Psychological Assessment - Science topic

Dear, depending on the specified budget and the required accuracy, as well as other conditions for selecting samples ..... Greetings

Test is a test - Yes or No or a definite answer.

Scale captures the preferences which can be taken as definite answers if required.

Battery is a series of tests.

Inventory is a collection of items which can be in the form of "test" or "scale" .

Both Test and Scales are designed to capture the response of the subjects to certain psychological construct.

thanks Norkhairi Bin Ahmad

Have a look at our Need for Recovery Report - http://skillworxafrica.com/portfolio-item/need-for-recovery-scale-nfrs/

Vidyanand Malik

Patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia have a higher risk of developing dementia than those with other types of pneumonia.

Thanks!

Stomach cancer is cancer that may affect any part of the stomach and extend to the esophagus or small intestine, and it causes the death of nearly one million people annually. It is more prevalent in Korea, Japan, England and South America. It is more prevalent among men than women. It is associated with eating too much salt, smoking, and also low intake of fruits and vegetables. Therefore, it is believed that its spread in countries such as Korea and Japan is due to the consumption of salted fish mainly by Koreans and Japanese, as well as the use of canned food and food preservatives. Mucosal colonization of H. pylori is believed to be the main risk factor in about 80% of stomach cancers

Stomach cancer is diagnosed through an endoscopic examination that allows a biopsy to be extracted from the affected tissue, and then analyzed to confirm the presence of a tumor. Dr. Riccardo Rosati, a specialist in gastroenterology at San Raffaele Hospital in Milan, says, "Before undergoing treatment, the patient needs to do a series of other ultrasound and other examinations to check the areas, glands and organs covered by the disease, in order to determine the degree of its progression.

As a researcher, I believe that stomach cancer cells do not send messages to the brain due to the lack of associated neurons

I do recommend pilot testing. First, we must review the literature; explore the concept; list the themes; formulate the items, and select the judges.

It is at this point that we can say that we have created the instrument and therefore the instrument thus developed has content validity, but we have not yet assessed any of its metric properties.

Up to this point, we have not made use of statistics to corroborate the suitability of the instrument we are evaluating, therefore, at this point, we start the quantitative phase of instrument validation and this corresponds to the evaluation of its metric properties.

After the pilot test, consistency must be evaluated; the possible reduction of items and dimensions must be analysed; and finally, the identification of a criterion must be achieved.

Please have look on our(Eminent Biosciences (EMBS)) collaborations.. and let me know if interested to associate with us

Here is our lab page: https://www.eminentbio.com/home/members

Here is our publication: https://www.eminentbio.com/home/Publication

Our recent publications In collaborations with industries and academia in India and world wide.

EMBS publication In association with Universidad Tecnológica Metropolitana, Santiago, Chile. Publication Link: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33397265/

EMBS publication In association with Moscow State University , Russia. Publication Link: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32967475/

EMBS publication In association with Icahn Institute of Genomics and Multiscale Biology,, Mount Sinai Health System, Manhattan, NY, USA. Publication Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29199918

EMBS publication In association with University of Missouri, St. Louis, MO, USA. Publication Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30457050

EMBS publication In association with Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, USA. Publication Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27852211

EMBS publication In association with ICMR- NIN(National Institute of Nutrition), Hyderabad Publication Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23030611

EMBS publication In association with University of Minnesota Duluth, Duluth MN 55811 USA. Publication Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27852211

EMBS publication In association with University of Yaounde I, PO Box 812, Yaoundé, Cameroon. Publication Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30950335

EMBS publication In association with Federal University of Paraíba, João Pessoa, PB, Brazil. Publication Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30693065

Eminent Biosciences(EMBS) and University of Yaoundé I, Yaoundé, Cameroon. Publication Link: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31210847/

Eminent Biosciences(EMBS) and University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU, 48080, Leioa, Spain. Publication Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27852204

Eminent Biosciences(EMBS) and King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Publication Link: http://www.eurekaselect.com/135585

Eminent Biosciences(EMBS) and NIPER , Hyderabad, India. Publication Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29053759

Eminent Biosciences(EMBS) and Alagappa University, Tamil Nadu, India. Publication Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30950335

Eminent Biosciences(EMBS) and Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Hyderabad , India. Publication Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28472910

Eminent Biosciences(EMBS) and C.S.I.R – CRISAT, Karaikudi, Tamil Nadu, India. Publication Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30237676

Eminent Biosciences(EMBS) and Karpagam academy of higher education, Eachinary, Coimbatore , Tamil Nadu, India. Publication Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30237672

Eminent Biosciences(EMBS) and Ballets Olaeta Kalea, 4, 48014 Bilbao, Bizkaia, Spain. Publication Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29199918

Eminent Biosciences(EMBS) and Hospital for Genetic Diseases, Osmania University, Hyderabad - 500 016, Telangana, India. Publication Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28472910

Eminent Biosciences(EMBS) and School of Ocean Science and Technology, Kerala University of Fisheries and Ocean Studies, Panangad-682 506, Cochin, India. Publication Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27964704

