Conceptualization and measurement of millennial's social signaling and self‐signaling for socially responsible consumption

Social responsibility has rapidly gained popularity among consumers specifically among millennials born 1980 to 2000. Millennials are characterized by their willingness to get involved with social and political initiatives. Motivations for social responsibility are not completely unselfish in that individuals receive personal gain when providing support for others. This research proposes that socially responsible (SR) consumption has both social signaling and self‐signaling abilities. The scales for measuring millennial's social signaling and self‐signaling for SR consumption were developed to reflect the evolving nature of both social responsibility and the millennial generation. In‐depth interviews (n = 12) were used to generate scale items and an exploratory factor analysis was used to assess the dimensionality of the scales. Results were subjected to a confirmatory factor analysis that examined convergent and discriminant validity. Nomological validity testing was also performed. The social signaling for SR consumption scale was a one‐dimensional factor structure whereas the self‐signaling for SR consumption scale had two factors. These scales provide a tool for marketers and researchers to develop relevant SR initiatives aimed at millennials.     

The supervisory alliance: Comparison of measures and implications for a supervision toolkit

Background Clinical supervision lies at the core of the professional development of clinicians providing services within a range of service settings. The supervisory alliance is regarded as the most important construct in effective supervision which underlies the importance of metrics to assess this construct. Aims materials and Method A cross‐sectional self‐report questionnaire design was used to examine clinical supervision constructs. The study used two scales measuring the supervisory alliance (SRQ and SWAI‐T), a scale measuring supervision satisfaction (SSQ) and a scale measuring disclosure (TDS). The questionnaires were administered to 127 clinical psychology trainees who were undertaking a practicum placement. Results Both scales measuring the alliance were positively correlated with satisfaction with supervision and disclosure, with similar sizes of correlation for each alliance scale. There was also a large, positive correlation between the two scales of measuring the alliance. Discussion Both scales were designed for use in supervision and are related to supervision outcome measures in the expected directions. Conclusion The SRQ has some distinct advantages over the SWAI‐T that lend the SRQ to be potentially more useful in clinical and research settings.     

To translate or to develop a measure? The case of a new Arabic measure of organizational justice

One of the most prominent and widely used self‐reporting scales for assessing organizational justice perceptions was developed by Colquitt (2001). This scale has been used internationally and has therefore been translated into several languages including Arabic. In a recent study, after conducting a careful review of organizational justice literature to ensure its relevance to Arabic culture, Alkhadher and Gadalreb ( 2016 ) developed a new Arabic measure of organizational justice (AMOJ) perceptions and found evidence of a four‐factor scale structure. The purpose of this study is to compare the Arabic version of Colquitt's measure of organizational justice (AVCMOJ) with the AMOJ in terms of predictive power using various outcome measures used by Colquitt (2001). The two scales were administered to 781 Kuwaiti employees (47.6% males) from the public sector. A multiple‐sample confirmatory factor analysis supports the four‐dimensional structure for both AVCMOJ and AMOJ measures. Cronbach's alpha obtained for subscales was found to range between 0.72 and 0.85. The predictive power of the three AMOJ dimensions (distributional, procedural, and informational) was found to be higher than that of the AVCMOJ. The results of the present study raise issues of scale development against the translation of well‐developed scales. Theoretical and practical implications of the results are discussed.     

Criminal attitudes to violence: Development and preliminary validation of a scale for male prisoners

Two studies report on the development and preliminary psychometric properties of a new scale measuring criminal attitudes to violence. In Study 1, the responses of a mixed sample of male prisoners were used to select 20 scale items from a larger pool. The final scale (the Criminal Attitudes to Violence Scale; CAVS) was designed so that it had a single‐factor structure and was uncorrelated with a measure of social desirability bias. It demonstrated high internal reliability, and a strong relationship to a self‐report measure of physical aggression. Significant differences were found in CAVS mean scores for various offence history comparisons, such as whether or not the offender was currently on sentence for a violent conviction. In the second study, most results from the first study were replicated with an independent sample of male prisoners. Further, compared to another scale measuring attitudes to aggression [the EXPAGG Instrumental subscale; Archer and Haigh, 1997b], the CAVS was a better predictor of general attitudes to crime. Mean CAVS scores were again significantly higher for current violent offenders than those on sentence for other types of offences. Lastly, the CAVS was moderately predictive of estimated risk of reconviction and re‐imprisonment. Overall these results suggest that this scale measures the construct of attitudes to criminal violence, which partially overlaps two other constructs: attitudes to aggression and attitudes to crime. Aggr. Behav. 30:484–503, 2004. © 2004 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Assessing Community Participation: Comparing Self‐Reported Participation Data with Organizational Attendance Records

