Evaluating the Evidence for the General Factor of Personality across Multiple Inventories

A general factor of personality (GFP) has been proposed as the apex of a personality trait hierarchy that explains covariance among the lower-order factors measured by various personality inventories. In this study we evaluated the GFP hypothesis across several personality inventories, unlike most previous research in which the GFP has been derived from individual instruments in isolation. Exploratory analyses did not produce substantial evidence for the existence of a single cross-instrument higher-order factor of factors and efforts to specify a range of GFP-inspired models in a confirmatory framework led to significant estimation difficulties and poor fit to the data. Overall these results fail to support a common GFP that is positioned at the top of a personality trait hierarchy.     

What cognitive abilities are involved in trail-making performance?

The cognitive abilities involved in the Connections (Salthouse, et al., 2000) version of the trail making test were investigated by administering the test, along with a battery of cognitive tests and tests of complex span and updating conceptualizations of working memory, to a sample of over 3600 adults. The results indicate that this variant of the trail making test largely reflects individual differences in speed and fluid cognitive abilities, with the relative contributions of the two abilities varying according to particular measure of performance considered (e.g., difference, ratio, or residual). Relations of age on trail making performance were also examined. Although strong age differences were evident in the Connections and working memory measures, with both sets of variables there was nearly complete overlap of the age differences with individual differences in speed and fluid cognitive abilities.     

Évaluation de l’orthographe des élèves dysphasiques en situation de narration communicative : variations selon le type d’orthographe,lexicale versus morphologique

IntroductionThe overall goal of the study was to draw, in French language, a complete picture of spelling abilities in young students with SLI, enrolling in ordinary classes.ObjectiveThe main aim was to show how the developmental trajectories of lexical spelling and the morphological spelling are different when a large age span is observed (7 to 18 years old).MethodsThe spelling abilities were evaluated through a narrative communicative. Two groups of students with SLI (7–11 years and 12–18 years) were compared with two groups of typical students matched on chronological age.ResultsThe lexical spelling was acquired before the morphological spelling for SLI and typical participants. At 12–18 of age, the SLI participants did not produce more lexical errors than the typical group. For the lexical spelling, at 7–11 years, the SLI participants had a specific difficulty with the segmentation of the words: they produced words that do not exist in the language and which by definition have no morphological markers.ConclusionThe SLI participants need more time to learn than the typical participants. At 7–11 years, before learning of morphology, they must be able to control segmentation the segmentation of words. The low number of morphological errors in the school SLI group of 7–11 years is not necessarily a sign of difficulty. The increase in the number of errors at 12–18 years is the sign that this problem has been exceeded and that the learning of the written morphological markers can really begin.     

Examiner error in curriculum-based measurement of oral reading

Although curriculum based measures of oral reading (CBM-R) have strong technical adequacy, there is still a reason to believe that student performance may be influenced by factors of the testing situation, such as errors examiners make in administering and scoring the test. This study examined the construct-irrelevant variance introduced by examiners using a cross-classified multilevel model. We sought to determine the extent of variance in student CBM-R scores attributable to examiners and, if present, the extent to which it was moderated by students' grade level and English learner (EL) status. Fit indices indicated that a cross-classified random effects model (CCREM) best fits the data with measures nested within students, students nested within schools, and examiners crossing schools. Intraclass correlations of the CCREM revealed that roughly 16% of the variance in student CBM-R scores was associated between examiners. The remaining variance was associated with the measurement level, 3.59%; between students, 75.23%; and between schools, 5.21%. Results were moderated by grade level but not by EL status. The discussion addresses the implications of this error for low-stakes and high-stakes decisions about students, teacher evaluation systems, and hypothesis testing in reading intervention research.     

Generalizability theory: A practical guide to study design,implementation, and interpretation

Generalizability Theory (GT) offers increased utility for assessment research given the ability to concurrently examine multiple sources of variance, inform both relative and absolute decision making, and determine both the consistency and generalizability of results. Despite these strengths, assessment researchers within the fields of education and psychology have been slow to adopt and utilize a GT approach. This underutilization may be due to an incomplete understanding of the conceptual underpinnings of GT, the actual steps involved in designing and implementing generalizability studies, or some combination of both issues. The goal of the current article is therefore two-fold: (a) to provide readers with the conceptual background and terminology related to the use of GT and (b) to facilitate understanding of the range of issues that need to be considered in the design, implementation, and interpretation of generalizability and dependability studies. Given the relevance of this analytic approach to applied assessment contexts, there exists a need to ensure that GT is both accessible to, and understood by, researchers in education and psychology. Important methodological and analytical considerations are presented and implications for applied use are described.     

Assessing vividness of mental imagery: The Plymouth Sensory Imagery Questionnaire

Mental imagery may occur in any sensory modality, although visual imagery has been most studied. A sensitive measure of the vividness of imagery across a range of modalities is needed: the shorter version of Bett's Questionnaire upon Mental Imagery (Sheehan, 1967 , J. Clin. Psychology, 23, 386) uses outdated items and has an unreliable factor structure. We report the development and initial validation of the Plymouth Sensory Imagery Questionnaire (Psi‐Q) comprising items for each of the following modalities: Vision, Sound, Smell, Taste, Touch, Bodily Sensation, and Emotional Feeling. An exploratory factor analysis on a 35‐item form indicated that these modalities formed separate factors, rather than a single imagery factor, and this was replicated by confirmatory factor analysis. The Psi‐Q was validated against the Spontaneous Use of Imagery Scale (Reisberg et al., 2003 , Appl. Cogn. Psychology, 17, 147) and Marks' ( 1995 , J. Mental Imagery, 19, 153) Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire‐2 (VVIQ‐2). A short 21‐item form comprising the best three items from the seven factors correlated with the total score and subscales of the full form, and with the VVIQ‐2. Inspection of the data shows that while visual and sound imagery is most often rated as vivid, individuals who rate one modality as strong and the other as weak are not uncommon. Findings are interpreted within a working memory framework and point to the need for further research to identify the specific cognitive processes underlying the vividness of imagery across sensory modalities.     

Criterion Validity is Maintained When Items are Evaluatively Neutralized: Evidence from a Full‐scale Five‐factor Model Inventory

The original version and an evaluatively neutralized version (with items rephrased to reduce popularity) of a personality inventory were compared. The results revealed (i) similar criterion validity across three different sets of self‐rated behaviours, (ii) stronger relations to the rated social desirability of criteria for the original version and (iii) less correlation between factors for the neutralized version. We take the results to indicate that evaluative neutralization is a viable technique for reducing social desirability in self‐ratings. Implications for test construction are discussed. Copyright © 2014 European Association of Personality Psychology