Eminent Biosciences(EMBS) and CODEWEL Nireekshana-ACET, Hyderabad, Publication Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26770024

Eminent Biosciences(EMBS) and Bharathiyar University, Coimbatore-641046, Tamilnadu, India. Publication Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27919211

Eminent Biosciences(EMBS) and LPU University, Phagwara, Punjab, India. Publication Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31030499

Eminent Biosciences(EMBS) and Department of Bioinformatics, Kerala University, Kerala. Publication Link: http://www.eurekaselect.com/135585

Eminent Biosciences(EMBS) and Gandhi Medical College and Osmania Medical College, Hyderabad 500 038, India. Publication Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27450915

Eminent Biosciences(EMBS) and National College (Affiliated to Bharathidasan University), Tiruchirapalli, 620 001 Tamil Nadu, India. Publication Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27266485

Eminent Biosciences(EMBS) and University of Calicut - 673635, Kerala, India. Publication Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23030611

Eminent Biosciences(EMBS) and NIPER, Hyderabad, India. ) Publication Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29053759

Eminent Biosciences(EMBS) and King George's Medical University, (Erstwhile C.S.M. Medical University), Lucknow-226 003, India. Publication Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25579575

Eminent Biosciences(EMBS) and School of Chemical & Biotechnology, SASTRA University, Thanjavur, India Publication Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25579569

Eminent Biosciences(EMBS) and Safi center for scientific research, Malappuram, Kerala, India. Publication Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30237672

Eminent Biosciences(EMBS) and Dept of Genetics, Osmania University, Hyderabad Publication Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25248957

EMBS publication In association with Institute of Genetics and Hospital for Genetic Diseases, Osmania University, Hyderabad Publication Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26229292

Sincerely,

Dr. Anuraj Nayarisseri

Principal Scientist & Director,

Eminent Biosciences.

Mob :+91 97522 95342

Such tools are available and you can use them on digital platform...

Leanne Tamm I did not know .

One of my supervisors actually gave me the ACC as a gift. I can send you a copy if you email me: nnarv038@uottawa.ca

Best,

NONE AT ALL, except to remember -at the time of statistical treatment- that the scores of the responses to the items, despite the fact that some "believe or agree that they do", ARE NOT OR ARE AT AN INTERVAL LEVEL, YES NO ORDINAL

As an answer to your question you can consult:

(As all of them also allude to the psychometric properties of the original BDI-II, we believe that what has been provided is more than enough.)

-Spanish adaptation of the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II): Psychometric properties in the general population; by J Sanz, AL Perdigón, C Vázquez - Clinic and health, 2003 - redalyc.org; where normative data and reliability and factorial validity of the Spanish adaptation of the Beck-II Inventory for Depression (BDI-II; Beck, Steer and

Brown, 1996) comparing them with those of the original BDI-II.

- Spanish adaptation of the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II): 3. Psychometric properties in patients with psychological disorders; de J Sanz, MP García-Vera, R Espinosa, M Fortún et al. - Clinic and health, 2005 - redalyc.org-

Similar to the previous one, but with data obtained with a sample of 305 outpatients with various psychopathological diagnoses according to the DSM-IV-

-Psychometric properties of the bifactorial model of the BDI-II (Spanish version) in Mexican samples of the general population and university students; from

BDE Aranda, CDD Álvarez et al. - Universitas…, 2015 - magazines.javeriana.edu.co- In this work, the psychometric properties of the Spanish version (Sanz, Navarro, & Vázquez, 2003) of the Beck Depression Inventory ([BDI-II] in non-clinical Mexican samples.

-Spanish adaptation of the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II): psychometric properties in university students; by JS Fernández, ME Navarro et al. - Analysis and behavior modification, 2003 - dialnet.unirioja.es-This study presents the first steps to obtain a Spanish adaptation of the Beck-II Depression Inventory, offering data on its psychometric properties in a sample of 590 university students.

Random samples are representative of the population

Hi Dj Edarl Jupia Nazario ,

Content validity refers to the degree or extent to which a test consists items representing the behaviours that the test maker wants to measure. The extent to which the items of a test are true representative of the whole content and the objectives of the teaching is called the content validity of the test.

The following six types of validity are popularly in use viz., Face validity, Content validity, Predictive validity, Concurrent, Construct and Factorial validity. Out of these, the content, predictive, concurrent and construct validity are the important ones used in the field of psychology and education.

Face Validity to the extent the test appears to measure what is to be measured.

Face validity refers to whether a test appears to be valid or not i.e., from external appearance whether the items appear to measure the required aspect or not. If a test measures what the test author desires to measure, we say that the test has face validity. Thus, face validity refers not to what the test measures, but what the test ‘appears to measure’. The content of the test should not obviously appear to be inappropriate, irrelevant.

For example, a test to measure “Skill in addition” should contain only items on addition. When one goes through the items and feels that all the items appear to measure the skill in addition, then it can be said that the test is validated by face.

