![]() ![]() ![]() For example, a test of literacy may give very different results if administered in a paper-and-pencil form or on a computer.Īnother crucial method effect was introduced by Marsh (1996), who found that instruments for measuring self-esteem gave very different results if the items were worded positively (e.g., “I am proud of myself”) or negatively (e.g., “I am not proud of myself”). The assumption that methods were completely interchangeable was also challenged by the discovery of method effects, meaning that using different methods may unintentionally require different skills. For example, some individuals are likely to get lower scores on paper-and-pencil tests than on computer-based test, meaning that different methods may affect the individuals’ obtained score. This concept of interchangeability of method was challenged by the discovery of the person specific method, meaning that individuals respond differently to different methods. ![]() This approach implies that methods of measurement are interchangeable. This type of testing assumes that the method of measurement should not affect the scoring of the attribute of interest: if the obtained correlation is high, then both instruments can be assumed to be valid. An instrument is assumed to attain high construct validity if there is a strong correlation between two instruments that measure similar attributes using different methods, while different instruments that measure different attributes have low correlations. The existence of these various measurement methods inspired Campbell and Fiske (1959) to develop the multi-trait multi-method (MTMM) analysis of construct validity. For this reason, different instruments that measure the same construct (e.g., self-esteem)-such as Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem Inventory and Coppersmith’s Self-Esteem Inventory-could be perceived as different methods for measuring self-esteem. The method can refer to the source of information (e.g., self, others) ( Urbina, 2004) the format scale (e.g., Likert, semantic differential) ( Kenny, 1976), the direction of the statements in the scale (e.g., positive or negative) ( Marsh, 1996), or the overall format of the instrument ( Marsh, Asci, & Thomas, 2002). In the field of measurement, method has a wide meaning, comprising all ways of measuring ( Kline, 2011). For example, in assessing job performance, the primary instrument that measures employee performance may be supplemented by information from external sources such as peers and supervisors. To assess an individual's true psychological complexity, multiple instruments that employ a variety of methods for collecting data are used. ![]() Individual attributes such as, for example, intelligence, can be measured by using a number of different instruments and methods. In contrast to the physical sciences, which generally have established and consistent measurement methods, measurement in the social sciences is still evolving, and there is therefore no single exact method for measuring individual attributes ( Urbina, 2004). Measurement process comprises a number of elements, including the attribute being measured, the instrument being used to measure, the methods of using the instrument, and the unit of measurement. These findings confirm that synonym and antonym tests represent the same attribute so that both tests cannot be treated as two unique methods for measuring verbal ability. The correlation between factor scores of both methods is high (r = 0.994). However, either for the synonym or antonym items, the proportion of variance accounted for by the method is smaller than trait variance. Our analysis showed that measurement models that using correlated trait–correlated methods minus one, CT-C(M–1), that separated trait and method effect into distinct latent constructs yielded slightly better values for multiple goodness-of-fit indices than one factor model. The instrument used was the Graduate Academic Potential Test (PAPS), which includes synonym and antonym questions to measure verbal abilities. Study participants were 3,469 applicants to graduate school. The present study applied one of those models to examine whether method effects were presents in synonym and antonym tests. Various models have been developed to accommodate the amount of variance attributable to the methods but these models application in empirical research is rare. Many researchers have assumed that different methods could be substituted to measure the same attributes in assessment. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |