion to myself - I try to make my opinion heard" (average value 6.7) and 7 "No one asks my opinion - the authorities listen to my opinion" (average value 5.7) reflect readiness a person to express his point of view, to position himself. If such readiness is absent or low, then this indicates the predominance of a person's motivation to avoid failures (which is confirmed experimentally).

A low score for item 8 - “My personal boundaries are violated all the time, I feel dependent - I feel autonomous and independent” (mean value 5.8) indicates a person’s uncomfortable self-perception at the workplace, in its professional position. This can be due to both external reasons (authoritarian-manipulative style of leadership, personal characteristics of colleagues), and internal ones - the inability of a person to build personal boundaries, overcome the depersonalizing influence of the environment.

Achievement positive result in activity is closely connected with the joint purposeful activity of the team: subdivision, department, group, etc., which requires from a person, on the one hand, initiative and activity, on the other hand, conscious self-restraint of personal initiative and activity in the name of achieving common goals. Moreover, personal and public (professional) goals should be coordinated. Point 9 of our questionnaire was sent to clarify the existence of this agreement - “My goals differ from the goals of the organization - my goals and the goals of the organization coincide” (average value 6.3).

Item 10 of the questionnaire - "The professional system oppresses me - the professional system is a resource for me" (average value 6.5) finds out the attitude of a person to the professional system. Does he perceive the system as a resource from which it is possible to draw energy to overcome life and professional difficulties, which provides support, or is the system an anti-resource for him, having a depersonalizing influence that deprives a person of subjectivity.

The problem of depersonalization by the professional system, like any other, needs to be resolved. The counterbalance of depersonalization by the professional system, from our point of view, is coping-personalization as overcoming depersonalization, a subjective response to the depersonalizing influence of the environment. That is, the inability of a person to resist depersonalization by the professional system has the opposite pole - this is the ability of a person to coping-personal behavior - the conscious use of adaptive coping strategies to cope with the depersonalizing influence of the environment.

In general, "coping behavior" is coping behavior, co-owning behavior. Behavioral efforts that are aimed at overcoming the leveling influence of the system, building personal boundaries of the “I”, reaching a conscious level of self-regulation, self-government, we called coping-personification

Let us give an interpretation of the values ​​obtained as a result of standardization of the intervals of the DPS questionnaire (depersonalization by a professional system), taking into account the newly introduced concept:

0 - 29 - very low coping personification, very high DPS value

People with these results are more likely to be depressed, insecure, not even trying to overcome environmental pressure (which they perceive as aggressive towards themselves). Employees with such indicators need special attention psychologist.

30 - 49 - low coping personification, high DPS value.

The people who showed the overall result in these intervals are cautious, prefer to “keep a low profile”, it is easier for them to convince themselves that nothing depends on them than to make attempts to change the situation. Avoid responsibility whenever possible, although they may be good performers. Despite the emotional discomfort of their stay at their workplace, in a professional environment, they are in no hurry to change anything, they lack determination.

50-70 - average coping personification, average DPS.

Such people prefer to stick to the "golden mean" in everything. Cautious in statements, but if necessary, they can express their opinion. They recognize the influence of the environment, but do not experience much discomfort from this. They prefer compromise in relationships. They do not see the need to "get on the rampage", proving their point of view.

71-90 - high coping personification, low DPS.

High scores indicate self-confidence, a person's adaptability in the workplace, a sense of their importance, a desire to actively participate in solving official issues, and responsibility. Such people seek to express their opinion, influence the situation, position themselves as active figures.

91 - 100 - very high coping personification, very low DPS

People with very high scores deny the depersonalizing influence of the professional system and position themselves as an independent person, providing big influence to the situation. This is a psychologically favorable position, unless it is defensive in nature. In this case, a person may try to aggressively impose his opinion on others, to behave regardless of the requirements of the situation.

As conclusions, we will determine the possibilities of using the DPS questionnaire for working with employees and teams.

Due to its compactness (its filling time is 2-3 minutes) and clarity (especially if you connect the circled numbers with a graph), the questionnaire can be used in group work as an independent study, or as an addition to other tests.

If the research is conducted anonymously, the data can give the psychologist and managers an idea of ​​the psychological self-perception of employees. We use the DPS questionnaire in educational process on subjects of a psychological and pedagogical orientation, along with other tests (motivational questionnaires by T. Ehlers; questionnaires that identify coping strategies, etc.) in order to increase the students' self-awareness, their understanding of the strategies and reasons for their own behavior.

If the survey is not conducted anonymously, then, together with other methods, the DPS questionnaire can be used to identify employees who are in depressive, psychologically unfavorable conditions.

At individual work asking a psychologist with employees to fill out this questionnaire before counseling, you can pay special attention to items with low scores (0 - 3), speak with the employee about his feelings and opinions on these positions.