Although it is not an efficient method of assessing the validity of a test and as such it is not usually used still then it can be used as a first step in validating the test. Once the test is validated at face, we may proceed further to compute validity coefficient.

Moreover, this method helps a test maker to revise the test items to suit to the purpose. When a test is to be constructed quickly or when there is an urgent need of a test and there is no time or scope to determine the validity by other efficient methods, face validity can be determined.

This type of validity is not adequate as it operates at the facial level and hence may be used as a last resort.

Content Validity a process of matching the test items with the instructional objectives.

Content validity is the most important criterion for the usefulness of a test, especially of an achievement test. It is also called as Rational Validity or Logical Validity or Curricular Validity or Internal Validity or Intrinsic Validity.

Content validity refers to the degree or extent to which a test consists items representing the behaviours that the test maker wants to measure. The extent to which the items of a test are true representative of the whole content and the objectives of the teaching is called the content validity of the test.

Content validity is estimated by evaluating the relevance of the test items; i.e. the test items must duly cover all the content and behavioural areas of the trait to be measured. It gives idea of subject matter or change in behaviour.

This way, content validity refers to the extent to which a test contains items representing the behaviour that we are going to measure. The items of the test should include every relevant characteristic of the whole content area and objectives in right proportion.

Before constructing the test, the test maker prepares a two-way table of content and objectives, popularly known as “Specification Table”.

Suppose an achievement test in Mathematics is prepared. It must contain items from Algebra, Arithmetic, Geometry, Mensuration and Trigonometry and moreover the items must measure the different behavioural objectives like knowledge, understanding, skill, application etc. So it is imperative that due weightage be given to different content area and objectives.

The Table reflects the sample of learning tasks to be measured. The closer the test items correspond to the specified sample, the greater the possibility of having satisfactory content validity. Therefore, it is desirable that the items in a test are screened by a team of experts. They should check whether the placement of the various items in the cells of the Table is appropriate and whether all the cells of the Table have an adequate number of items.

The adequacy is to be judged in terms of the weightage given to the different content-by-objective Table according to the team of experts who have designed the curriculum.

1. Test should serve the required level of students, neither above nor below their standard.

2. Language should be upto the level of students.

3. Anything which is not in the curriculum should not be included in test items.

4. Each part of the curriculum should be given necessary weightage. More items should be selected from more important parts of the curriculum.

1. The weightage to be given to different parts of content is subjective.

2. It is difficult to construct the perfect objective test.

3. Content validity is not sufficient or adequate for tests of Intelligence, Achievement, Attitude and to some extent tests of Personality.

4. Weightage given on different behaviour change is not objective.

Predictive Validity the extent to which test predicts the future performance of students.

Predictive validity is concerned with the predictive capacity of a test. It indicates the effectiveness of a test in forecasting or predicting future outcomes in a specific area. The test user wishes to forecast an individual’s future performance. Test scores can be used to predict future behaviour or performance and hence called as predictive validity.

In order to find predictive validity, the tester correlates the test scores with testee’s subsequent performance, technically known as “Criterion”. Criterion is an independent, external and direct measure of that which the test is designed to predict or measure. Hence, it is also known as “Criterion related Validity”.

The predictive or empirical validity has been defined by Cureton (1965) as an estimate of the correlation coefficient between the test scores and the true criterion.

An example can clarify the concept better.

Medical entrance test is constructed and administered to select candidate for admission into M.B.B.S. courses. Basing on the scores made by the candidates on this test we admit the candidates.

After completion of the course they appear at the final M.B.B.S. examination. The scores of final M.B.B.S. examination is the criterion. The scores of entrance test and final examination (criterion) are correlated. High correlation implies high predictive validity.

Similar examples like other recruitment tests or entrance tests in Agriculture, Engineering, Banking, Railway etc. could be cited here which must have high predictive validity.

That is tests used for recruitment, classification and entrance examination must have high predictive validity. This type of validity is sometimes referred to as ‘Empirical validity’ or ‘Statistical validity’ as our evaluation is primarily empirical and statistical.

If we get a suitable criterion-measure with which our test results are to be correlated, we can determine the predictive validity of a test. But it is very difficult to get a good criterion. Moreover, we may not get criterion-measures for all types of psychological tests.

Concurrent Validity correlating the test scores with another set of criterion scores.

Concurrent validity refers to the extent to which the test scores correspond to already established or accepted performance, known as criterion. To know the validity of a newly constructed test, it is correlated or compared with some available information.

Thus a test is validated against some concurrently available information. The scores obtained from a newly constructed test are correlated with pre-established test performance. Suppose we have prepared a test of intelligence.

We administer it to group of pupils. The Stanford-Binet test is also administered to the same group. Now test scores made on our newly constructed test and test scores made by pupils on the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Test are correlated. If the coefficient of correlation is high, our intelligence test is said to have high concurrent validity.

