Chapter 8: Normal Positive Functioning Flashcards
Primary, secondary, and tertiary validity revisited
Authors conducted a validity study on the Self-Esteem Questionnaire (SEQ) using the tripartite conceptual model Initial findings
* Test-retest using college students over 10-week interval, r = .76
* Split-half reliability using high school students, r = .81
* Internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha), r = .52
Primary validity
First, tried to determine how well the test measures self esteem
Compared the means and standard deviations for six different student groups
Results showed that the groups who were expected to have higher levels of self-esteem did in fact have higher levels
* Highest mean = Student leaders
* Lowest mean = Students on academic probation
Scores showed a progression along a sociological continuum
Secondary validity
4 Steps to clarify the underlying dimension of measurement:
- Review of the development of the test
- Analysis of test items with respect to format and content
- Analysis of the relationship between the test and other
important variables - Study of individuals whose scores are diagnostically significant
Secondary validity: 1
- Review of the development of the test
* No information was available
Secondary validity: 2
- Analysis of test items with respect to format and content
* Conducted a factor analysis and found 3 factors
o General factor (
o Neurotic defensiveness (
o Interpersonal competence
Secondary validity: 3
- Analysis of the relationship between the test and other important variables
Results of studies found:
* No gender
* No ethnic or racial differences
* No significant correlations with socioeconomic status
* No significant correlations with measures of social desirability
* No significant correlations with intelligence-test scores
* Significant correlations with GPA (college and high school)
* Significant correlations with 6 other self-concept measures
Secondary validity: 4
- Study of individuals whose scores are diagnostically significant
Interviewed the students and the interviews were observed by clinical psychology graduate students
Observers completed an Adjective Checklist and a Q sort about each person interviewed
Results showed the high self-esteem students were characterized by words that would be equated with high self-esteem (high internal
consistency) and the same was found with the low self-esteem students
Tertiary validity
Looked at the relationships the SEQ had with other measures
Results showed that it provided additional information about
alcoholics in therapy
Might distinguish between creativity of individuals
It might be relevant to the study of androgyny
Locus of Control
Classic psychological study findings:
- Stotland & Blumenthal (1964) – in a testing situation if people feel
in control they feel less anxious - Seligman (1975) – dogs exhibited “helpless” behavior when
placed in a situation in which they didn’t have control - Rotter (1966) –
o “Internal control” – perception that rewards are contingent
upon one’s behavior
o “External control” – perception that rewards are under the
control of powerful others, luck, chance, or are unpredictable
Locus of Control
The Internal-External Locus of Control Scale
Items were developed based on the theoretical literature 29 items with pair of forced-choice responses
* One response was internal locus of control and one response was
external locus of control
* Score is the sum of items chosen that are external locus of control
Locus of Control
The Internal-External Locus of Control Scale
Reliability and Validity
- Gender differences in reliability
- Test-retest reliabilities ranged from .49 to .83
- Small correlations with social desirability and intelligence
- Many studies have supported the construct validity
Creativity
Work began in the 1950s with Guilford
No clear definition of the concept
Different measures don’t correlate highly with one another
Creativity requires divergent thinking (developing multiple answers)
which differs from intelligence which requires convergent thinking
(coming up with the best single answer)
Creativity measures usually require imagination, generation of ideas,
asking unusual questions, and coming up with novel responses
Creativity
4 Perspectives for studying creativity (Domino & Domino, 2006)
- Focus on creative persons – look at how creative people differ from
those who are less creative - Study the creative process –
a. Preparation
b. Incubation
c. Illumination
d. Verification - Focus on the creative product – what distinguishes it?
- Press – how the force of the external environment and inner
psychological environment impact creativity
Interscorer and intrascorer reliability
Scoring is very subjective
Make sure to train the raters and provide specific guidelines
Studies have show high interscorer reliabilities
Scorer reliability can change over time – need to provide help to
enhance stability and decrease boredom
Scoring problems
* Assessment of originality
o Norms – less frequent response is original
o Raters rate originality
* Some say that ideas should be judged in total as a unit
* Looked at the difference in ratings between creativity and
originality
* Are measures good simulations of real-world creativity?
General concern about imagery questionnaires
There is a lack of consistent correlation between subjective reports
of visual imagery and actual performance on tasks
This may have to do with the fact that it is difficult to use a self-
report inventory to measure imagery