How well do self‐reported levels of community and organizational participation align with recorded acts of community and organizational participation? This study explores this question among participants in social action community organizing initiatives by comparing responses on a community participation scale designed to retrospectively assess community participation (T1, n = 482; T2, n = 220) with individual participants' attendance records in various social action organizing activities over two 1‐year periods. By testing the self‐reported measure's overall and item‐by‐item association with documented participation in various types of organizing activities, we find that the self‐report measure is positively, but weakly correlated with actual participation levels in community organizing activities. Moreover, associations between self‐report and recorded acts of participation differ by types of activity. Examining this unique source of data raises important questions about how community participation is conceptualized and measured in our field. Implications are explored for theory and measurement of participation in community and organizational contexts.     

Child Adjustment and Parent Efficacy Scale: Development and Initial Validation of a Parent Report Measure

This study examined the psychometric characteristics of the Child Adjustment and Parent Efficacy Scale (CAPES). The CAPES was designed as a brief outcome measure in the evaluation of both public health and individual or group parenting interventions. The scale consists of a 30‐item intensity scale with two subscales measuring children's behaviour problems and emotional maladjustment and a 20‐item self‐efficacy scale that measures parent's self‐efficacy in managing specific child problem behaviours. A sample of 347 parents of 2–12‐year‐old children participated in the study. Psychometric evaluation of the CAPES revealed that both the intensity and self‐efficacy scales had good internal consistency, as well as satisfactory convergent and discriminant validity. Potential uses of the measure and implications for future validation studies are discussed.     

Wisdom and Psychosocial Functioning in Later Life

We investigated the connection between wisdom‐related performance, personality, and generativity to further the understanding of how they are interrelated. Our sample consisted of 163 men and women 68–77 years of age, mostly White, and predominantly middle class. Wisdom was assessed with the performance‐based Berlin Wisdom Paradigm, with the remaining measures being mostly self‐report. As hypothesized, on the zero‐order level, wisdom‐related performance (WRP) was positively associated with (a) growth, a personality component indexed by Openness to Experience, psychological mindedness, and a sense of well‐being derived from growth, purpose in life, and autonomy; (b) adjustment, a personality component associated with life satisfaction, high levels of Agreeableness and Conscientiousness, low Neuroticism, a sense of well‐being derived from positive relations with others, self‐acceptance, and environmental mastery; and (c) a generative concern for the welfare of others. Latent path analysis indicated that the bivariate associations between adjustment and wisdom and between generativity and wisdom were mediated by growth. Wise individuals are characterized by their ability to balance different personal strengths and interests, an integration that occurs, however, within the context of a dominant personality style marked by the pursuit of maturity through personal growth.     

Cognitive and Affective Regulation: Scale Validation and Nomological Network Analysis

This research examined the nomological network of cognitive and affective regulation with two scales developed to operationalise these constructs within complex performance domains. Data demonstrated that cognitive and affective regulation were differentially related to self‐regulatory, affective, and achievement variables at the inter‐ and intra‐individual levels. Psychometric properties of each scale were supported via confirmatory factor analyses and multilevel modeling. Study 1 established support for internal consistency, unidimensionality, and construct validity; Study 2 cross‐validated the scales in a different performance context; and Study 3 demonstrated utility for capturing intra‐individual changes in self‐regulation and predicting performance. This research highlights the importance of examining cognitive and affective regulation at the intra‐individual level of analysis; and the new measures provide a valid tool for advancing progress in this area.     