The dictionary meaning of the term ‘concurrent’ is ‘existing’ or ‘done at the same time’. Thus the term ‘concurrent validity’ is used to indicate the process of validating a new test by correlating its scores with some existing or available source of information (criterion) which might have been obtained shortly before or shortly after the new test is given.

To ascertain the concurrent validity of an achievement test constructed freshly, its scores are correlated with the scores obtained by those same students in their recent first-terminal or terminal examination. Thus a test is validated against some concurrently available information. To get a criterion measure, we are not required to wait for a long time.

The predictive validity differs from concurrent validity in the sense that in former validity we wait for the future to get criterion measure. But in ease of concurrent validity we need not wait for longer gaps.

1. The two tests—the one whose validity is being examined and the one with proven validity—are supposed to cover the same content area at a given level and the same objective;

2. The population for both the tests remains the same and the two tests are administered in almost similar environments; and

3. The performance data on both the tests are obtainable almost simultaneously.

This type of validity is also known as “External Validity” or “Functional Validity”. Concurrent validity is relevant to tests employed for diagnosis not for prediction of future success.

Construct Validity the extent is which the test may be said to measure a theoretical construct or psychological variable.

A construct is mainly psychological. Usually it refers to a trait or mental process. Construct validation is the process of determining the extent to which a particular test measures the psychological constructs that the test maker intends to measure.

It indicates the extent to which a test measures the abstract attributes or qualities which are not operationally defined.

Gronlund and Linn states,” Construct validation maybe defined as the process of determining the extent to which the test performance can be interpreted in terms of one or more psychological construct.”

Ebel and Frisbie describes, “Construct validation is the process of gathering evidence to support the contention that a given test indeed measures the psychological construct that the test makers intended for it to measure.”

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Construct validity is also known as “Psychological Validity” or ‘Trait Validity’ or ‘Logical Validity’. Construct validity means that the test scores are examined in terms of a construct. It studies the construct or psychological attributes that a test measures.

The extent to which the test measures the personality traits or mental processes as defined by the test-maker is known as the construct validity of the test.

While constructing tests on intelligence, attitude, mathematical aptitude, critical thinking, study skills, anxiety, logical reasoning, reading comprehension etc. we have to go for construct validity. Take for example, ‘a test of sincerity’.

1. What should be the definition of the term sincerity?

2. What types of behaviour are to be expected from a person who is sincere?

3. What type of behaviour distinguishes between sincerity and insincerity?

Each construct has an underlying theory that can be brought to bear in describing and predicting a pupil’s behaviour.

(i) Identify the constructs presumed to account for test performance.

(ii) Derive hypotheses regarding test performance from the theory underlying each construct.

(iii) Verify the hypotheses by logical and empirical means.

It must be noted that construct validity is inferential. It is used primarily when other types of validity are insufficient to indicate the validity of the test. Construct validity is usually involved in such as those of study habits, appreciation, honesty, emotional stability, sympathy etc.

Factorial Validity the extent of correlation of the different factors with the whole test.

Factorial validity is determined by a statistical technique known as factor analysis. It uses methods of explanation of inter-correlations to identify factors (which may be verbalised as abilities) constituting the test.

In other words methods of inter-correlation and other statistical methods are used to estimate factorial validity. The correlation of the test with each factor is calculated to determine the weight contributed by each such factor to the total performance of the test.

This tells us about the factor loadings. This relationship of the different factors with the whole test is called the factorial validity. Guilford (1950) suggested that factorial validity is the clearest description of what a test measures and by all means should be given preference over other types of validity.

i hope it is helpful to you.

best wishes

Treat each sub variable as a moderator on the same x in successive regressions assuming the composite variable is a moderator.

Thanks to you and: Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year and free from Covid-19!!

I think it is not methodologically correct to go directly to a CFA without first having done an EFA. The 3 factors that you have identified are theoretical and not empirical. If we applying Flynn and Pearcy (2001) rule of thumb and applying Bentler and Chou (1987) rule of thumb a sample size of 387 are insufficient for CFA.

hello all, could you find any cut of or any value to be called low score /high score ? pls share.

The sun was just an example. I would make the statement and then using likert scales have 1 as never, going up the scale to 5 always. Sorry, I should have put that.

done. thank you for such good survey i have start analyzing the mental health of mine due to this corona virus.

There are a few options to do this:

ICPSR is a repository of data

Elsevier Datasearch

Mendeley

Open Access publishers such as PLOS ONE and Frontiers often share data from articles

I would start with these and see if they lead anywhere...

Good luck

لا

I'm glad my comments were useful. You will also find that if a question is shaped primarily by analytical concerns, you will likely not be able to translate the question into everyday language that will be easily understood. If we ask a survey question in any language, and we get a puzzled look, then we have failed to do our job. A good survey question is one for which you know in advance more or less what answers people will give; you just don't know how many will give which of the 3-5 likely answers.

No matter create or use Oleksandra Shatilova any measurement tool must be valid. And cronbach alpha's say nothing direct things about validity. When you handle with reverse questions, Cronbach's alpha must be rise. But it is not sufficient.

