Development and validation of a behavioral sex-role inventory

To develop and validate a sex-role inventory of traditional versus nontraditional behaviors for women, 574 single and 265 married females as well as 407 males completed the Robinson Behavioral Inventory (RBI). Thirty-four-item final versions of the two forms were established through criteria requiring items to be both reliable and reported at differential rates by male versus female or by traditional versus nontraditional women. High reliability of the total scale was evident by a measure of internal consistency as well as by a measure of equivalence. The validity of the total scale was established by demonstrating the RBI as positively correlated with an attitudinal measure of women's roles but as showing discriminant validity with a social desirability scale, a political orientation scale, and an assertiveness scale. Age, income, and educational level were used as covariates to partial out possible confounding effects. Future use of the RBI would suggest extending the sample to less well-educated and a greater variety of SES populations and to women who are not members of organizations. The value of the measure lies in the collection of specific behavioral data as distinct from broad attitudinal constructs allowing for determining the attitude-behavior relationship in the area of sex roles. As a tool for evaluating outcome studies measuring changes in sex roles, this inventory is unique.     

Belief in an unjust world: when beliefs in a just world fail

Belief in a just world, where people get what they deserve, has been hypothesized to underlie a variety of psychological phenomena (Lerner, 1965). Close inspection of individual difference measures of this belief, however, has indicated repeatedly that just world beliefs are not a unidimensional construct. The purpose of this investigation was to elaborate upon the conceptualization of unjust world beliefs as a related but separate construct from just world beliefs. In two studies, the Unjust World Views scale (UJVS) was developed and its reliability and validity examined. The UJVS demonstrated acceptable reliability and validity and accounted for more variability in related outcomes than just world beliefs. Further, belief in an unjust world was related to defensive coping, anger, and perceived future risk. These findings contribute to theory development and suggest that a belief in an unjust world may serve a self-protective function. Clinical implications are discussed as unjust world views also were found to be potentially maladaptive.     

Testing compensatory health beliefs in a UK population

Compensatory health beliefs, beliefs that healthy behaviours can compensate or neutralise unhealthy behaviours, have been proposed as one way of understanding why people engage in health-risk behaviours (Kn?uper, B., Rabiau, M., Cohen, O., & Patriciu, N. (2004). Compensatory health beliefs scale development and psychometric properties. Psychology and Health, 19, 607-624). However, measuring compensatory health beliefs has proved a challenge, with several recent studies being unable to replicate the psychometric properties of Kn?uper et al.'s (2004) scales. The aims of this study were to: (1) test the factor structure of the compensatory health beliefs scale in the UK, (2) examine the predictive validity of the scale by testing the relationships between compensatory health beliefs and health behaviours over a six-month time interval and (3) assess the 6-month test-retest reliability of the scale. A total of 393 participants completed measures of compensatory health beliefs and health behaviours at two time points separated by six months. The findings were potentially problematic for research into compensatory health beliefs: the factor structure was not confirmed, there was little evidence of predictive validity, and test-retest reliability was poor. Further research is required to understand the operation of compensatory health beliefs and to develop the measurement of compensatory health beliefs.     

Testing compensatory health beliefs in a UK population

Compensatory health beliefs, beliefs that healthy behaviours can compensate or neutralise unhealthy behaviours, have been proposed as one way of understanding why people engage in health-risk behaviours (Knäuper, B., Rabiau, M., Cohen, O., & Patriciu, N. (2004). Compensatory health beliefs scale development and psychometric properties. Psychology and Health, 19, 607–624). However, measuring compensatory health beliefs has proved a challenge, with several recent studies being unable to replicate the psychometric properties of Knäuper et al.'s (2004) scales. The aims of this study were to: (1) test the factor structure of the compensatory health beliefs scale in the UK, (2) examine the predictive validity of the scale by testing the relationships between compensatory health beliefs and health behaviours over a six-month time interval and (3) assess the 6-month test–retest reliability of the scale. A total of 393 participants completed measures of compensatory health beliefs and health behaviours at two time points separated by six months. The findings were potentially problematic for research into compensatory health beliefs: the factor structure was not confirmed, there was little evidence of predictive validity, and test–retest reliability was poor. Further research is required to understand the operation of compensatory health beliefs and to develop the measurement of compensatory health beliefs.     

