Wednesday, December 22, 2021

Worldview Assessment- An Example

 

Graphic from Pewresearch 2021

Pew Researchers have a great deal of experience in asking people questions. Formulating a good question for a survey is an important place to begin.

However, another lesson from Pew is the additional data they gather. I noticed a large graphic illustrating how people in different groups answered one question. When conducting survey research it is critical to consider what we need to know about the people responding to a question or item to understand the meaning of their response.

Consider Pew's survey item with two choices: "most things in society...

     Can be pretty clearly divided into good and evil

     Are too complicated to be divided into good and evil

The graphic shows how different groups responded and allows for comparisons on the two ways to respond.

Later, in the article, they compare political affiliations, which in the US means Republican and Democrat. This is worth studying as well.

The article is worth reading to learn more about framing a survey question, creating a meaningful graphic, and summarizing results for an educated public. Link PEWRESEARCH 2021

Reference

Ausubel, J. (2021, Dec 21). Christians, religiously unaffiliated differ on whether most things in society can be divided into good, evil. Retrieved from www.pewresearch.org

ad 
Learn more about creating and reporting surveys in

Buy Creating Surveys on

GOOGLE BOOKS

 

AMAZON





Please check out my website   www.suttong.com

   and see my books on   AMAZON       or  GOOGLE STORE

Also, consider connecting with me on    FACEBOOK   Geoff W. Sutton    

   TWITTER  @Geoff.W.Sutton    

You can read many published articles at no charge:

  Academia   Geoff W Sutton     ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton 


Sunday, December 12, 2021

Belief in Good Luck (BIGL) review

 


Scale name: Belief in Good Luck (BIGL)

Scale overview: The scale presents 12-items, which are rated based on degree of agreement. The authors wanted to reliably assess irrational beliefs about luck and examine the beliefs in relationship to expectations of success. Early psychometric properties support the scale as a useful assessment of luck.

Authors: Peter R. Darke and Jonathan L. Freedman

 Response Type: 4-point agree-disagree scale

Subscales: None

Sample items

b) Some people are consistently lucky, and others are

unlucky.

o) Luck is nothing more than random chance. (reverse scored)

Reliability: Factor analysis yielded one factor. Items were selected from the original list based on factor loadings.

Alpha values were .85 in studies 1 and 3; .78 in study 2.

Validity: The article includes correlation values with other measures. Total BIGL score was significantly positively correlated with the chance subscale of the Locus of Control scale.

Availability: See link below. The scale can be found within the article.

Permissions -- if identified

Author's summary of findings (pp. 486-487).

This is generally in agreement with previous findings suggesting that people who believe in personal good luck react to lucky events by becoming more positive about the likelihood of future success (Darke & Freedman, 1997). In general, it is suggested that irrational beliefs about luck can serve as a source of positive expectations for the outcome of future events.

Cite this post

Sutton, G. W. (2021). Belief in good luck scale (BIGL).  review. Assessment, Statistics, and Research. Retrieved from https://statistics.suttong.com/2021/12/belief-in-good-luck-bigl-review.html 

Article Reference

Darke, P.R. & Freedman, J.L. (1997). The belief in good luck scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 486-511.

Link to BIGL download

Reference for using scales in research:

Buy Creating Surveys on

GOOGLE BOOKS

 

AMAZON

 


 

Reference for clinicians on understanding assessment

Buy Applied Statistics for Counselors

 

GOOGLE BOOKS

 

AMAZON

 

 


 Resource Links:  A – Z Test Index

  

Links to Connections

Checkout My Website   www.suttong.com

  

See my Books

  AMAZON      

 

  GOOGLE STORE

 

FOLLOW me on

   FACEBOOK   Geoff W. Sutton  

  

   TWITTER  @Geoff.W.Sutton

 

   PINTEREST  www.pinterest.com/GeoffWSutton

 

Read published articles:

 

  Academia   Geoff W Sutton   

 

  ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton 

 

 

 

 

Saturday, October 30, 2021

Average Intelligence

 


The concept of average intelligence is sometimes difficult to appreciate because the two words, average and intelligence, are sometimes not defined.

Average 

To psychologists and counselors who administer tests of intelligence, a person who scores at the 50th Percentile has average intelligence as defined by the number of correct answers to test tasks compared to others in their age group.

Many tests set the middle score at 100 thus, 100 = average intelligence on many tests.

All test scores vary from time to time so, a person may earn more or less points on another day. This fluctuation is estimated and can range for example by plus or minus 3-5 IQ points depending on the test and age group.

 If you retake the test in a month or so, you may score better because of the “practice effect”—you’ve seen the items recently so you will probably do better.

There is an average range so examiners will not focus on the obtained score but consider a broader range. For example, some may consider 90 to 110 as average. Some use a statistic called the standard deviation, which is often 15 points on an IQ test. If a clinician uses a Standard Deviation of 15 points then the average range of intelligence scores = 85 to 115 (that is plus or minus 15 points from 100). Statistically, about 68% of people earn scores in this broad average range thus, most people in a given age group and the same population, will have an IQ score or scores in this broad average range.