So i agree with Robert Trevethan 's advices

Meng Pei

I’ve found “NEO PI-R - A Guide to Interpretation and Feedback in Work Context” by Wendy Lord (2007) highly useful for the interpretation of Big-Five results. I’m relying on the German translation and it seems the English version isn’t widely available. However, if you can get your hands on it, I think you’ll find it a worthwhile read.

I found two studies on the relationship between big-five personality traits and academic motivation/ achievement. Maybe you can find some interesting information / references to other useful results in there:

I hope this helps a bit!

Best regards

Sebastian

Qualtrics works really well for this

Hi Pedro Afonso Cortez ;

Could you try to Factor 10.9 software to understant case. If Omega is higher than 1.00, it means that your residual variance is negative. If it is negative there is improper solution. Check the Mplus output.

Bests

Dariusz Prokopowicz Nice Question.

The study could be done

1) by undertaking a primary study on investor sentiment

Ref: https://www.nber.org/papers/w13189

2) by studying market efficiency to information

I also agree with thoughts of Tumula DILLESWAR Rao Tumula DILLESWAR Rao Abdolhossein Zameni Ifeanyi Nwanna Samina Rooh Christopher Tai

I would agree with Stephen Joy's 2nd suggestion but slight complementary points. Understanding the rationale why we need to have both( direct and indirect) measures may move us forwards in selecting the options. If I am correct, the direct ones are straight forward/ explicit measures. We expect relatively higher validity and reliability (than indirect) in measuring the constructs. Assuming this, we need to examine if the indirect items are correlated with the direct ones. Once, we found acceptable correlation, to me, we need to proceed performing analysis with the indirect ones for three reasons:

1) The indirect measures are more specific to capture the dimensions

2) They are of our more interest for intervention

3) The strengthen of TPB is also measuring the dimensions(attitude, subjective norm and PBC) at more specific level

this site may help: https://scales.ppsy.pro

That very much depends on the properties of the scale you're using to measure the construct.

Option 1: I would not advise a retest after such a short period, especially with short scales.

Option 2: Depends on whether it is appropriate to do so. Ask yourself a few questions. How many items does the scale have, and what is the reliability of the full scale? If you decide that a smaller number of items would result in a decent level of reliability then you have to decide how to split the scale. A random split would probably not due the trick. Is the construct uni-dimensional? If it is not then a random split would be problematic. If it is, you should look at the item-total correlations and split the items based on that (for example the highest and lowest item-total correlation items in scale A, the second highest and lowest in scale B etc). This would be an attempt to have objectively parallel forms for measuring the construct. The choice depends on what metric properties are available to you from previous work. If you don't have enough data then you should conduct a study to reveal the properties. This could be done on a larger sample online.

Option 3: This would only be advisable if you have parallel forms, which I would assume you do not. You could construct new items to make a parallel form of the scale you have. This would again require a pre-study. You would have to do pretty much everything usually involved in scale construction and test whether this new scale is a parallel form.

Option 4: 40 participant per group is not a large enough sample size for you to assume that levels of the construct were the same for each group before your intervention. I've had samples of 40 people have a specific sub-sample of 25 people which pushed an effect and a replication revealed that this happened by pure chance. Depending on the scale you're using and the expected effect size you should aim higher. I can't recommend a specific number, but I would not aim at below 80-100 participants per condition, which I assume is not an easy recruitment target given that your current goal is a total of 120.

Option 5: Depends on how stable you think the construct is and what if any information you have about test-retest reliability. If the scale is short a week might not be suitably long (though it probably should be). My first thought was something of this sort, if you could run the first measurement online would that make it easier to organise? That way participants still need to come to the lab only once (keeping in mind all the pitfalls of doing the measurements by two different methods).

Would it be useful for you to get an idea of long term impact? If so, participants could fill out the scale and watch the video with the post-intervention measurement being a week later. Though since the video is only 10-15 minutes I expect you are interested in short term impact and do not expect measurable long term impact on the specific construct.

Personally, I would look into Option 2 which would probably be the easiest one if you have a scale which can be split in such a way, if I had time to do so I would look into Option 3 next because I don't need the same participants for constructing a parallel form and doing it online is really quick. Finally, Option 5 depending on how problematic would it be to organise and whether I would run the first measurement online or not.

No definitive answer but I hope it helps with the thought process.

Dear Antonio,

I ne nepsy II, subtest figure memory is spatial memory from new visual material. I don( t know if you get it in Italian norms but you could use it it is non verbal. And in CMS, children memory scale, you could make qith Points location , visual non verbal subtest, also faces immediately remind and the optional subtest for animals and vehicles immediate visual memory.

Best regards

We will provide the test and the necessary instructions to researchers (graduate students and faculty only) without charge. Please note that the test is copyrighted and that individuals and institutions who provide the test (cf. reference by Solange Cailet) violate copyright agreements.

