The biasing effect of personality on self-estimates of cognitive abilities in males and females

In addition to exploring the relationship between psychometric and self-estimated measures of Crystallized Knowledge (Gc) and Visual Processing (Gv), this study investigated whether personality significantly moderated these relationships, thereby influencing the accuracy of the self-estimates. Adult participants (N = 165) completed the Big Five Inventory and self-estimated their levels of Gc and Gv. They were subsequently administered the Multidimensional Aptitude Battery II, a group test of cognitive ability. Significant and positive relationships between psychometric Gc and Gv and their respective self-estimates were found. Additionally, investigation of the moderating effects of personality for each gender separately using standard multiple regressions found that females high in Extraversion and males low in Conscientiousness were more prone to overestimating their Gv ability, while males high in Openness provided more accurate estimates of their Gv than those low in Openness. Elucidating the personality traits that distort self-perceptions of intellectual functioning has significant implications for the identification of individuals at risk of harboring inaccurate expectations, leading to the potential for interventions aimed at ameliorating associated deleterious consequences.     

Factorial validity of imagery measures

Two correlational studies and related factor analyses (N = 70. N = 76) were addressed to four psychometric hypotheses derived from the imagery-desensitization literature. Consistent with prior research, self-ratings of imaginal vividness correlated moderately positively across sense modalities. Vividness ratings were inconsistently related to imagery control scores however. The question of the extent to which imagery scales reflect the influences of response sets and general intelligence has been raised recently in this journal Behav. Res. and Therapy 10, 137 (1972). Acquiescence tendency does not appear to influence imagery questionnaire results and there is only a small contamination effect from the social desirability response style, thus suggesting that these questionnaires are substantially free of response bias invalidation. Verbal intelligence is unrelated to researched imaginal attributes, as measured by self-report scales and several behavioral measures, including location memory and spatial visualization. These behavioral measures, in turn, do not correlate with ratings of imagery characteristics, a finding in accord with previous literature. Although self-report imagery questionnaires stand up better to psychometric scrutiny than might have been expected, and thus prior research employing them cannot be dismissed summarily, it is argued that these questionnaires may not tap the variables most relevant to desensitization outcome or mediation. The necessity of using state rather than trait measures, and of relating these to physiological indices, is highlighted.     

Level validity of self-report whole-family measures

This article introduces an approach to testing the level validity of family assessment instruments (i.e., whether a family instrument measures family functioning at the level of the system it purports to assess). Two parents and 2 adolescents in 69 families rated the warmth in each of their family relationships and in the family as a whole. Family members' ratings of whole-family warmth assessed family functioning not only at the family level (i.e., characteristics of the family as a whole) but also at the individual level of analysis (i.e., characteristics of family members as raters), indicating a lack of level validity. Evidence was provided for the level validity of a latent variable based on family members' ratings of whole-family warmth. The findings underscore the importance of assessing the level validity of individual ratings of whole-family functioning.     

Incremental validity of new clinical assessment measures

The authors address conceptual and methodological foundations of incremental validity in the evaluation of newly developed clinical assessment measures. Incremental validity is defined as the degree to which a measure explains or predicts a phenomenon of interest, relative to other measures. Incremental validity can be evaluated on several dimensions, such as sensitivity to change, diagnostic efficacy, content validity, treatment design and outcome, and convergent validity. Indices of incremental validity can vary depending on the criterion measures, comparison measures, and individual differences in samples. The authors review the rationale for, principles, and methods of incremental validation, including the selection of comparison and criterion measures, and address data analytic strategies and the conditional nature of incremental validity evaluations in the selection of measures. Incremental validity contributes to, but is different from, cost-benefits, which reflect the cost of acquiring the data and the benefits from the data. The impact of an incremental validity index on whether a measure is selected will be moderated by the cost of acquiring the new data, the importance of the measured phenomenon, and the clinical utility of the new data.     

Reliability and validity of two self-report measures of psychopathy

The present study assessed the psychometric properties and construct validity of two self-report measures of psychopathy in a male-college sample: the Levenson Psychopathy scales (LPS; Levenson, Kiehl, & Fitzpatrick, 1995) and the Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI; Lilienfeld & Andrews, 1996). Both the LPS and the PPI demonstrated good internal consistency, although selected items from the PPI correlated weakly with their respective factor scores, suggesting the need for further investigation of the factors' item content. The PPI showed stronger validity than the LPS in terms of convergent and discriminant validity of its factor scores and factor associations with two criterion variables, aggression, and anxiety. Overall, the current study provides greater support for the use of the PPI over the LPS in studies investigating psychopathic traits in nonclinical and nonforensic samples.     

Quantifying construct validity: two simple measures

Construct validity is one of the most central concepts in psychology. Researchers generally establish the construct validity of a measure by correlating it with a number of other measures and arguing from the pattern of correlations that the measure is associated with these variables in theoretically predictable ways. This article presents 2 simple metrics for quantifying construct validity that provide effect size estimates indicating the extent to which the observed pattem of correlations in a convergent-discriminant validity matrix matches the theoretically predicted pattern of correlations. Both measures, based on contrast analysis, provide simple estimates of validity that can be compared across studies, constructs, and measures meta-analytically, and can be implemented without the use of complex statistical procedures that may limit their accessibility.     

