On the sins of short-form development.

By Gregory T. Smith, D. McCarthy, Kristen G Anderson. Psychological Assessment, 2000

963 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Demography, Gender Studies, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/9b79ec08414dacb76ae481b06b8c8bc831782a69

How researchers see this paper

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

In Demography

In Gender Studies

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Examination of a Short Version of the UPPS-P Impulsive Behavior Scale (2014, positive): “More specifically, based on the Smith, McCarthy, and Anderson (2000) guidelines for developing valid and reliable alternative short-form measures, we sought to (1) examine the SUPPS-P subscales inter-scale correlations, (2) replicate the factor structure of the full UPPS-P, (3) demonstrate the…”
A Revised 10-Item Version of The Achievement Motives Scale: Psychometric Properties in German-Speaking Samples (2006, methodology): “Recently, Smith, McCarthy, and Anderson (2000) claimed that the literature on the development of shortened scales is characterized by overly optimistic views.”
Development and Validation of a Brief Version of the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale: The DERS-16 (2015, background): “This procedure improves the chance of preserving high internal consistency and excluding items with the most error variance while simultaneously maintaining the breadth of the construct being measured (Smith et al., 2000).”
A Procedure for Evaluating Sensitivity to Within-Person Change: Can Mood Measures in Diary Studies Detect Change Reliably? (2006, methodology): “(1992) and (b) the extent to which the item reflected the content domain for each mood (Smith et al., 2000).”
An IRT analysis of motive questionnaires: The Unified Motive Scales (2012, methodology): “Using these multiple regressions, commonality analyses (CAs; Nimon, Lewis, Kane, & Haynes, 2008; Seibold & McPhee, 1979; see Tables 7 and 8) were performed.”
NEO Five-Factor Inventory Scores: Psychometric Properties in a Community Sample (2003, background): “psychometric findings from parent instruments to their associated short form s (Smith et al., 2000).”
The KIDSCREEN-27 quality of life measure for children and adolescents: psychometric results from a cross-cultural survey in 13 European countries (2007, methodology): “It should enable a wider range of application of a cross-cultural comparable assessment of children and adolescents HRQoL but still permit measurement of the most important components of HRQoL covered by the measurement model of the original KIDSCREEN-52 [7].”
Validation of the Short and Extra-Short Forms of the Big Five Inventory-2 (BFI-2) and Their German Adaptations (2020, methodology): “However, this finding is not surprising given that Cronbach’s alpha is determined by a scale’s length (i.e., number of items) andmean interitem correlation (i.e., content redundancy;Gosling et al., 2003; Rammstedt& Beierlein, 2014; Smith et al., 2000).”
Development and Validation of a Short Form of the Alabama Parenting Questionnaire (2007, methodology): “With an average internal consistency reliability across the APQ scales of α = 0.68, the Spearman-Brown formula (Smith et al., 2000) predicts that 3-item subscales will show an internal consistency of α = 0.44.”
Development and validation of the short-form employability five-factor instrument (2018, result): “Second, we have not conducted independent administrations to the same participants (see sin 4 ad mentioned by Smith et al., 2000). However, we believe that similar outcomes of independent submissions would plea for the stability of the factor structure across studies, given the fact that a bias due ”
Constructing Validity: New Developments in Creating Objective Measuring Instruments (2019, background): “Smith, McCarthy, and Anderson (2000) provide an excellent summary of the many challenges in developing and validating short forms.”