My e-mail is mpeters@uoguelph.ca

It's also worth noting that a number of studies with the SCL-90 item pool, which includes these items, have shown that the items and scales do not function equally across different populations (factor structure changes, items function differently). Depending on what sort of groups you are comparing, it might be important to look into this. I've found these papers useful on the topic:

Olsen, L. R., Mortensen, E. L., & Bech, P. (2004). The SCL-90 and SCL-90R versions validated by item response models in a Danish community sample. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 110(3), 225-229, doi:10.1111/j.1600-0447.2004.00399.x.

Paap, M. C., Meijer, R. R., Van Bebber, J., Pedersen, G., Karterud, S., Hellem, F. M., et al. (2011). A study of the dimensionality and measurement precision of the SCL-90-R using item response theory. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 20(3), e39-55, doi:10.1002/mpr.347.

Paap, M. C. S., Meijer, R. R., Cohen-Kettenis, P. T., Richter-Appelt, H., de Cuypere, G., Kreukels, B. P. C., et al. (2012). Why the factorial structure of the SCL-90-R is unstable: Comparing patient groups with different levels of psychological distress using Mokken Scale Analysis. Psychiatry Research, 200(2), 819-826, doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2012.03.012.

My Institute purchased the WAIS-IV on its release against my advice. I have not been a regular user of the WAIS since version 3 when I began favoring tests developed by Kaufman and Reynolds who were basing their test development on more recent theoretical advances (think CHC, XBA). in my private medicolegal work I have almost invariably required reputable alternatives to the WAIS because of its ubiquitous use by practically all psychologists who appeared not to realise parallel alternatives were available. Tests should be selected on the basis of need; what do you want to know and will a (or which) particular test tell you? I don't often find I need the full WAIS because the subtests don't assess the particular cognitive abilities I'm seeking to evaluate. The XBA approach allows me to do this far more competently and efficiently. My institute-related assessment work focuses respectively on specific learning disabilities; intellectual disability; clinical psychopatholoy; and cognitive impairment following TBI, which I manage almost exclusively without ever requiring a full scale WAIS of any edition. I would recommend research into the other batteries currently available developed according to the latest test development research.

I agree. There's no way to tell whether or not they're made up.

Yours truly,

Fazinio Fiffelfarf

The short answer to your question is there is no method or way to get around the test Publishers requirements it's important to understand that a test instrument protocol is simply a one-piece or a one data point and in no way captures the essence of a person persons book intellectual functioning or personality function or their characterological traits quite honestly and most of the tools out there anybody could essentially administer them with that with some practice however the misconception is that administering them properly entails having clinical experience not whether to coat it a two-point response or one point response their subtle nuances to that go along with any sort of psychometric tests that only it only a skilled clinician who's been doing it for quite some time is a tuned to more important test Publishers a very stringent criteria as to who can even look at a protocol meaning that if you're not considered qualified there really should be no reason why you should have or anyone should have that protocol in their possession the norming process for any sort of psychometric test is quite expensive time-consuming and the release of raw data which is considered the protocol is considered raw data can compromise the entire test and as a as a result costly test Publishing Company a great deal of money in addition to the test Publishers requirements psychology is also have ethical obligations to even if they are a psychologist if they're practicing outside the bounds of expertise one would hope that they would not use that particular instrument and finally hypothetically if someone is able to administer interpret particular publish test simply because a test is published by no means means that the reliability and validity data satisfies standard practice there is a very big misconception among less experienced practitioners that simply because a Publishing Company publishes a test and charges money for it and people buy it that it is automatically considered reliable and valid and can be used with anybody more experience clinicians would would understand that you need to look at the sample size the the makeup of the sample socio-economics part of the country the sample is drawn from and also the clinical or clinical samples mean individuals who have psychiatric psychological or neurologic to take the test I do hope I am responding to your question and with the some good information but another option would be to hook up with an experienced clinician and get supervised training with that person but again that would this that would depend a lot on state your practice State you're in and their legal requirements and again the test publisher so please don't take my information as anything but advice are not an attorney I don't work for Ted publisher but I can tell you that test Publishers have copyright as well as intellectual property rights to those two tests and one becomes exposed legally should they use it and not be qualified as you refer to it thanks

Stephen, thank you for the reply. I didn't correctly express myself and have now corrected the question. I am not interested in one test which would merge all the functions but in all the tests available which cover the mentioned (not all in one test).

I am familiar with the Tower of Hanoi and I saw that the set can be bought online for a reasonable price, but was still hoping that other planning assessment tasks would be available.

Thank you for suggesting the Porteus Maze test, I will look into it.

There is some very good work underway in Mississippi, working with children of incarcerated parents. The work is under the direction of Louis Bourgeois. If you googled him some of the work he is doing with inmates and their family should be easily found.

