Tuesday, June 25, 2019

Measuring Guilt and Shame with the GASP (Guilt and Shame Scale)





Taya Cohen of Carnegie Mellon University has made the Guilt and Shame Proneness Scale (GASP) available online. Here’s what Dr. Cohen said about the scale in 2011. I’ll include a link to the full scale below.

The Guilt and Shame Proneness scale (GASP) measures individual differences in the propensity to experience guilt and shame across a range of personal transgressions. The GASP contains four fouritem subscales: GuiltNegativeBehaviorEvaluation (GuiltNBE), GuiltRepair, ShameNegativeSelfEvaluation (ShameNSE), and ShameWithdraw.

Each item on the GASP is rated on a 7-point scale from 1 = very unlikely to 7 = very likely.

Here’s an example of an item from the GASP scale.

_____ 1. After realizing you have received too much change at a store, you decide to keep it because the salesclerk doesn't notice. What is the likelihood that you would feel uncomfortable about keeping the money?

Information about reliability, validity, and factor structure can be found in the 2011 reference below. The article reports the results of several studies. One interesting finding is the relationship of both shame and guilt to morality--they share some common features. People high in both guilt and shame are less likely to engage in unethical business behavior. 

Ad. Learn more about Creating Surveys -- Download a FREE sample.













There’s more to the discussion than I have stated here so, do see the entire article.

Finding the GASP scale

If the link no longer works, see the 2011 reference below.

Ad. Learn more about test statistics in counseling with Applied Statistics Read a FREE sample before you buy.


References
Cohen, T. R., Wolf, S. T., Panter, A. T., & Insko, C. A. (2011). Introducing the GASP scale: A new measure of guilt and shame proneness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(5), 947966. doi: 10.1037/a0022641 Link: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2011-08412-001

Wolf, S. T., Cohen, T. R., Panter, A. T., & Insko, C. A. (2010). Shame proneness and guilt proneness: Toward the further understanding of reactions to public and private transgressions. Self & Identity, 9, 337362. doi: 10.1080/15298860903106843

You may also be interested in a related post about Test of Self-Conscious Affect (TOSCA).


Getting permission to use the GASP
APA is the copyright owner. Here is the link regarding copyright permission:

Connections

My Page    www.suttong.com

My Books  
 AMAZON     GOOGLE PLAY STORE

FACEBOOK  
 Geoff W. Sutton

TWITTER  @Geoff.W.Sutton

LinkedIN Geoffrey Sutton  PhD



Publications (many free downloads)
     
  Academia   Geoff W Sutton   (PhD)
     
  ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton   (PhD)


Measuring Shame and Self-Conscious Emotions TOSCA



Psychologists assess shame as one of a few measures of self-conscious emotions. In addition to shame, the list includes embarrassment, guilt, humiliation, and pride. As with many measures of person characteristics, there are measures of traits or dispositions and measures of states. 

State shame is a temporary emotion such as a state of shame following a specific act that has been made public. Trait shame is a durable condition, which means a person experiences shame for a period of time in multiple settings.

The classic measure of shame is the TOSCA (Test of Self-Conscious Affect. The TOSCA, developed by June P. Tangney, is now in its third edition and includes versions for adolescents (TOSCA-A) and children (TOSCA-C; Tangney & Dearing, 2002).

People taking the TOSCA read a scenario and provide a response. The responses reflect different ways to respond to a situation: shame-proneness, guilt-proneness, externalization, pride in one’s self (alpha pride), pride in one’s behavior (beta pride), and detachment.

The TOSCA scales are widely used. See the references in Watson, Gomez, and Gullone (2016) for a list of recent studies.

Ad. Learn more about test statistics in counseling with Applied Statistics Read a FREE sample before you buy.



If you would like copies of various measures, contact the psychology lab linked to Professor Tangney’s page at George Mason University. There is a list of scales and an email address. http://mason.gmu.edu/~jtangney/measures.html

Learn more about shame in this interview with June Tangney: https://www.apa.org/pubs/books/interviews/4317264-tangney

References

Tangney, J. P., & Dearing, R. L. (2002). Shame and guilt. New York: Guilford Press.

Watson, S. D., Gomez, R., & Gullone, E. (2016). The Shame and Guilt Scales of the Test of Self-Conscious Affect-Adolescent (TOSCA-A): Psychometric Properties for Responses from Children, and Measurement Invariance Across Children and Adolescents. Frontiers in psychology7, 635. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00635

You might also be interested in the Guilt and Shame Scale (GASP)

Ad. Learn more about Creating Surveys -- Download a FREE sample.