Egoistic and Moralistic Self‐Enhancement in the Eye of the Beholder: A Cross‐Informant Study

This study was conceived to assess the agreement between self‐ and other reports of egoistic (E) and moralistic (M) self‐enhancement (SE). A self‐report scale assessing E‐SE and M‐SE was filled out by 304 participants (mean age = 39.11, SD = 10.12, 54% female). The scale, with items worded in third person, was also completed by 304 informants (one for each target participant). Data were subjected to a correlated‐traits correlated‐methods model. Confirmatory factor analysis yielded two distinct factors for both self‐ and other ratings of E‐SE and M‐SE. A significant correlation across raters was observed for each factor. Proportion of trait variance was .58 for E‐SE and .35 for M‐SE. Proportion of method variance was .24 and .41, respectively. E‐SE and M‐SE were substantially correlated within each data source. However, the two measures became orthogonal after method variance was partialed out. Measures of E‐SE and M‐SE include both trait and artifactual components of variance, which are likely to reflect individual differences in the style of self‐presentation and response bias (i.e., tendencies to exaggerate agentic and communal qualities). The trait components of E‐SE and M‐SE represent two unrelated tendencies that can be captured and distinguished not only through self‐judgments, but also by an external observer.     

Confirmatory factor analysis of the Approaches to Teaching Inventory

Background. The Approaches to Teaching Inventory (ATI) was developed to explore the relationship between students' approaches to learning, and teachers' approaches to teaching, in the physical sciences in higher education. It is increasingly being used in other contexts. Aim. To analyse the factor structure of the ATI. Method. Confirmatory factor analysis. Sample. Inventory responses from over 1,000 university teachers, from 4 different countries and a wide range of disciplines, experience, and teaching level (year of students' study) were used as the sample. Results. Cronbach's alpha values of the 2‐scale inventory were acceptable for scale reliability, but not for the 4‐scale structure. A good fit to the intended 2‐factor structure was obtained by confirmatory factor analysis. Both Information transmission/teacher‐focused and conceptual change/student‐focused scales had well identified intention and strategy subscales. Conclusion. The ATI has been developed as a relational indicator of 2 dimensions of approaches to teaching. It is not intended for use in gathering a full, rich self‐report of teaching, or in non‐relational contexts. However, it has now been used in a number of different contexts, including different subject areas and cultures. There is evidence in this paper that in those contexts its factor structure is, in the main, consistent with the original design. This analysis also suggests ways that the ATI could be improved.     

Factor structure and aetiological architecture of the BRIEF: A twin study

Executive function is a broad construct that encompasses various processes involved in goal‐directed behaviour in non‐routine situations (Banich, 2009). The present study uses a sample of 560 5‐ to 16‐year‐old twin pairs (M = 11.14, SD = 2.53): 219 monozygotic twin pairs (114 female; 105 male) and 341 dizygotic twin pairs (136 female, 107 male; 98 opposite sex) to extend prior literature by providing information about the factor structure and the genetic and environmental architecture of the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF; Gioia et al., 2000, Child Neuropsychol., 6, 235; Gioia et al., 2000, Behavior rating inventory of executive function, Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources), a multifaceted rating scale of everyday executive functions. Phenotypic results revealed a 9‐scale, 3‐factor model best represents the BRIEF structure within the current sample. Results of the genetically sensitive analyses indicated the presence of rater bias/contrast effects for the Initiate, Working Memory, and Task‐Monitor scales. Additive genetic and non‐shared environmental influences were present for the Initiate, Plan/Organize, Organization of Materials, Shift, and Monitor and Self‐Monitor scales. Influences on Emotional Control were solely environmental. Interestingly, the aetiological architecture observed was similar to that of performance‐based measures of executive function. This observed similarity provided additional evidence for the usefulness of the BRIEF as a measure of ‘everyday’ executive function.     

Emotional Intelligence in Selection Contexts: Measurement method,criterion‐related validity,and vulnerability to response distortion

Two studies examined aspects of the validity of self‐report and performance‐based measures of emotional intelligence (EI) relevant to their use in personnel selection. In Study 1, structural equation modeling indicated that a two‐factor model with separate factors for the two types of EI measures fit better than a one‐factor solution. The performance‐based EI factor was more related to cognitive ability (R=.38) than personality (R=.26), whereas the self‐report EI factor was more related to personality (R=.85) than cognitive ability (R=.09). Although the performance‐based EI factor correlated more strongly with job performance (ρ=.24) than did that of the self‐report (ρ=.05), it provided little incremental validity beyond cognitive ability and conscientiousness. In Study 2, participants were asked to complete the measures as if applying for a job, and mean scores were then compared with those of Study 1. Results indicated that self‐report EI measures were more vulnerable to distortion than were the performance‐based measures. Implications for the assessment of EI in personnel selection contexts are discussed.     

