智商常态人群的智力个体差异研究述评

智力功能个体差异星正态分布有不同观点：g因素决定特殊能力分化程度差异论、因素搭配差异论;单一认知机能、认知机能系统中的一个或者几个认知机能缺陷影响智力功能差异论;认知发展理论的要素功能大小和要素关联关系强弱、结构差异论;文化活动结构差异和遗传进化的神经效率差异论;神经活动特性水平和神经活动区域效率差异、人格中介情景任务和人     

情绪智力:多维度构思背后的信息

情绪智力作为影响个人发展与领导能力的关键变量已经得到许多关注。虽然许多研究都认为情绪智力更适合从一个多维度变量角度来探讨,但更多研究主要关注情绪智力的整体效应和差异,比较少从情绪智力的单一维度方面来进行研究。本研究以公务员群体来进行分析,运用多元方差分析和结构方程技术来分析人口统计特征对情绪智力多维度构思的影响,并特别关注情绪智力及各维度对个体绩效的影响。最后根据研究结果对与情绪智力相关的理论研究和管理实践提供一些建议。     

Testing Antonovsky's sense of coherence (SOC) scale among Swedish physically active older people

In Antonovsky's salutogenic theory, the major concept sense of coherence (SOC) is constituted of three core components called comprehensibility, manageability, and meaningfulness. Several scales that are intended to measure SOC are available and used by researchers in health and caring sciences all over the world. When using a scale, evidence of its quality in different study groups is needed in order to get reliable and valid data. The aim of this study was to test reliability and construct validity of the Swedish version of Antonovsky's original 29-item sense of coherence (SOC) scale in a group of physically active older people. The scale was tested with a convenience sample of 140 physically active older individuals, who took part in different fitness-training groups in eastern Sweden. Reliability was assessed as item to total correlations and with the Cronbach's alpha coefficient. Construct validity was assessed with the known groups technique, confirmatory factor analysis, and with logistic regression analysis. The results showed that in the studied group of older individuals, the instrument was a very reliable tool with a Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.92. Construct validity of the scale was supported by the fact that the global concept sense of coherence was found to be hierarchically organized in a model that consisted of the three core components of comprehensibility, manageability, and meaningfulness. Furthermore, perceived health could be explained to some degree by sense of coherence, but even more by comprehensibility, in both cases independently of chronological age. The results clearly corroborated Antonovsky's theory.     

Psychometrics in Psychological Research: Role Model or Partner in Science?

This is a reaction to Borsboom's (2006) discussion paper on the issue that psychology takes so little notice of the modern developments in psychometrics, in particular, latent variable methods. Contrary to Borsboom, it is argued that latent variables are summaries of interesting data properties, that construct validation should involve studying nomological networks, that psychological research slowly but definitely will incorporate latent variable methods, and that the role of psychometrics in psychology is that of partner, not role model. Requests for reprints should be sent to Klaas Sijtsma, Department of Methodology and Statistics, FSW, Tilburg University, PO Box 90153, 5000 LE, Tilburg, The Netherlands.     

Psychometric Properties of the Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory, the Social Anxiety Scale for Adolescents, the Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale, and the Social Avoidance and Distress Scale in an Adolescent Spanish-Speaking Sample

The relationship among several social anxiety measures and a semistructured interview in an adolescent Spanish-speaking sample is examined. Construct validity and test-retest reliability were tested. A principal axis factor analysis was also explored. Results revealed good construct validity and alpha coefficients for the assessment instruments such as the Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory (SPAI), the Social Anxiety Scale for Adolescents (SAS-A), the Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale (FNES) and the Social Avoidance Distress Scale (SADS). Among these, data strongly support the validity of the Social Phobia and Difference measures of the SPAI and Total SAS-A score as assessment measures in the adolescent population even in non-American cultures and languages. Furthermore, results appear to support the presence of a single higher-order dimension, social anxiety, as measured by the instruments used in this study.     

What’s in a name? Psychology’s ever evasive construct

We explore in broad terms the uses of the construct concept in psychological and related scientific discourses. First, we provide a brief history of the origins and development of the concept ‘construct.’ We then describe past and current definitions and/or uses of ‘construct’ and attempt to draw out certain conceptual implications of these uses. Finally, we highlight and attempt to clarify several core conceptual confusions that surround the use of ‘construct’ in psychology.     

Initial Review of the Psychometric Properties of a Computerised Career Preference Test for Career Guidance Assessment

Psychometric proprties of the Career Preference Computerised Adaptive Test (CPCAT) (De Beer & Marais, 2010; De Beer, Marais, Maree, & Skrzypczak, 2008) are reported. Participants were high school students (n=343; males=279, females=164)at Grade 9 and Grade 11 level from a South African school district. Reliability and construct validity indices suggest the CPCAT could be of utility in the career counseling of high school students.     

The Purpose-in-Life Scale (PILS): internal consistency reliability,concurrent validity and construct validity among Catholic priests in Italy

ABSTRACT

The Purpose in Life Scale was designed to provide a 12-item unidimensional measure of purpose in life employing a five-point Likert rating for each item. The present study supports the psychometric properties of the Italian translation of this instrument among 155 Catholic priests (mean age?=?46 years, SD?=?12.16). Internal consistency reliability generated an alpha coefficient of .90. The first factor generated by principal component analysis accounted for 49.5% of variance. Concurrent validity against the Purpose in Life Test was supported by a correlation of .63. Construct validity was supported by a correlation of .54 with the Satisfaction in Ministry Scale and by a correlation of ?.51 with the Scale of Emotional Exhaustion in Ministry. These properties commend the scale for future use among Catholic priests.     

Factorial validity of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) across occupational groups in Norway

Nerstad, C.G.L., Richardsen, A.M. & Martinussen, M. (2009). Factorial validity of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) across occupational groups in Norway. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology. The present study investigated the factorial validity of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) among 1266 participants from ten different occupational groups. Confirmatory factor analyses of the total sample, as well as multi‐group analyses and analyses of each of the ten occupational groups separately, indicated that a three‐dimensional model of both the UWES‐17 and the short version, UWES‐9, provided a better fit to the data than a one‐ and two‐dimensional model. The results of multi‐group analyses and analyses of each of the groups separately, indicated that with a few exceptions, the three‐factor model of work engagement provided the best fit. Results indicated factorial invariance and the internal consistencies were acceptable. The fit of the UWES‐9 was slightly better than the UWES‐17. It is concluded that the Norwegian short version may be recommended over the UWES‐17.     

Do overall dimension ratings from assessment centres show external construct-related validity?

ABSTRACT

There have been repeated calls for an external construct validation approach to advance our understanding of the construct-related validity of assessment centre dimension ratings beyond existing internal construct-related validity findings. Following an external construct validation approach, we examined whether linking assessment centre overall dimension ratings to ratings of the same dimensions that stem from sources external to the assessment centre provides evidence for construct-related validity of assessment centre ratings. We used data from one laboratory assessment centre sample and two field samples. External ratings of the same dimensions stemmed from assessees, assessees’ supervisors, and customers. Results converged across all three samples and showed that different dimension-same source correlations within the assessment centres were larger than same dimension-different source correlations. Moreover, confirmatory factor analyses revealed source factors but no dimension factors in the latent factor structure of overall dimension ratings from the assessment centre and from external sources. Hence, consistent results across the three samples provide no support that assessment centre overall dimension ratings and ratings of the same dimensions from other sources can be attributed to dimension factors. This questions arguments that assessment centre overall dimension ratings should have construct-related validity.