Watch Dr. Tangney on YouTube




Connections

My Page    www.suttong.com

My Books  
 AMAZON     GOOGLE PLAY STORE

FACEBOOK  
 Geoff W. Sutton

TWITTER  @Geoff.W.Sutton

LinkedIN Geoffrey Sutton  PhD



Publications (many free downloads)
     
  Academia   Geoff W Sutton   (PhD)
     
  ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton   (PhD)


Monday, May 27, 2019

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist and DSM-5 (PCL-5)

The PCL-5 is a 20-item self-report checklist of symptoms that can help clinicians screen patients for PTSD (Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder). The scale can assist in making a diagnosis and in monitoring change during and after treatment.


The VA site suggests the scale can be completed in 5-10 minutes.

The scores range from 0 to 80.

The items are organized according to DSM-5 clusters.

Scale availability link

Weathers, F.W., Litz, B.T., Keane, T.M., Palmieri, P.A., Marx, B.P., & Schnurr, P.P. (2013). The PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5). Scale available from the National Center for PTSD at www.ptsd.va.gov.

Web link detail: https://www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/assessment/adult-sr/ptsd-checklist.asp


Applied Statistics for Counselors:  Buy on Amazon



References (PCL-5)

Blevins, C. A., Weathers, F. W., Davis, M. T., Witte, T. K., & Domino, J. L. (2015). The Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5): Development and initial psychometric evaluation. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 28, 489-498. doi: 10.1002/jts.22059
Bovin, M. J., Marx, B. P., Weathers, F. W., Gallagher, M. W., Rodriguez, P., Schnurr, P. P., & Keane, T. M. (2015). Psychometric properties of the PTSD Checklist for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-Fifth Edition (PCL-5) in Veterans. Psychological Assessment, 28, 1379-1391. doi: 10.1037/pas0000254
Wortmann, J. H., Jordan, A. H., Weathers, F. W., Resick, P. A., Dondanville, K. A., Hall-Clark, B., Foa, E. B., Young-McCaughan, S., Yarvis, J., Hembree, E. A., Mintz, J., Peterson, A. L., & Litz, B. T. (2016). Psychometric analysis of the PTSD Checklist-5 (PCL-5) among treatment-seeking military service members. Psychological Assessment, 28, 1392-1403. doi: 10.1037/pas0000260
Read more about statistics and surveys in
Creating Surveys on AMAZON











Connections

My Page    www.suttong.com

My Books  
 AMAZON     GOOGLE PLAY STORE

FACEBOOK  
 Geoff W. Sutton

TWITTER  @Geoff.W.Sutton

LinkedIN Geoffrey Sutton  PhD

Publications (many free downloads)
     
  Academia   Geoff W Sutton   (PhD)
     
  ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton   (PhD)














Monday, April 15, 2019

Charting Death and Thinking about Epidemics

What are the leading causes of death in the United States?




Based on what you have read or learned from news sources, what did you expect to see in the top five? If you thought of one that is missing, perhaps it is in the top 10. Still, when you look at the numbers, you may be surprised to learn how few people die in a given year, given the size of the US population.

My point in this post is that we ought to examine total data instead of being guided by the headlines of news stories and misleading charts when we want to understand a health or social condition.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the five leading causes of death in 2017 were heart disease, cancer, unintentional injury, chronic lower respiratory disease, and stroke. The report includes more causes, but I chose the top five based on the deaths per 100,000 U.S. standard population.

When you add the numbers for the five causes, you find the top five causes of death accounted for 445 people out of 100,000 people. Thus, less than 1% of the population died from the top five causes.

The chart illustrates a helpful way to report data. Instead of reporting percentages, just give the numbers of people for any condition in relationship to a population value. In this case, the relevant population value is Americans (actually an estimate of the U.S. population based on the 2010 census).

It is usually better to report data in terms of how many people with a condition out of 100 people, but as you can see, out of a sample of 100 people, we might have no dead people! And, fewer than 2 people died of these causes out of 1,000 people! So, it is important to select a population size that makes sense in terms of all the available data.

About Totals

I would like to know how many people died in the United States. It just seems to make sense. If you are going to tell me how many people died out of some portion of the population, why not tell me the total figure?

Interestingly, there is a total death figure for 2016, which is 2,744,248. That gives us a death rate of 849.3 people out of 100,000 population. The total population estimate for 2016 is 323,071,342. So, less than 1% of the population died in 2016.