Stirling well being scale is 7-12 years of age

Liddle, I., & Carter, G. F. A. (2015). Emotional and psychological well-being in children: The development and validation of the Stirling Children’s Well-being Scale. Educational Psychology in Practice, 31(2), 174–185. doi:10.1080/02667363.2015.1008409

You can use Procrastination Scale (Lay, 1986) - for Student population

I'm attaching the link below:-

Hi JohnBosco!

I send you a private message

The export function in Qualtrics will not delete your data. You can use it as many times as you'd like and it will download a completely new data file each time (in whichever format you select). Just keep in mind that old files will not automatically update with new data as you continue your experiment, so you may have to continue updating your data set with more exports as your study continues.

Qualtrics also provides a great way to pull data directly from their API, using Python, Java, or R scripting, which could lead to better ways of autopopulating your data set as various studies progress. The following link provides more information on this: https://api.qualtrics.com/docs/response-exports

At the moment its hard for me to grasp what are the hypotheses in your study - and this is what will determine usage of certain statistics.

With design you described you could look into all sorts of tests which serve as tools for comparing group means: analysis of variance with repeated measures, analysis of covariance (with baseline measure as covariant), dependent and independent t-tests.

I do not know of any tests suitable for non-randomized small samples (depends on what you mean by small sample). For small sample design with randomized allocation to groups randomization tests are quite the tool: Dugard, P. (2014). Randomization tests: A new gold standard?. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 1(3), 65-68.

All in all: answer to your question would be more accurate if based on information on specific hypotheses you want to test.

Best regards!

Stephen, I certainly would be open to collaboration on our TAT studies which appear to be somewhat similar in overall scope. My key interest is in developing psychotherapy outcome predictors that do not rely upon client self-report nor upon time-intensive examiner scoring and interpretation, i.e., performance based tests. Please feel free to e-mail me back channel at rhawkins@utexas.edu. Thanks!

Yes, I posted the scale to one of the earlier threads. Thanks, Mary.

The MHC-SF (as proposed by Paul) is an interesting measure; brief, self-report, integrating hedonic and eudemonic approaches through the evaluation of emotional, psychological and social well-being. This scale is based on Ryff model of psychological well-being. Corey Keyes developed the scale; it has been translated in many languages and its psychometrics properties have been evaluate across many cultures and languages.

Isabelle

thank you all

will come back later to see what progress

Here is a copy of the PANAS-X and a copy of the PANAS-X Manual. This may not be the version you meant to use, but it's the one I have.

I was not familiar with the Pathological Public Figures Preoccupation Inventory, but I found the source article, and it appears to include the text of all 40 items as well as some indication of which ones are scored on which of the four subscales. (I'm attaching it. Read it carefully and look at the factor analysis results.) However, on a quick reading I had some questions about the items that finally ended up on each scale. If you have the same trouble, you should contact the lead author: Lorraine Sheridan. I believe she is now with Curtin University in Australia and can be reached at Lorraine.Sheridan@curtin.edu.au

Dear Sonja,

I’ll try to answer your somewhat mystical question. Do you mean that you don’t want to come up with a ‘negative’ diagnoses in a way that your patients feel less worthy?

In this case suggest you can better avoid to use MMPI, which compares traits and states from a ‘better/worse’ perspective. At least in my opinion.

If you’re using the test for official reports, you can consider to use a test (like neo-pi(-r)) which differentiate between the 5 types of personality as used in the BIG Five model of personality (Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness to Experience).

If it’s more informal you can try a type indicator like the Myers Briggs type indicator. This indicates 4 dichotomies of personality (extraversion/introversion, sensing/intuition, thinking/feeling and judging/perception). Many people like this indication because it’s not judgemental but may help to overcome social dilemma’s in for example working environments.

I dont think there is any theory that will give you an authoritative answer to this important question,  Surely though this is a prime example of the need for a pilot study?  I am a great believer in these in our field.  Ss try finding a number that feels right to you and run it with a small sample not to get data but to answer your question.  Of course you then need to follow it up witht eh participants to get their views on this question.

Can you calculate accuracy on the running trial count instead of the total trial count? 

Or after x number of trials (20? 50?) begin a calculation of accuracy over running trial count?  

Just a thought here but if for example growing up in a household where you're witnessing domestic abuse towards your mother you may end up 'walking on eggshells' it's a common themes in discussions by children who have witnessed some level of abuse or even those whose fathers 'had a temper'. They talk about the whole household revolving around trying to read and manage his moods. It could be something that 

BIS/BAS is an instrument designed to assess two orthogonal (independent) motivational systems: appetitive and aversive. Therefore, it measures dispositional determinants of the behavior, while you need to assess the motivation systems related to a particular stimulus and also probably its incentive value, which is a more specific domain partially related to both dispositional and situational determinants. Therefore, you'd need a specific instrument, but not BIS/BAS. I do not know any questionnaire that fits to your research objectives. But if you don't find any validated instrument, I encourage you to design and validate it. A source to inspirate the pilot items which might constitute the pilot version of your questionnaire could be just the scales which are just designed to measure dispositional constructs as impulsivity, sensation-seeking, or sensitivity to reward, since they have some items devoted to substances consumption and other related behaviors. Examples of such scales are BIS/BAS, SSS, and SPSRQ. With regard to this last, you have a link below.