Bully/victim problems and their association with Machiavellianism and self‐efficacy in Greek primary school children

Background: Previous research demonstrated that Machiavellian beliefs are linked with bully/victim problems at school. However, Machiavellianism was treated as a single construct and not as multidimensional. Children's perceptions of self‐efficacy in both social and academic domains have been related to conflictual peer interactions but not directly to bully/victim problems. This study extends previous work by examining the association of Machiavellianism and self‐efficacy with bully/victim problems. Aims: The main purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between bully/victim problems and (a) components of Machiavellian beliefs, (b) Self‐efficacy for Assertion, (c) Self‐efficacy for Aggression and (d) Self‐efficacy for Learning and Performance, among school‐age children. It was also examined whether children who bully others and are bullied themselves (bully/victims) are a distinct group in terms of Machiavellian beliefs and the above perceptions of self‐efficacy. Sample: The sample consisted of 186 children drawn from the fourth to sixth grade classrooms of four primary schools in central Greece. Method: Peer victimization and bullying behaviour were assessed by two 6‐item self‐report scales (Austin & Joseph, 1996), Machiavellian beliefs with a 20‐item scale (Christie & Geis, 1970), Self‐efficacy for Assertion and Self‐efficacy for Aggression with two 6‐item scales (Egan & Perry, 1998) and Self‐efficacy for Learning and Performance with an 8‐item scale (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1991). Higher scores reflected greater victimization, bullying behaviour, Machiavellianism and domain specific self‐efficacy. Data were analysed using both correlational and categorical approach. Results: Factor analysis of the Kiddie Mach scale revealed four main factors: Lack of Faith in Human Nature, Manipulation, Dishonesty and Distrust. The results of the correlational approach suggest that both bullying and victimization are associated with most of these factors, overall Machiavellianism and self‐efficacy measures. Separate analyses for boys and girls provide a more precise picture of that association. The results of the categorical approach, regarding differences in the Kiddie Mach and Self‐efficacy scales between bullies, victims and bully/victims, suggest that bully/victims are a distinct group in terms of Lack of Faith in Human Nature and overall Machiavellianism. Moreover, bully/victims were found to be similar to victims with respect to Self‐efficacy for Assertion but similar to bullies with respect to Self‐efficacy for Aggression. Conclusions: Anti‐bullying interventions might profit from a greater focus on mastery‐oriented motivation and more emphasis on citizenship and interpersonal relationships in order to minimize children's aggression‐encouraging cognition and reduce Machiavellian attitudes. Further research is needed to explain satisfactorily the behaviour patterns of bully/victims.     

Percentile Norms and Accompanying Interval Estimates from an Australian General Adult Population Sample for Self‐Report Mood Scales (BAI,BDI, CRSD,CES‐D,DASS, DASS‐21, STAI‐X,STAI‐Y,SRDS, and SRAS)

Despite their widespread use, many self‐report mood scales have very limited normative data. To rectify this, Crawford et al. have recently provided percentile norms for a series of self‐report scales. The present study aimed to extend the work of Crawford et al. by providing percentile norms for additional mood scales based on samples drawn from the general Australian adult population. Participants completed a series of self‐report mood scales. The resultant normative data were incorporated into a computer programme that provides point and interval estimates of the percentile ranks corresponding to raw scores for each of the scales. The programme can be used to obtain point and interval estimates of the percentile ranks of an individual's raw scores on the Beck Anxiety Inventory, the Beck Depression Inventory, the Carroll Rating Scale for Depression, the Centre for Epidemiological Studies Rating Scale for Depression, the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scales (DASS), the short‐form version of the DASS (DASS‐21), the Self‐rating Scale for Anxiety, the Self‐rating Scale for Depression, the State–Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), form X, and the STAI, form Y, based on normative sample sizes ranging from 497 to 769. The interval estimates can be obtained using either classical or Bayesian methods as preferred. The programme (which can be downloaded at http://www.abdn.ac.uk/~psy086/dept/MoodScore_Aus.htm ) provides a convenient and reliable means of obtaining the percentile ranks of individuals' raw scores on self‐report mood scales.     

