Review of Scale Development: Theory and Applications.

1992 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 385-385
Author(s):  
Terri Gullickson
Keyword(s):  
Scale Development ◽  
Development Theory

Scale development: Theory and applications

1993 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 179-181 ◽  
Author(s):  
David M. Shannon
Keyword(s):  
Scale Development ◽  
Development Theory

Scale Development: Theory and Applications.

1992 ◽  
Vol 21 (6) ◽  
pp. 876 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yu Xie ◽  
Robert F. DeVellis
Keyword(s):  
Scale Development ◽  
Development Theory

Before I Die

GeroPsych ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 151-162 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qiao Chu ◽  
Daniel Grühn ◽  
Ashley M. Holland
Keyword(s):  
End Of Life ◽  
Psychosocial Development ◽  
Time Horizon ◽  
Development Theory ◽  
Life Stages ◽  
Socioemotional Selectivity Theory ◽  
Socioemotional Selectivity ◽  
Time Horizons

Abstract. We investigated the effects of time horizon and age on the socioemotional motives underlying individual’s bucket-list goals. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three time-horizon conditions to make a bucket list: (1) an open-ended time horizon (Study 1 & 2), (2) a 6-month horizon (i.e., “Imagine you have 6 months to live”; Study 1 & 2), and (3) a 1-week horizon (Study 2). Goal motives were coded based on socioemotional selectivity theory and psychosocial development theory. Results indicated that time horizon and age produced unique effects on bucket-list goal motives. Extending past findings on people’s motives considering the end of life, the findings suggest that different time horizons and life stages trigger different motives.

Three Conceptual Impediments to Developing Scale Theory for Formative Scales

Methodology ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 156-164 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keith A. Markus
Keyword(s):  
Scale Development ◽  
Item Analysis ◽  
Model Fitting ◽  
Item Bias ◽  
Validity Evidence ◽  
Scale Theory ◽  
Underlying Theory ◽  
Standard Scale ◽  
Item Scores

Abstract. Bollen and colleagues have advocated the use of formative scales despite the fact that formative scales lack an adequate underlying theory to guide development or validation such as that which underlies reflective scales. Three conceptual impediments impede the development of such theory: the redefinition of measurement restricted to the context of model fitting, the inscrutable notion of conceptual unity, and a systematic conflation of item scores with attributes. Setting aside these impediments opens the door to progress in developing the needed theory to support formative scale use. A broader perspective facilitates consideration of standard scale development concerns as applied to formative scales including scale development, item analysis, reliability, and item bias. While formative scales require a different pattern of emphasis, all five of the traditional sources of validity evidence apply to formative scales. Responsible use of formative scales requires greater attention to developing the requisite underlying theory.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document