By this definition, people who are above average intelligence earn scores above 115 on tests. In the US, schools often considered scores at 130 or higher as gifted but other tests and reports are considered. Also, people who scored below 85 were considered below average intelligence. Depending on their other abilities, they may need assistance with school work or work tasks. People with high and low scores are different so broad statements can be misleading.

Intelligence 

There are different theories of intelligence and tests have been constructed based on a few of the theories. Clinicians should be able to tell you basic facts about the test you or your child/loved one took. For the most part, the best tests ask examinees to answer a variety of questions and solve different types of problems. Thus, the best tests sample a variety of problem-solving tasks and average the scores for the different types of tasks.

For example, the ability to define words is one common measure of verbal intelligence. Through many years, examiners have found what people know in different age groups.

An example of performance intelligence is solving puzzles using blocks with different designs, which can be arranged to match pictures on a card. This ability increases considerably from preschool to adulthood.

There are other types of intelligence like emotional intelligence and social intelligence. Clinicians have developed tests to measure these skills too.

In a sense, intelligence is what is measured by intelligence tests—that’s circular—but it does give people a sense of what people know how to do compared to their age peers.

In addition, when abilities decline due to disease or head injury, knowing what is average for a person of a given age can be helpful in understanding the loss and marking recovery or further decline.

As a matter of context, clinicians usually administer other tests and conduct an interview to avoid interpreting test scores out of context.

Average intelligence is therefore, a middle range of abilities compared to other people of the same age who have taken the same test.

Ad

Learn more about test and other statistics in

Applied Statistics for Counselors


See related books and resources at www.Suttong.com





Tuesday, September 21, 2021

Spiritual Abuse Questionnaire (SAQ) by Kathryn Hope Keller

 


Scale name: Spiritual Abuse Questionnaire (SAQ)

Scale overview: The Spiritual Abuse Questionnaire (SAQ) is a 17-item self-report questionnaire that uses a 4-point Likert Type response format to measure two dimensions of abuse: Power-based affective wounding and Conditionality.

Author: Kathryn Hope Keller

 

Response Type: 4-point Likert type. The choices are: Strongly disagree, Disagree, Agree, Strongly agree.

Subscales and Sample Items: There are two subscales.

1. Power-based Affective Wounding: “At times, I was

scolded by my leader and made to feel ashamed and helpless” and “I now feel cynical

about church/religious groups.”

 

2. Conditionality: “I believed I could be totally surrendered to God if I did everything

perfectly according to the church/group’s instructions,” and “I believed God would

punish me if I didn’t do what my church/group encouraged me to do.”

Reliability: Alpha for the 17-item scale was .95 (Keller, 2016). The study sample was 271 and the mean was 50.62 (SD = 14.87, SEM = .90) and Min-Max were 21-80.

Validity: Confirmatory factor analysis yielded a two-factor solution.

For the RSS, r =.76, p<.01. For the subscales, results are as follows: Divine Struggles, r=.68, p<.01; Demonic Struggles, r=.31, p<.01; Interpersonal Struggles, r=.81, p<.01; Moral Struggles, r=.52, p<.01; Doubt Struggle, r=.66, p<.01; and Ultimate Meaning Struggles, r=.54, p<.01. These findings suggest that participants with higher levels of spiritual abuse also experience higher levels of religious and spiritual struggles. (Keller, 2016, page 138)

 

Note. The RSS is the Religious and Spiritual Struggles Scale

 Availability: See pages 226-227 in the dissertation reference below.

Related Posts

Spiritual and Religious Abuse

Spiritual and Religious Harassment


Permissions -- if identified

Author contact in 2021 https://www.kellerpsychology.com/drkeller.html 

 Reference

Keller, K.R. (2016). Development of a spiritual abuse questionnaire. Dissertation available from https://twu-ir.tdl.org/handle/11274/8760

Reference for using scales in research:

Buy Creating Surveys on

GOOGLE BOOKS

 

AMAZON

 


 Reference for clinicians on understanding assessment

Buy Applied Statistics for Counselors

 

GOOGLE BOOKS

 

AMAZON

 


Test Resource Link:  A – Z Test Index

 Links to Connections

Checkout My Website   www.suttong.com

  

See my Books

  AMAZON      

 

  GOOGLE STORE

 

FOLLOW me on

   FACEBOOK   Geoff W. Sutton  

  

   TWITTER  @Geoff.W.Sutton

 

   PINTEREST  www.pinterest.com/GeoffWSutton

 

Read published articles:

 

  Academia   Geoff W Sutton   

 

  ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton 

 

 

 

 

Monday, September 13, 2021

Writing About Data in Psychology Papers and Reports

 

Have you seen the data?

The word data is a plural noun and takes a plural verb. See the following two examples.

Our data do not indicate why a discrepancy might exist, but the findings could be consistent with those of Kakhnovets (2011) who found that Extraversion was a factor for women but not
men in seeking psychotherapy (Sutton et al., 2018, p.20).

There are data suggesting that certain infants appear to actively suppress activation of the attachment system (i.e., have trouble seeking care). Cassidy, 2000, p. 116)

We write:

Data are not data is.