A Multimethod Multitrait Validity Assessment of Self‐Construal in Japan,Korea, and the United States

A large number of previous studies have used self‐construal to predict communication outcomes. Recent evidence, however, suggests that validity problems may exist in self‐construal measurement. The current study conducted a multimethod multitrait (Campbell & Fiske, 1959) validation study of self‐construal measures with data (total N= 578) collected in Korea (N= 200), Japan (N= 212), and the U.S. (N= 166). The data showed that the Singelis (1994) Self‐Construal Scale, the Cross, Bacon, and Morris (2000) Relational Interdependent Self‐Construal Scale (RISC), and the Kuhn and McPartland (1954) Twenty Statements Test (TST) lacked convergent and discriminant validity, both pan‐culturally and within each of the three countries included in the study. Scores on the TST were not significantly related to scores on the self‐construal scales, and the various self‐construal measures correlated more highly with measures of communication directness than with alternative measures of the same type of self‐construal. Substantial method effects were also observed. The results were tested for both 2‐ and 3‐dimensional models of self‐construal and for refined scales and scales with all items retained. The results of all analyses were inconsistent with the claim that self‐construal measures are construct valid.     

Psychometric properties of Spanish version of the Mini-Mental Adjustment to Cancer Scale

Background/ObjectiveThe aim of the study was to examine the factor structure and psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the Mini-Mental Adjustment to Cancer Scale (Mini-MAC) in a large sample of patients with non-metastatic, resected cancer.MethodsProspective, observational, multicenter study for which 914 patients were recruited from 15 Spanish hospitals. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, validity and reliability analyses were conducted.ResultsFactor-analytic results indicated a 4-factor structure of the Spanish version of the Mini-MAC. Three subscales have psychometric properties similar to those of Helplessness, Anxious preoccupation, and Cognitive avoidance of the original the Mini-MAC. The Fighting spirit and the Fatalism subscales were combined on the Positive attitude scale. The four factor-derived scale scores exhibited acceptable accuracy for individual measurement purposes, as well as stability over time in test-retest assessments at 6 months. Validity assessments found meaningful relations between the derived scale scores, and Brief Symptom Inventory depression and anxiety scores and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy spiritual well-being scores.ConclusionsThe Spanish version of the Mini-MAC provides reliable and valid measures for patients with non-metastatic, resected cancer, and results corroborate the instrument’s cross-cultural validity.     

The Self‐Ambivalence Measure: A psychometric investigation

The purpose of this study was to assess the psychometric properties of the Self‐Ambivalence Measure and its subscales developed by Bhar and Kyrios. The factor structure, reliability, and validity of the measure were examined utilising a non‐clinical sample of 415 participants who completed self‐report measures of aspects of the self. Results indicated that the Self‐Ambivalence Measure exhibited levels of internal consistency and convergent and divergent validity, warranting its use in further research. In contrast to earlier research finding a two‐factor structure, a three‐factor structure was found to best fit the current sample and the factors were labelled Self‐Worth Ambivalence, Moral Ambivalence, and Public Self‐consciousness. This solution separated internal aspects of self‐ambivalence from social aspects which were conceptualised as an aspect of lovability. A discussion of implications is provided.     

The Mental Vulnerability Questionnaire: A psychometric evaluation

Eplov, L.F., Petersen, J., Jørgensen, T., Johansen, C., Birket‐Smith, M., Lyngberg, A. C. & Mortensen, E. L. (2010). The Mental Vulnerability Questionnaire: A psychometric evaluation. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 51, 548–554. The Mental Vulnerability Questionnaire was originally a 22 item scale, later reduced to a 12 item scale. In population studies the 12 item scale has been a significant predictor of health and illness. The scale has not been psychometrically evaluated for more than 30 years, and the aim of the present study was both to evaluate the psychometric properties of the 22 and 12 item scales and of three new scales. The main study sample was a community sample comprising more than 6,000 men and women. In this sample the coefficients of homogeneity were all over 0.30 for the three new scales, but below 0.30 for the 12 and the 22 item scales. All five Mental Vulnerability scales had positively skewed score distributions which were associated significantly with both SCL‐90‐R symptom scores and NEO‐PI‐R personality scales (primarily Neuroticism and Extraversion). Coefficient alpha was highest for the 22 and 12 item scales, and the two scales also showed the highest long‐term stability. The three new scales reflect relatively independent dimensions of Psychosomatic Symptoms, Mental Symptoms, and Interpersonal Problems, but because of reliability problems it remains an open question whether they will prove useful as predictors of health and morbidity.