I would also like to know how many people died out of 100,000 people in 2017. The online figure is 731.9 per 100,000 so I will fix that fraction of a person and say 732 people out of 100,000. The 2018 CDC report tells us that 2,813, 503 deaths were registered. I see that they only know about registered deaths. Presumably, people could die and not be registered. so, it is good to pay attention to the details.

They don't tell us how many people are in their estimate of the population-- the last census was in 2010. But they did write that they estimated the 2017 population based on 2010 census data. I did a search and found a census table estimate for 2017 = 327, 147, 121, according to the Census.gov website.

The statisticians are pretty good, but it is important to know that we are dealing with estimates. We really don't know how many people died in the USA in 2017. Still, I bet the numbers are good estimates.

I don't require absolute certainty when it comes to data about human beings. Anyway, if you are interested, you could estimate the number of people who died in 2017 or, you can wait until the data are provided.

ABOUT EPIDEMICS

Another useful lesson to note here is the lack of scary headlines. We just have the facts reported in a responsible way. There are no news media telling us about this epidemic or another in an effort to sell a story.

We know that less than 1 out of 100 people died in 2016 (849 out of 100,000 rounded). If a person had 1,000 friends on social media then, 8 or 9 might have died if, and only if, the friends were similar in age and other relevant variables to people in the general U.S. population. My guess is, any friendship group probably does not represent a proportionate sample of the US population so, we will need to be careful in generalizing about all people based on our friendship groups.

It is truly sad for loving family members when people die of any cause. When we look at the total population, we see that even for the leading causes, not many of us die every year. Of course, healthcare personnel and other decision-makers ought to pay attention to trends--especially when we can do something about a particular cause of death.

If you were going to write that we have an epidemic based on the number of people dying, what figure would you say is worthy of the term epidemic? The dictionaries are not helpful because they refer to an epdemic as a "widespread" problem such as a disease. Truly, 1% of almost 330 million people is a lot of human beings. The number of people who did not die is of course the reverse so, more than 99% did not die.

We are wise to keep total figures in mind when we want to truly understand the scope of a particular cause of death or other social concern.

HOW TO MAKE THINGS LOOK WORSE

The death rate increased 100% when two people die this year compared to one person who died last year.

Perhaps you already know this? It is a deceptive practice. Suppose one person died after taking drug XYZ this year. Then, next year two people died after taking the same drug. Two people out of thousands or millions is a very small number, but the increase in deaths equals 100%! We do not know how many people took drug XYZ and are living quite happily! It's good to be careful how people are reporting data. We really need to know all the relevant data when making informed decisions.


Read more about Creating Surveys
















Read more about Applied Statistics














COMMENTS

Corrections and helpful comments are welcome.


Connections

My Page    www.suttong.com

My Books  
 AMAZON     GOOGLE PLAY STORE

FACEBOOK  
 Geoff W. Sutton

TWITTER  @Geoff.W.Sutton

LinkedIN Geoffrey Sutton  PhD

Publications (many free downloads)
     
  Academia   Geoff W Sutton   (PhD)
     
  ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton   (PhD)







Tuesday, April 2, 2019

7 Tips for Writing Better Survey Items



So many people are creating surveys in schools, government agencies, and major corporations. Some are better than others.

Here are seven tips.

1  Stay focused on your goal. 
Avoid asking everything you can think of on a subject. Unfortunately, I've been on project teams that would not heed this advice. Participants get frustrated and leave surveys incomplete.

2  Ask only one question at a time.
Have someone look at your items to see if they are confused about what you are asking.

3  Use easy-to-understand language.
Know your audience and how they use language. Again, ask a few people to check your wording.

4  Write well.
Some participants will drop out of your survey when they identify misspelled words, common punctuation errors, and problems of grammar.

5  Cover all possible answers.
If you aren't sure you have listed every option, then add an "other" option with a place to write in another response. This may lessen the frustration of participants who don't agree with the available options.

6  Provide a reason and time information for long surveys.
Justify why it is important for people to spend a long time answering your questions. And give them a time estimate based on how long others have taken to complete your survey.

7  Build Trust
Provide contact information and a link to your school or business so people have a way of verifying your credibility. People will help students, but let them know your professor's name and the name of your school.

Learn more about creating surveys for business and school in CREATING SURVEYS.

Download a FREE sample from AMAZON to see if it meets your needs. See why professors recommend Creating Surveys to undergraduate and graduate students.


