Scale Construction and Psychometrics for Social and Personality Psychology

By R. Furr. 2011

618 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Computer Networks and Communications

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/245e18045e05363a12e163acf388e245e202ec40

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Computer Networks and Communications

Citations in the corpus

Measuring thirty facets of the Five Factor Model with a 120-item public domain inventory: Development of the IPIP-NEO-120 (2014, background): “At the 1996 meeting of the European Conference on Personality, Lewis Goldberg (1999) unveiled a new public-domain resource, the International Personality Item Pool, or IPIP. The IPIP has grown from an initial set of 1252 items to 2413 items, all freely accessible from the IPIP website, http://ipip.o”
A Review of Exploratory Factor Analysis Decisions and Overview of Current Practices: What We Are Doing and How Can We Improve? (2016, methodology): “Unlike other EFA methods, ML model ﬁt indices allow direct comparisons between multiple EFA solutions and enables hypothesis testing (Conway & Huffcutt, 2003; Furr, 2011).”
Measuring engagement in video game-based environments: Investigation of the User Engagement Scale (2014, background): “This not only provided an appropriate number of items in each of the new subscales (Furr, 2011), but also resulted in Cronbach’s alpha values between .”
Thanks, but no-thanks for the feedback (2017, background): “Psychometrically sufficiently long scales are preferable over overly brief scales (Furr 2011).”
Betting on the Coachable Entrepreneur: Signaling and Social Exchange in Entrepreneurial Pitches (2018, background): “Therefore, there was no need to examine a rotated factor structure (Furr, 2011).”
How to analyze Likert and other rating scale data (2015, methodology): “Aside from carefully constructed holistic rubrics as described by Peeters(1,2), single-item measures should be used with caution since their use is problematic given the fact that psychometric evaluation is difficult and sometimes impossible.(47) The response format for these individual rating items”
The Roles of STEM Faculty Communities of Practice in Institutional and Departmental Reform in Higher Education (2017, methodology): “We calculated factor/scale scores by averaging the individual items in each scale rather than summing the items (Furr, 2011).”
Brain volume and intelligence: The moderating role of intelligence measurement quality (2017, background): “In addition to range restriction, it is known that measurement quality (both reliability and validity) can attenuate the magnitude of effects estimated in a particular investigation (Furr, 2011).”
Applied Psychometrics: The Steps of Scale Development and Standardization Process (2018, methodology): “Mid-points A neutral midpoint can also be added to dichotomous/bipolar rating scales selecting an even point number of response options (Furr, 2011), e.g., a strong positive vs. a strong negative attitude.”
The Robotic Social Attributes Scale (RoSAS): Development and Validation (2017, methodology): “To identify the five factors underlying the Godspeed scale items, we used principal axis factoring and designated a five factor solution [20].”