Validation of a self-report measure of unrealistic relationship expectations

Cognitive models of intimate partner aggression implicate maladaptive relationship beliefs as antecedents to aggression and targets for intervention. However, existing self-report measures of relationship beliefs have failed to differentiate aggressive and nonaggressive individuals, raising questions about their assessment of and role in understanding aggression. To address these concerns, the authors developed and tested a new measure of unrealistic relationship beliefs in a sample of 453 community couples. Structural validity, concurrent validity, discriminant validity, internal consistency, and temporal stability of the new measure were examined. The final scale demonstrated adequate internal consistency (alphas=.83-.84), test-retest reliability (rs=.68-.74), and concurrent validity (small to moderate associations with predicted variables). Unrealistic relationship beliefs significantly differentiated aggressive and nonaggressive men, and this association remained significant after the authors controlled for other related variables.     

SACRAL: toward the meaning and measurement of friendliness

Friendliness was regarded as a construct or dispositional tendency consisting of four components: Self-concept (S), the person's beliefs about self related to peer relationships; Accessibility (AC), giving behaviors involving attention and respect; Rewardingness (R), the giving of more tangible rewards, such as money and compliments; and Alienation (AL), personal beliefs about acceptance and the world as a friendly place. A 40-item questionnaire was developed to assess these components of friendliness. Studies of the questionnaire with college students and children supported its internal consistency, test-retest reliability, concurrent validity, construct validity, and discriminant validity. Although virtually all respondents reported themselves as friendly, high SACRAL scorers, when compared with low scorers, less frequently experience loneliness and in a variety of contexts claim to be more apt to engage in friendly behaviors. The impression that emerges of relatively low scorers on SACRAL is of people whose professed actions are somewhat inconsistent with their personal beliefs.     

A short form of the metacognitions questionnaire: properties of the MCQ-30

The metacognitions questionnaire (MCQ) measures individual differences in a selection of metacognitive beliefs, judgments and monitoring tendencies considered important in the metacognitive model of psychological disorders. The development and properties of a shortened 30-item version of the MCQ, the MCQ-30, are reported. Construct validity was evaluated by confirmatory and exploratory factor analysis. Overall, the fit indices suggested an acceptable fit to a five-factor model consistent with the original MCQ. Exploratory factor analysis supported a five-factor structure, which was almost identical to the original solution obtained in previous studies with the full MCQ. The five factors are cognitive confidence, positive beliefs about worry, cognitive self-consciousness, negative beliefs about uncontrollability of thoughts and danger, and beliefs about need to control thoughts. The MCQ-30 showed good internal consistency and convergent validity, and acceptable to good test-retest reliability. Positive relationships between metacognitions and measures of worry and obsessive-compulsive symptoms provided further support for the validity of the measure and the metacognitive theory of intrusive thoughts. The psychometric properties of MCQ-30 suggest that the instrument is a valuable addition to the assessment of metacognitions that has the advantage of being more economical to use compared with the original MCQ.     

Further validation of a measure of irrational belief

Malouff and Schutte (1986) developed a measure of irrational belief intended to be shorter and more content valid than other such measures and reported preliminary evidence of reliability and validity for the measure. The present two studies examined further the validity of the new measure. Study 1 produced evidence of construct validity in that a significant correlation was found between scores on the Malouff & Schutte measure and scores on a measure of hostility, which is a theoretically related construct. Study 2 produced evidence of construct validity in that scores on the Malouff & Schutte measure were found to be correlated with scores on two measures of theoretically related constructs: anxiety and irrational tendencies/beliefs. Study 2 also produced evidence of discriminant validity in that scores on the Malouff & Schutte measure were found to be significantly more highly correlated with scores on the more theoretically similar irrational tendencies/beliefs scale than with scores on the anxiety measure.     

Psychometric properties of beliefs about relationship violence against women and gender stereotypes scale

This article describes psychometric properties of the Gender-Based Relationship Violence Beliefs Scale (BEREVIWOS) and the Gender Stereotypes and Beliefs (GESTABE) scale in a Nigerian setting. Analysis was based on a convenience sample of 202 respondents. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to determine construct validity of the three-factor structure of each scale and measurement invariance procedures were utilised to determine whether the factor structure was equivalent across gender. Convergent and discriminant validity of the scales, and predictive and incremental validity were examined for consistency with theory on gender beliefs/stereotypes and violence in patriarchal society. A single-factor CFA model approach was used to examine common method bias. Results suggest the BEREVIWOS and GESTABE are multidimensional scales with an intercorrelated three-factor structure. The fit of the models and composite reliability were adequate. Scores from the BEREVIWOS and GESTABE appear reliable and valid measures of underlying beliefs and stereotypes associated with violence against women in Nigeria.     