Creating Surveys


Connections

My Page    www.suttong.com

My Books  
 AMAZON     GOOGLE PLAY STORE

FACEBOOK  
 Geoff W. Sutton

TWITTER  @Geoff.W.Sutton

LinkedIN Geoffrey Sutton  Ph.D.

Publications (many free downloads)
     
  Academia   Geoff W Sutton   (Ph.D.)
     
  ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton   (Ph.D.)







Sunday, March 17, 2019

Modified Parenting Scale


The Modified Parenting Scale is a shortened version of the Parenting Scale developed by Arnold, O'Leary, Wolff, & Acker (1993).

The 2007 study by Prinzie, Onghena, and Hellinckx revealed two dimensions, which are overreactivity and laxness.

The reliability data were reported as acceptable to good in this sample of more than 1000 parents. There is some evidence of predictive validity. Inadequate parenting was positively related to problem behavior on the Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach- See ASEBA for details) and stress as measured by the Parenting Stress Index (Dutch version; See Doll 1989 for a review).

The full version can be found on PsycTESTS. There are 20 items, which are rated on 7-point Likert scales.

Ad... Learn more about conduting surveys in Creating Surveys on AMAZON













Item Examples

Laxness items

16 When my child does something I don’t like . . . I do something about it every time it happens – I
often let it go.

12 When I want my child to stop doing something . . . I firmly tell my child to stop – I coax or beg my child
to stop

Overreactivity items

3 When I’m upset or under stress . . . I am no more picky than usual – I am picky and on my
child’s back.

9 When my child misbehaves . . . I keep my talks short and to the point – I give my
child a long lecture.

Learn more about parenting in Discipline with Respect on AMAZON



Reference

Prinzie, P., Onghena, P., & Hellinckx, W. (2007). Reexamining the Parenting Scale: Reliability, factor structure, and concurrent validity of a scale for assessing the discipline practices of mothers and fathers of elementary-school-aged children. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 23(1), 24-31. doi: 10.1027/1015-5759.23.1.24.

Note

PsycTESTS is available in many library systems.







Thursday, January 10, 2019

Measuring Marital Satisfaction




The Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale (KMSS) is a frequently used short measure of relationship quality. using just three items, the KMSS has yielded highly reliable and validity data.

Internal consistency (alpha) values were in the 90s range (see for example Schumm et al., 2008). Validity data were also adequate when the KMSS was compared with longer measures like the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS; see for example Schumm et al., 1986).

The scale was developed by Walter R. Schumm of Kansas State University. See additional references below.


The scale may be used for educational and research purposes without permission.


Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale (KMSS): 3-items
Items are rated on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (extremely dissatisfied) to 7 (extremely satisfied).

1.      How satisfied are you with your marriage?

2.      How satisfied are you with your husband/wife as a spouse?

3.      How satisfied are you with your relationship with your husband/wife?

Books related to Surveys and for Counselors and Psychotherapists

Creating Surveys:  Buy on Amazon













Applied Statistics for Counselors:  Buy on Amazon














References to studies using the KMSS.

Bowman, A., & Sutton, G.W. (2004). Marital satisfaction and relational attachment in a sample of newly married couples. Psychological Reports, 95, 989-991.  Academia Link ResearchGate Link

McLeland, K. C., & Sutton, G. W. (2005) Military service, marital status, and men’s relationship satisfaction. Individual Differences Research, 3, 177-182.  Academia Link    ResearchGate Link

McLeland, K. C., Sutton, G. W., & Schumm, W. (2008). Marital Satisfaction before and after deployments associated with the global war on terror. Psychological Reports, 103, 836-844. Academia Link    Research Gate Link

Schumm, W. R., Crock, R. J., Likcani, A., Akagi, C. G., & Bosch, K. R. (2008). Reliability and Validity of The Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale With Different Response Formats in a Recent Sample of U.S. Army Personnel. Individual Differences Research, 6(1), 26–37. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=31690398&site=eds-live&scope=site


Connections

My Page    www.suttong.com

My Books  
 AMAZON     GOOGLE PLAY STORE

FACEBOOK  
 Geoff W. Sutton

TWITTER  @Geoff.W.Sutton

LinkedIN Geoffrey Sutton  PhD

Publications (many free downloads)
     
  Academia   Geoff W Sutton   (PhD)
     
  ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton   (PhD)






Measuring Guilt and Shame with the GASP (Guilt and Shame Scale)

Taya Cohen of Carnegie Mellon University has made the Guilt and Shame Proneness Scale (GASP) available online. Here’s what Dr. Co...