Good publications and links 

Hello Anindya, 

here are the publications :

 Thank you Dr.Ali Rahimi , I appreciate your kind help 

Do you know if the instrument is copyright protected? If so, the only individual(s) who can give it to you are the copyright holder.  If not, it makes sense to contact Guo for a copy.  Most of the time, researchers are willing to provide a copy of their instruments/work to those who ask.

From a purely statistical perspective I would alter you description of your result slightly as follow:

There is an overall negative, but not statistically significant effect of a sense of control on the level of fatigue. This is a result of a positive (and statistically significant) indirect effect via Positive Coping and two negative (but not significant) effects, namely a negative indirect effect mediated by Negative Coping and negative direct effect. The overall (total) negative effect (-.12) results from the combined effects of the latter two latter two negative effects (-.02 and -.19) being greater than the single indirect positive effect (+.10), mediated by Positive Coping.

There is no contradiction in the fact that the combined effect of two negative non-significant effects can be stronger that the single statistically significant positive one. 

From a more substantive perspective, the interpretation of the results are less clear. One could state that the positive indirect effect via Positive Coping acts to lessen the otherwise stronger negative effect of Personal Control on Fatigue. But I agree that the positive effect of Positive Coping on Fatigue is difficult to interpret. 

Incidentally, the indirect effects should be equal to the product of the two component paths, but the numbers in the diagram differ from this, more than can be explained by round-off errors. But nevertheless the main issue is clear. 

Hi Simon, great question! Maybe a look into the ES calculation literature and the discussion if pre or post standard deviations should be included (maybe Morris, 2008, doi: 10.1177/1094428106291059) might be productive. Furthermore, the inclusion criteria (e.g. cut-off point of pre symptom severity) may have a crucial influence (disentangling a treatment effect from e.g. a regression to the middle in repeated measure)? 

Dear Amit,

we used Frequency of and Autonomy for Solitary and Interpersonal Behavior Scale (FASIB; Beiswenger 2008) 

Whichever you choose, it will be the same result

The Psychiatric Diagnostic Screening Questionnaire is a self-report instrument designed to screen for the most commonly encountered DSM-IV Axis I disorders.  The instrument is relatively low burden (15-20 min to complete 125 yes/no items), can be rapidly scored, and is psychometrically sound.  

Hej Per

We have done both; letting someone else transcribe and transcribing ourselves. I have only done my own transcribing once and do not remember even thinking of that when I did the interviews. In another study my PhD did the interviews, and some of the transcriptions, but I think the decision on who was going to transcribe was done after the interviewing. So at the time, she did not know if she was going to do the job or not. Regardless of who does the transcriptions, you have to know the material very, very well - in practice you may save yourself the first initial reading of the text. When you listen to the interviews (when you do them or when you write them) you may also be influenced by the person who speaks, more than when you only read. Thus, there are several ways of getting familiar with the content - with and without the additional information that comes with either (a) meeting someone, or (b) listening to someone, or just (c) reading printed text. Regardless, it is important that people did not meet or hear the individual also contributes in the analysis (to compensate for the potential bias that comes with closer contact with the informant).

I am looking for a low and high cutoff score/algorithm for PTSD. 

Valuable reference anyway, Stephen, thanks. The correlation of contamination anxiety with each of the three questionnaire factors is small, though. That is because the items do not refer to the typical magical transmission ideas (or should we say feelings?) in contamination anxiety.

Caroline, are you aware of the papers by Rozin et al.? They characterize such magical transmission of harmful qualities as "sympathetic magic". In the 1986 paper, they present a short questionnaire (10 items), pertaining to this subject. Let yourself inspire through it by developing a more extensive and directed questionnaire.

For inspiration, do also have a look at the penetrating phenomenological study by Erwin Strauss (a German, escaped from Nazi-Germany to America) of contamination anxiety and other OC phenomena.

Rozin, P. & Fallon, A.E. (1987). A perspective on disgust. Psychological Review 94(1), 23-41.

Rozin, P., Millamn, L., & Nemeroff, C. (1986). Operation of the laws of sympathetic magic in disgust and other domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(4), 703-712.

Straus, E. (1948). On obsession: A clinical and methodological study. Nervous and Mental Disease Monographs, No. 73.

Thanks a lot Andre, Great help.

Thanks, that certainly makes a difference - I'll take a look at the lme4 package.

Marie-Anais,

The Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI; Derogatis, 1975) is a 53-item version of the SCL-R-90 measuring the same factors and consisting of those items with the highest loadings in a factor analysis. 

There is even an 18-item (Derogatis, 2001) that I attach. It measures three of the most reliable subscales and not all 8 included in the SCL-90: depression, anxiety and somatization. 

Hope this helps, Rachel.