Further Validation for a New Measure of Irrational Cognitions

A test of commonly held irrational beliefs, postulated by Albert Ellis to contribute to psychopathology, was devised by Jones (1969) for research and clinical use. A previously published study by the authors (1972) provides support for the validity of the instrument. Additional data from that study bearing on the reliability and construct validity of the Irrational Beliefs Test are presented here and discussed. The instrument is viewed as having value for measuring cognitive aspects of psychopathology and psychotherapeutic change.     

Morning and evening people: Examination of an identifying scale and of social- and self-perceptions of personality differences

An experiment was conducted aimed first at establishing the reliability and validity of a measure of individual differences in sleeping schedules. Two samples of subjects completed a questionnaire concerning their sleeping behavior which was scored according to the diurnal or nocturnal pattern of their responses. The scores were then used to classify subjects as morning people or evening people. Both the internal reliability and cross-time reliability of the scale were assessed and found to be high. In addition, three indices of construct validity, obtained 4 months after the administration of the scale, supported its validity. In a second part of the experiment, subjects classified as either morning or evening people rated themselves on a set of behavioral and personality dimensions. Another sample of subjects indicated their perceptions of morning people and evening people in general, along the same dimensions. It was found that subjects did have strong beliefs about personality and behavioral differences between morning people and evening people. However, the self-perceptions of the actual morning and evening people did not differ, thereby casting doubt on the validity of popular stereotypic perceptions about the two groups.     

Modeling Attitudes Toward Science: Development and Validation of the Credibility of Science Scale

We present the Credibility of Science Scale (CoSS), an efficient 6-item scale demonstrating excellent reliability and validity. CoSS scores exhibit criterion validity in predicting beliefs across a host of contemporary science topics, over and above previously documented predictors (Study 2). Further, we present evidence for the convergent and discriminant validity of the instrument, which correlates as expected with several variables previously implicated in scientific belief (e.g., political ideology, religious identity, conspiracist thinking; Study 2) and also with measures of cognitive ability (Study 3). Finally, we discuss possible uses of the CoSS as a tool for understanding science-related beliefs, behavior, and communication.     

Assessing the Factorial Validity of the Attitudes and Belief Scale 2-Abbreviated Version: A Call for the Development a Gold Standard Method of Measuring Rational and Irrational Beliefs

Rational emotive behaviour therapy (REBT) does not possess a measure of rational and irrational beliefs that meets internationally recognised standards for acceptable psychometric properties. Without such a measure the theory/practice of REBT cannot be rigorously evaluated, thus undermining its scientific veracity. The current study investigates the validity and reliability of a recently developed measure of rational and irrational beliefs: the Attitudes and Belief Scale 2-Abbreviated Version (ABS-2-AV). University students from three countries completed the ABS-2-AV (N = 397). An alternative models framework using confirmatory factor analysis indicated that a theoretically consistent eight-factor model of the ABS-2-AV provided the best fit of the data. A number of post hoc modifications were required in order to achieve acceptable model fit results, and these modifications revealed important methodological limitations with the ABS-2-AV. Results indicated that the validity of the ABS-2-AV was undermined due to items measuring both the psychological process of interest (rational and irrational beliefs) and the context in which these beliefs processes are presented. This is a serious methodological limitation of the ABS-2 and all questionnaires derived from it, including the ABS-2-AV. This methodological limitation resulted in the ABS-2-AV possessing poor internal reliability. These limitations are discussed in relation to the broader REBT literature and the impact such problems have on research and practice. A call is made for REBT researchers to come together to develop a “gold standard” method of assessing rational and irrational beliefs that meets international standard for psychometric excellence.     

Development of the Japanese Version of the Generic Conspiracist Beliefs Scale (GCBS-J)

Generic conspiracist belief refers to the general tendency toward conspiracist ideation independent of specific event-based conspiracy theories. The present research aimed to develop a Japanese version of the Generic Conspiracist Beliefs Scale (GCBS-J). In two studies, we examined the factor structure, reliability, and convergent and discriminant validity of the GCBS-J. In Study 1 (N = 600), exploratory factor analysis with a split-half subsample proposed a two-factor solution dissociating extraterrestrial conspiracy from other conspiracist ideations. Subsequent confirmatory factor analysis with the other split-half subsample confirmed the two-factor structure. Study 1 also established convergent validity by indicating strong positive correlations with other measures of conspiracist belief. Study 2 (N = 178) added further evidence to indicate a positive correlation with related psychological constructs, such as paranormal beliefs. Study 2 also confirmed temporal test–retest reliability and the discriminant validity of the GCBS-J by indicating no association with an unrelated construct, namely Big-Five personality traits. These findings suggest that the GCBS-J is a useful tool for assessing generic conspiracist beliefs within Japanese samples.     