Concurrent and incremental validity of three trait emotional intelligence measures

This study explored concurrent and incremental validity of three trait emotional intelligence measures: the Schutte Emotional Intelligence Scale, Multidimensional Emotional Intelligence Assessment, and Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire. A total of 307 participants were drawn predominantly from community and student populations. Concurrent criterion validity of the measures varied depending on whether emotional intelligence (EI) was assessed as a lower, middle or higher level construct, with validity coefficients being larger for the former. In all cases, the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire was the superior predictor of multiple psychological criteria. At the higher level of assessment, incremental validity beyond (a) age, gender and the Big Five, and (b) the remaining two EI measures, was also superior.     

Criterion-related validity of self-report measures of female heterosocial functioning

Common measures of female heterosocial functioning, the Survey of Heterosocial Interactions for Females (SHI-F) and dating frequency questions, were validated against the criterion of male liking, i. e., how well men like a woman. The SHI-F was unrelated to the criterion and to the other measures of heterosocial activity. The dating frequency and satisfaction questions were moderately related to the criterion. It was concluded the self-reported ability to initiate contact with men (as measured by the SHI-F) may not be related to female heterosocial functioning. Self-reported dating frequency and satisfaction appear to be a valid measure of female heterosocial functioning.The data were collected while the first author was at Louisiana State University.     

Convergent and discriminant validity of three measures of stage of change

The University of Rhode Island Change Assessment (E. A. McConnaughy, J. O. Prochaska, & W. F. Velicer, 1983), the Stages of Change Readiness and Treatment Eagerness Scale (W. R. Miller & J. S. Tonigan, 1996), and the Readiness to Change Questionnaire (S. Rollnick, N. Heather, R. Gold, & W. Hall, 1992) are commonly used multidimensional measures of stage of change. The authors examined the convergent and discriminant validity of drug-use versions of these 3 measures through multitrait-multimethod analysis in a population of indigent, out-of-treatment drug users (N = 377). Agreement in stage-of-change assignment and the relationship between stage of change and drug-use behaviors were also examined. Confirmatory factor analysis suggests that the Stages of Change Readiness and Treatment Eagerness Scale may have questionable convergent validity with the University of Rhode Island Change Assessment and Readiness to Change Questionnaire. There was moderate agreement in stage assignment. Analysis of behavior did provide some support for the construct validity of the measures. The results suggest that these drug-use stage-of-change measures may not be equivalent.     

Convergent and discriminant validity of three measures of depressive personality disorder

Sixty-eight outpatients from a veterans' administration psychiatry clinic and community mental health center were assessed with 3 measures of depressive personality disorder (DPD)-the Diagnostic Interview for Depressive Personality Disorder (Gunderson, Phillips, Triebwasser, & Hirschfeld, 1994), the Depressive Personality Disorder Inventory (Huprich, Margrett, Barthelemy, & Fine, 1996), and the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II Disorders (First, Gibbon, Spitzer, Williams, & Benjamin, 1997a)-to evaluate their convergent and discriminant validity. Evidence supporting the measures' validity was mixed. The rate of convergence of depressive personality diagnoses across 3 measures was less than optimal, but the degree of intercorrelation among the measures was strong. Although depressive personality scores had moderate levels of intercorrelations with other personality disorders, the degree of intercorrelation decreased substantially after controlling for depressive symptoms. I conclude that further work is needed to strengthen the validity of measures of DPD.     

Examining the convergent validity of shared mental model measures

Despite widespread interest in shared mental models (SMMs) within teams and groups and an extensive empirical literature examining SMM?Cperformance links, very little is known about the convergent validity of commonly used measures of SMMs. In this study, two-person teams (n = 96) engaged in a complex flight task and completed three SMM measures: concept mapping, paired ratings, and causal mapping. Task-based sharedness scores were compared across the measures. Analyses were conducted in two ways: using SMMs of actual team members (n = 96 pairs) and using the SMMs of pairs of participants who worked separately but for whom similarity indices were calculated after the study (n = 18,240). The purpose of the latter pairs, coined pseudo-partners, was to create a sample with considerable power to test the convergent validity of the SMM measures. The results call into some question the convergent validity of these task-based SMM measures.     

Validity of test score interpretations for three self-concept measures based on differing theoretical models

Three theoretical models have been proposed to represent self-concept: (a) unidimensional; (b) multidimensional; (c) multidimensional hierarchical. Inventories have been developed under each of the three competing theoretical models; which model best represents self-concept is unclear. Typically, self-concept construct validation has utilized various approaches including correlational, multitrait-multimethod, and factor analytic methods. Another method, however, for assessing validity would be to determine the consequences of score interpretations using different measures specific to each of the theoretical models. This paper examined Messick's notion (1989) of the validity of test-score interpretations as applied to three of the most widely used measures derived under each of the three different theoretical models of self-concept. Results suggest that overall multidimensional measures are more consistent in classifying individual's self-concept than unidimensional measures.     

Sex differences in self-estimates of lay dimensions of intelligence

260 participants rated themselves on 12 items that made up the three types of intelligence as noted by Sternberg, et al. in 1981. There were sex differences on two of the three standardized scores with men rating themselves higher than women on practical and verbal intelligence. This confirms previous studies of sex differences in the ratings of over-all (g) and multiple intelligences.     

On the validity of implicit association measures of personality traits

Participants (N = 200) completed self-report and implicit association (IAT) measures of Extraversion, Conscientiousness, and Emotional Stability. Peer trait ratings and supervisor ratings of job performance were also collected. Results suggested low convergence between IAT and self-report trait measures. Cognitive ability and self-positive bias both explained significant portions of the method variance expressed by IAT measures. Correlations between IAT trait measures and job performance were statistically non-significant, of similar magnitudes to their self-report counterparts, and of magnitudes consistent with past research on criterion validities of self-report trait measures. The results offer only very limited support for the use of IAT trait measures in applied assessment settings.