381 Quiz 3 Study

Front 1

Self report measures and introspection

Back 1

they aL'\o
often ask people to look within themselves and disclose their own attitudes, feelings,
perceptions, and beliefs in order to elicit a kind of information that is unique
(Baldwin, 2000). These inner-directed observations are described as self-report
measures, and their use in behavioral and social research goes back more than a
century. In the formative years of psychology, experimental researchers had subjects
reflect and verbally report on their sensations and perceptions (a process
h.-nown as tntrospection)

Front 2

standardized measures

Back 2

were developed and are administered and scored according to certain rules, or
standards)

Front 3

evaluation apprehension

Back 3

good." However, when people feel apprehensive
about being evaluated, they are often evasive or not completely forthcoming.
Called evaluation apprehension (Rosenberg, 1969), this anxious state may be reduced
somewhat if respondents are allowed to answer privately (Schaeffer, 2000),
anonymously (Thomas, Hall, Miller, et al., 1979), or confidentially

Front 4

4 issues of self report data

Back 4

1. One issue is the dependability of self-report data.
2. A second issue is the right to privacy, as people have the right to withhold information
and also the right not to have the information they disclose made public
or used against them
3. A third issue is whether research participants, even the most well-intentioned,
can provide information that is as valid and reliable as other behavioral data.
4. but as adults, only 26% of them remembered it the same way (see also
Box 5.2).
A fourth issue has to do with the interpretation of individual scores. Suppose
we were using a standardized test for which there were norm-referenced values
of respondents in some specified population (such as the Scholastic Assessment
Test that many high school seniors take, and that is used by many colleges
and universities in their selection process)

Front 5

open ended questions

Back 5

called because they offer you an opportunity to express
your feelings and impressions spontaneously.

Front 6

fixed choice items

Back 6

which take their name from the fact that they use a more controlled
format, giving the respondent specified options such as yes-no or multiplechoice
alternatives. An example of a fixed-choice item would be "How do you feel
about a 10-day waiting period for permission to buy a gun? Would

Front 7

Minnesota Multiphasic Personality

Back 7

is one of the most frequently used personality tests in mental health. The test is used by trained professionals to assist in identifying personality structure and psychopathology

Front 8

halo effect

Back 8

all? The answer is that they were created to overcome a type of response
bias called the halo effect, which occurs when the person doing the rating
of someone (the target person) forms a very favorable impression of the target person
based on one central trait and extends that impression to the target person's
other characteristics. For example, suppose a target person who is athletic and
good-looking is judged to be far more popular than she or he really is. A numerical
scale would allow the rater to pile up favorable scores, but on a forced-choice
.c;cale the rater is required to make a difficult choice. The forced-choice format that
seems to arouse the least antagonism (and produces the most valid results) presents
four positively valenced options and asks respondents to select the two most
descriptive ones in this group (Guilford, 1954).

Front 9

rating errors

Back 9

The use of rating scales assumes that respondents are capable of an acceptable degree
of rating precision and objectivity. In constructing questionnaires that use
such measures, it is important to think about how to overco~e certain rating errors
(also called response biases or rater biases), such as the halo effect mentioned
above. In recent years, some researchers have questioned the seriousness of the
halo effect and whether it is as prevalent as earlier researchers claimed (Murphy,
Jako, & Anhalt, 1993). Should it occur, it may be likely to do so when the rater relies
on global impressions rather than on recently observed behavior. Halo errors may
also occur when the rater is only casually acquainted with the person being rated,
or when earlier judgments involve dimensions that are logically related to the rater's
global evaluation of the person. Early research suggested other situations in which
halo errors might occur, such as when the trait or characteristic to be rated cannot
be easily observed, or is not clearly defined, or involves relations with other people,
or is of some moral importance (Symonds, 1925)

Front 10

summated rankings method

Back 10

The semantic differential gives us a multidimensional picture (evaluation, potency,
and activity) of what is being evaluated. Another traditional scaling procedure,
the summated ratings method, provides a one-dimensional picture of attitudes on
controversial issues. The summated ratings method was created by Ren<;is Likert
(1932); attitude questionnaires that are developed by this method are known as
Ukert scales.

Front 11

method of equal appearing intervals

Back 11

Another traditional scaling procedure for developing an attitude questionnaire
was called the method of equal-appearing intervals by its inventor, L. L. Thurstone
(1929, 1929-1934). It takes its name from the idea that judges, who are asked to sort
statements into different piles, are able to keep the piles psychologically equidistant.

Front 12

thurstone scales

Back 12

the first formal technique for measuring an attitude. It was developed by Louis Leon Thurstone in 1928, as a means of measuring attitudes towards religion. It is made up of statements about a particular issue, and each statement has a numerical value indicating how favorable or unfavorable it is judged to be. People check each of the statements to which they agree, and a mean score is computed, indicating their attitude.
[edit]Thurstone scale

Thurstone's method of pair comparisons can be considered a prototype of a normal distribution-based method for scaling-dominance matrices. Even though the theory behind this method is quite complex (Thurstone, 1927a), the algorithm itself is straightforward. For the basic Case V, the frequency dominance matrix is translated into proportions and interfaced with the standard scores. The scale is then obtained as a left-adjusted column marginal average of this standard score matrix (Thurstone, 1927b). The underlying rationale for the method and basis for the measurement of the "psychological scale separation between any two stimuli" derives from Thurstone's Law of comparative judgment (Thurstone, 1928).
The principal difficulty with this algorithm is its indeterminacy with respect to one-zero proportions, which return z values as plus or minus infinity, respectively. The inability of the pair comparisons algorithm to handle these cases imposes considerable limits on the applicability of the method.
The most frequent recourse when the 1.00-0.00 frequencies are encountered is their omission. Thus, e.g., Guilford (1954, p. 163) has recommended not using proportions more extreme than .977 or .023, and Edwards (1957, pp. 41–42) has suggested that “if the number of judges is large, say 200 or more, then we might use pij values of .99 and .01, but with less than 200 judges, it is probably better to disregard all comparative judgments for which pij is greater than .98 or less than .02."’ Since the omission of such extreme values leaves empty cells in the Z matrix, the averaging procedure for arriving at the scale values cannot be applied, and an elaborate procedure for the estimation of unknown parameters is usually employed (Edwards, 1957, pp. 42–46). An alternative solution of this problem was suggested by Krus and Kennedy (1977).
With later developments in psychometric theory, it has become possible to employ direct methods of scaling such as application of the Rasch model or unfolding models such as the Hyperbolic Cosine Model (HCM) (Andrich & Luo, 1993). The Rasch model has a close conceptual relationship to Thurstone's law of comparative judgment (Andrich, 1978), the principal difference being that it directly incorporates a person parameter. Also, the Rasch model takes the form of a logistic function rather than a cumulative normal function.

Front 13

critical incident technique

Back 13

If you plan to use open-ended questions, a general method that was designed to
prevent vague, rambling, irrelevant responses is the critical incident technique
(Flanagan, 1954). It involves having the respondent describe an observable action
the purpose of which was fairly clear to the respondent and the consequences sufficiently
definite to leave little doubt about its effects.

Front 14

Stimulus components with substantial effects on
responses were reported to

Back 14

have had no effect an responses, and stimulus components with
lia/e or no effect were reported to have had substantial effects.

Front 15

3 things needed at least for causal condition

Back 15

1. IV related to DV (covariation, difference between groups)
2. Independent variable precedes dependent variable
3. Alternative explanations ruled out