Our studies also showed that the level of coping-personification according to the DPS questionnaire has a pronounced correlation (p=0.01) with the level of personal self-government according to the N.M. Peisakhova. This means that if a person has a high level of self-government, that is, he can analyze the situation, navigate in it, predict its development, be determined by goals, plan to achieve them, designate landmarks for his achievements, make decisions, exercise self-control and correct his actions, then he is able to cope with the depersonalizing influence of the environment. Accordingly, in order to develop coping-personal behavior, it is necessary to develop the ability of personal self-government.

Bibliography

Acmeology: Textbook / Ed. edited by A.A. Derkach., M .: Publishing house of the RAGS, 2002. - 650 p.

Fundamentals of psychology: Practicum / Ed.-sost.L.D. Stolyarenko. Ed. 2nd, add. and reworked. - Rostov n / a: "Phoenix", 2001. - 704 p., C. 217 - 218.

Peisakhov N.M., Shevtsov M.N. Practical psychology. - Kazan: Publishing house of KSU, 1991. - 123 p.

Petrovsky V.A. Artur Vladimirovich Petrovsky: Scientific developments and discoveries recent years. http://www.bimbad.ru/biblioteka/article_full.php?aid=267&binn_rubrik_pl_articles=173 - (accessed 10/18/2011)

Lazarus R.S., Folkman S. Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer, 1984.

Seligman M.E.P. Helplessnes: On depression, development, and death. San Francisco: Freeman, 1975.

Burtseva E.V. QUESTIONNAIRE FOR DEPERSONALIZATION BY THE PROFESSIONAL SYSTEM (DPS) // Scientific electronic archive.
URL: (date of access: 03/02/2019).

When needed: allows you to assess how the person being assessed relates to the events taking place in his life, whether he considers them under control or thinks that he has no power over them.

Questionnaire for the study of the level of subjective control (SCS)

Instruction: You are offered 44 statements that describe various ways human interpretation of the most common social situations. Read each statement carefully, rate the extent to which you agree or disagree, and mark the answer sheet number corresponding to your choice:

3 - totally agree
+2 - agree
+1 - agree rather than disagree
-1 - Disagree rather than agree
-2 - disagree
-3 - completely disagree

Try to use the full range of ratings.

Answer sheet
_______________________________________________
Full Name

Results processing

Processing of test results is carried out in several stages. The number corresponding to the choice determines the number of points received for each answer. First, using the keys, the scores for each scale are calculated (simple summation). At the same time, points for answers to questions with a “+” sign are summed up with their own sign, and for questions with a “–” sign - with the opposite sign.

Keys to scales

1. Scale of general internality (Io)

2. Scale of internality in the field of achievements (ID)

3. Scale of internality in the field of failures (In)

5. Scale of internality in the field of industrial relations (IR)

7. Scale of internality in relation to health and disease (From)

As a result of scoring for each of the scales, so-called "raw" scores are obtained, which must be converted into standard scores (walls). To do this, use a special table.

Table for converting "raw" scores to standard scores

Click image for a larger view

The scores obtained in the walls are entered in the table:

Final table of results

The results expressed in the walls are compared with the norm (5.5 walls). An indicator above 5.5 walls indicates an internal type of control in this area, below 5.5 - an external one.

The results can also be presented as a graph or as a profile.

Example of a USC chart

USK profile example

Interpretation of the results

Psychologically, a person with high rate of subjective control possesses emotional stability, perseverance, determination, sociability, high self-control and restraint. Man with low subjective control emotionally unstable, prone to informal behavior, uncommunicative, poor self-control and high tension.

Scale of general internality (Io). High rate on this scale corresponds to a high level of subjective control over any significant situations. Such people believe that most of the important events in their lives are the result of their own actions, that they can control them. They feel their own responsibility for these events and for the way their life as a whole develops. Subjects with low level subjective control do not see the connection between their actions and significant life events for them. They do not consider themselves capable of controlling their development and believe that most events are the result of chance or the actions of other people.

Scale of internality in the field of achievements (Id). High rate on this scale corresponds to a high level of subjective control over emotionally positive events and situations. Such people believe that they themselves have achieved everything that was and is in their life, and that they are able to successfully achieve their goals in the future. Low rate on a scale indicates that a person attributes his successes and achievements to circumstances - luck, good fortune or the help of other people.

Scale of internality in the field of failures (In). High rate on this scale reflects a developed sense of subjective control in relation to negative events and situations, which is manifested in a tendency to blame oneself for various troubles and suffering. Low rate indicates that the subject is inclined to attribute responsibility for such events to other people or to consider them the result of bad luck.

Scale of internality in the field family relations(Is). High rate Is means that a person considers himself responsible for the events taking place in his family life. Low rate Is indicates that the subject considers his partners responsible for the situations that arise in his family.

Scale of internality in the field of industrial relations (IP). High rate on this scale indicates that in the organization of their production activities a person relies mainly on himself. He believes that he can influence his relationships with colleagues, manage them and be responsible for them; thinks that his professional career, promotion depends more on himself than on other people or on external forces. Low rate indicates that a person has a tendency not to take responsibility for his professional success and failure. Such a person believes that not he himself, but someone else - bosses, colleagues, luck, etc. - determine everything that happens to him in this area.

