"Autonomous sensory meridian response: Scale development and personality correlates,” Correction to Roberts et al. (2019).

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 328-328
Keyword(s):  
Scale Development ◽  
Response Scale ◽  
Personality Correlates

An Approach to Response Scale Development for Cross-Cultural Questionnaires

1997 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 270-276 ◽  
Author(s):  
Silvija Szabo ◽  
John Orley ◽  
Shekhar Saxena
Keyword(s):  
Scale Development ◽  
Cross Cultural ◽  
Response Scale

New Evidence on the Construct Validity of the ASI-3 and the Dimensional Conceptualization of Trait Anxiety Sensitivity From IRT Modeling

2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 181-189 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christoph J. Kemper ◽  
Michael Hock
Keyword(s):  
Construct Validity ◽  
Anxiety Sensitivity ◽  
Latent Class ◽  
Dimensional Structure ◽  
Sensitivity Index ◽  
Response Scale ◽  
Established Risk Factor ◽  
Irt Models ◽  
Level Data ◽  
Extreme Response

Abstract. Anxiety Sensitivity (AS) denotes the tendency to fear anxiety-related sensations. Trait AS is an established risk factor for anxiety pathology. The Anxiety Sensitivity Index-3 (ASI-3) is a widely used measure of AS and its three most robust dimensions with well-established construct validity. At present, the dimensional conceptualization of AS, and thus, the construct validity of the ASI-3 is challenged. A latent class structure with two distinct and qualitatively different forms, an adaptive form (normative AS) and a maladaptive form (AS taxon, predisposing for anxiety pathology) was postulated. Item Response Theory (IRT) models were applied to item-level data of the ASI-3 in an attempt to replicate previous findings in a large nonclinical sample (N = 2,603) and to examine possible interpretations for the latent discontinuity observed. Two latent classes with a pattern of distinct responses to ASI-3 items were found. However, classes were indicative of participant’s differential use of the response scale (midpoint and extreme response style) rather than differing in AS content (adaptive and maladaptive AS forms). A dimensional structure of AS and the construct validity of the ASI-3 was supported.

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.

Positive First or Negative First?

Methodology ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 118-127 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dagmar Krebs ◽  
Juergen H.P. Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik
Keyword(s):  
Job Characteristics ◽  
Two Dimensions ◽  
Response Behavior ◽  
Point Scale ◽  
Response Scale ◽  
Job Motivation ◽  
Ballot Design ◽  
Subjective Importance ◽  
Scale Format ◽  
Scale Types

To examine whether starting a response scale with the positive or the negative categories affects response behavior, a split-ballot design using reverse forms of an 8-point scale assessing the subjective importance of job characteristics was used. Response behavior varied according to the scale format employed. Responses were more positive on the scale starting with the category “very important” (split 2). By contrast, the scale starting with the category “not at all important” (split 1) did not elicit more negative responses, but rather less positive ones. However, differences in response behavior did not systematically reflect the direction of the respective scales. Starting with the differences between the two split versions, the factorial structure of indicators assessing two dimensions of job motivation was tested for each scale type separately and then for both scale types simultaneously. Finally, models placing increasingly severe equality constraints on both scale types were tested. The paper concludes with a discussion of the results and desiderata for further research.

Review of Scale Development: Theory and Applications.

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

Export Citation Format

Share Document