Beliefs around luck: Confirming the empirical conceptualization of beliefs around luck and the development of the Darke and Freedman beliefs around luck scale

The current study developed a multi-dimensional measure of beliefs around luck. Two studies introduced the Darke and Freedman beliefs around luck scale where the scale showed a consistent 4 component model (beliefs in luck, rejection of luck, being lucky, and being unlucky) across two samples (n = 250; n = 145). The scales also show adequate reliability statistics and validity by ways of comparison with other measures of beliefs around luck, peer and family ratings and expected associations with measures of personality, individual difference and well-being variables.     

Beliefs in the Inheritance of Risk Factors for Suicide Scale: development, reliability, stability, and convergent and discriminant validity

Findings from adoption, family, geographical, immigrant, molecular genetic, surname, and twin studies suggest genetic risk factors have a role in suicidal behavior. However, related mental health literacy (knowledge and beliefs) even of future health-care professionals who will be concerned with suicide lag behind this research progress. As no scale for assessing such beliefs is available, the 22-item Beliefs in the Inheritance of Risk Factors for Suicide Scale was constructed, its contents rated by experts in a validation survey and administered to samples of 70 medical and 165 psychology students. Medical students held stronger beliefs in the genetics of suicide than psychology students. Internal scale consistency and test-retest reliability were assessed as adequate. Factor analysis of the 22 items yielded a dominant first factor. Scores were positively related to knowledge about suicide (convergent validity) but for the most part unrelated to lay theories of suicide, political orientation, religiosity, and social desirability (discriminant validity). This novel scale shows potential for assessing individuals' beliefs about the genetics of suicide. Applications may include basic research, educational contexts, and evaluation of professional training.     

A short measure of economic beliefs

Although there exist a number of self-report measures aimed at determining general social and political attitudes, there exists no scale specifically aimed at measuring economic beliefs. This paper reports the development of an Economics Beliefs Scale based on the Wilson and Patterson (1968) format. The scale was shown to have satisfactory reliability and validity statistics as well as being an economic measure in its own right.     

Construction and validation of a children's interpersonal trust belief scale

A scale was constructed to assess children's generalized trust beliefs (CGTB) in four target groups (mother, father, teacher and peer) with respect to three bases of trust: reliability, emotionality, and honesty. The CGTB Scale was administered to 145 Year 5 and 156 Year 6 children (mean age = 10 years, 1 month) residing in the English Midlands, United Kingdom. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses yielded evidence for the expected factor structure of the CGTB Scale. The total CGTB Scale and subscales demonstrated acceptable internal consistency and expected levels of stability across time. As support for validity, Year 6 participants' scores on the CGTB peer subscale were correlated with their trust beliefs in classmates, assessed a year earlier. As hypothesized, children's helpfulness to their classmates was correlated with the CGTB Scale and subscales. Girls displayed greater trust beliefs and helpfulness to classmates than did boys.     

Development, Reliability, and Validity of the Beliefs Toward Mental Illness Scale

The present study describes the development of a new scale to measure Beliefs toward Mental Illness (BMI), which was designed to measure cross-cultural differences in such beliefs as well as to predict treatment-seeking behavior among different cultural groups. A total of 216 students participated in this study (114 Asian students and 102 American students). A series of factor analyses examining construct validity for the BMI revealed that the BMI has three dimensions, including dangerousness, poor social and interpersonal skills, and incurability. Examination of the reliability estimates for each factor revealed moderate to high internal consistency of the BMI. Comparisons between American and Asian students revealed the expected cultural differences in their beliefs toward mental illness and treatment preference.     

Compensatory health beliefs: scale development and psychometric properties

Compensatory Health Beliefs (CHBs) are beliefs that the negative effects of an unhealthy behavior can be compensated for, or “neutralised,” by engaging in a healthy behavior. “I can eat this piece of cake now because I will exercise this evening” is an example of such beliefs. The present research describes a psychometric scale to measure CHBs (Study 1) and provides data on its reliability and validity (Studies 2 and 3). The results show that scores on the scale are uniquely associated with health-related risk behaviors and symptom reports and can be differentiated from a number of related constructs, including irrational health beliefs. Holding CHBs may hinder individuals from acquiring healthier lifestyles, for example lose weight or exercise.