Scale of internality in the field of interpersonal relations (Im). High rate They are evidenced by the fact that a person considers himself able to control his formal and informal relationships with other people, to arouse respect and sympathy for himself. Low rate , on the contrary, indicates that a person cannot actively form his social circle and tends to consider his interpersonal relationships the result of partner activity.

Scale of internality in relation to health and disease (Iz). High rate indicate that the subject considers himself responsible for his health: if he is sick, he blames himself for this and believes that recovery largely depends on his actions. Man with low rate on this scale, he considers the disease the result of an accident and hopes that recovery will come as a result of the actions of others, primarily doctors.

For professional diagnostics, the most informative are the results on the scale of internality in industrial relations (Ip). Results on other scales make it possible to build a multidimensional profile. Since most people are characterized by a more or less wide variability of behavior depending on specific social situations, the characteristics of subjective control can also change in a person depending on whether the situation seems to him complex or simple, pleasant or unpleasant, etc.

The level of subjective control increases as a result of psychological correction. At the same time, it should be remembered that internals prefer non-directive methods of psychological correction; and externals, as individuals with increased anxiety and prone to depression, are subjectively more satisfied with behavioral methods.

• Psychology: personality and business

Scales: focus on army specialties: command, operator, communications and surveillance, driver, special purpose(special forces), technological

Purpose of the test

The questionnaire is designed to study the military-professional orientation of a conscript and is a method for assessing inclinations for classes of basic similar military positions.

Instructions for the test

You are invited to perform a technique designed to determine the military-professional inclinations of a person.

Each of the statements of this technique corresponds to several answers, and your task is to, focusing mainly on your own life experience, choose the one that suits you best.

Test

1. At school I was more interested in:
1. social work, organization of various events;
2. classes related to the implementation of calculations, diagrams, drawings;
3. classes in radio engineering and computers;
4. car business, driving, motorcycle;
5. competitions, sports;
6. labor lessons.
2. I value most in people:
1. the ability to infect and charge other people with their energy;
2. seriousness and concentration in work;
3. the ability to maintain efficiency in conditions of fatigue;
4. punctuality and accuracy;
5. courage and determination;
3. Among the various fields of activity, I am most attracted to:
1. educational and organizational work;
2. maintenance of electronic computers;
3. work related to the use of communications;
4. driving a car or other means of transport;
5. systematic sports;
6. maintenance and repair of technical devices.
4. In sports, with proper training, I would most likely achieve success as:
1. sports team coach;
2. shooter from sports weapons;
3. amateur athlete;
4. racing driver;
5. karateka, sambist, boxer;
6. mechanic in the motorcycle racing team.
5. I think that comrades value me the most:
1. adherence to principles, firmness of character;
2. perseverance and patience;
3. accuracy, diligence;
4. physical performance;
5. courage, readiness to overcome difficult and even dangerous situations;
6. ability to craft, manual creativity.
6. After serving in the army, I would prefer to work:
1. teacher or master of vocational training;
2. operator of electronic computing equipment;
3. radio operator;
4. driver (generalized machine operator);
5. tester, stuntman, mountain rescuer, bodyguard;
6. household appliances repairman.
7. I am better at activities that require a person to:
1. initiative and resourcefulness;
2. accuracy and care;
3. persistence;
4. exact implementation of instructions and prescriptions;
5. courage and willingness to take risks;
6. technical thinking.
8. I would rather read a book about:
1. outstanding commanders;
2. electronic equipment and its inventors;
3. achievements in the field of radio engineering;
4. new Vehicle Oh;
5. climbers training;
6. promising developments in electrical engineering and mechanics.
9. I find myself more capable of:
1. maintain self-control and endurance, make quick decisions in difficult, critical situations;
2. painstakingly analyze the incoming information (signals), highlight the main thing in it;
3. be extremely accurate in the performance of the tasks assigned to me;
4. long time overcome fatigue and maintain efficiency;
5. show determination and courage, act on the verge of risk;
6. quickly understand the features of the device of a technical device unfamiliar to me.
10. Upon completion working week I prefer:
1. organize a collective event with comrades;
2. systematize the materials of their collections;
3. watch a film about new achievements in the field of communications;
4. visit a car exhibition;
5. participate in a difficult and long hiking trip;
6. repair household appliances.
11. My parents (other close people) value the following in a person:
1. organizational skills;
2. endurance and patience;
3. diligence;
4. self-discipline and performance;
5. strength and courage;
6. technical literacy.
12. While serving in the army, I would like to:
1. acquire and develop organizational skills;
2. perform responsible operator work that requires self-control and endurance;
3. master the means of communication;
4. acquire (fix) the skills of driving a car and other vehicles;
5. Improve your physical and volitional qualities;
6. increase the level of technical literacy.

Processing and interpretation of test results

Key to the test

Answers “a” - team specialties;
. “b” - operator;
. “c” - communications and observations;
. “d” - driver's;
. “e” - special purpose;
. “f” - technological.

Interpretation of test results

If the sum of points on any scale is 7 or more, then we can talk about the presence of an inclination (interest) in this specialty.