Data were not data was.

Data reveal not data reveals.

Data show not data shows.

If we wanted to write about one item from a data set, we could use the singular form, datum.

One score in a set of scores is a datum. Datum is rarely used.

Learn More about analyzing and writing about research in 

Buy Creating Surveys on

GOOGLE BOOKS

 

AMAZON


References


Cassidy, J. (2000). Adult romantic attachments: A developmental perspective on individual differences. Review of General Psychology, 4, 111-131.

Sutton, G. W., Kelly, H., Worthington, E. L. Jr., Griffin, B. J., & Dinwiddie, C. (2018) Satisfaction with Christian psychotherapy and well-being: Contributions of hope, personality, and spirituality. Spirituality in Clinical Practice, 5 (1), 8-24. doi: 10.1037/scp0000145

Please check out my website   www.suttong.com

   and see my books on   AMAZON       or  GOOGLE STORE

Also, consider connecting with me on    FACEBOOK   Geoff W. Sutton    

   TWITTER  @Geoff.W.Sutton    

You can read many published articles at no charge:

  Academia   Geoff W Sutton     ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton 


Friday, August 13, 2021

Forgiveness Likelihood Scale (FLS)

 


Scale name: Forgiveness Likelihood Scale (FLS)

Scales overview: 

The Forgiveness Likelihood Scale (FLS) is a scenario-based 10-item scale. Respondents read the scenarios and decide how likely they would be to forgive the offender using a 5-point rating scale.

Authors: Mark S. Rye et al. 2001

Response Type: A 5-point Likert-type response rating that ranges from 1 = Not at all likely to 5 = Extremely likely.

Subscales: None

Sample items:

“One of your friends starts a nasty rumor about you that is not true. As a result, people begin treating you worse than they have in the past. What is the likelihood that you would choose to forgive your friend?”

 “Your significant other has a ‘one night stand’ and becomes sexually involved with someone else. What is the likelihood that you would choose to forgive your significant other?”

 Reliability The authors used factor analysis and report the results in their article.

Cronbach’s alpha was .85.

Test-retest reliability was .81.

Read about test reliability.

Validity: The FLS was significantly positively correlated with the following measures:

Forgiveness Scales AN and PP

Enright Forgiveness Inventory

A single item rating of forgiveness

     A t-test revealed no gender differences. (Read about t-tests.)

 Read about test validity

Availability: The scale can be found on pages 276-277 of the 2001 article in Current Psychology.

Permissions -- if identified

 Test Reference

Rye, M. S., Loiacono, D. M., Folck, C. D., Olszewski, B. T., Heim, T. A., & Madia, B. P. (2001). Evaluation of the psychometric properties of two forgiveness scales. Current Psychology: A Journal for Diverse Perspectives on Diverse Psychological Issues, 20(3), 260–277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-001-1011-6

 Reference for using scales in research:

Buy Creating Surveys on

GOOGLE BOOKS

 

AMAZON



 

Reference for clinicians on understanding assessment

Applied Statistics Concepts for Counselors on AMAZON or GOOGLE

 


 






 Resource Link for More Tests:  A – Z Test Index

 Resource Link for Statistics Terms

 Read more about the Psychology of Forgiveness

Links to Connections

Checkout My Website   www.suttong.com

  

See my Books

  AMAZON      

 

  GOOGLE STORE

 

FOLLOW me on

   FACEBOOK   Geoff W. Sutton  

  

   TWITTER  @Geoff.W.Sutton

 

   PINTEREST  www.pinterest.com/GeoffWSutton

 

Read published articles:

 

  Academia   Geoff W Sutton   

 

  ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton 

 

 

 

 

Wednesday, August 11, 2021

Forgiveness Scale Rye 2001

 


Scale name: Forgiveness Scale

Scales overview This is a 15-item revision of an earlier version measuring how participants respond to wrongdoing.

Authors: Mark S. Rye et al (2001) See below.

 Response Type Likert-type 5 options ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree)

Subscales: 2 factors reported as 

AN = absence of negative responses and 

PP = presence of positive responses toward the wrongdoer.

Sample items

“I spend time thinking about ways to get back at the person who wronged me”

“If I encountered the person who wronged me I would feel at peace.” 

Reliability

Cronbach alphas: AN =.86, PP = .85

Test retest: AN =.76, PP = .80

Validity (see validity)

Significant positive correlations with the Forgiveness Likelihood Scale, Enright Forgiveness Inventory, and a Single Item Forgiveness rating.

Availability: See the appendix in the article below (Rye et al., 2001).

Permissions -- if identified

 Scale Reference

Rye, M. S., Loiacono, D. M., Folck, C. D., Olszewski, B. T., Heim, T. A., & Madia, B. P. (2001). Evaluation of the psychometric properties of two forgiveness scales. Current Psychology: A Journal for Diverse Perspectives on Diverse Psychological Issues, 20(3), 260–277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-001-1011-6

Reference for using scales in research:

Buy Creating Surveys on

GOOGLE BOOKS

 

AMAZON


 

 

Reference for clinicians on understanding assessment

Applied Statistics Concepts for Counselors on AMAZON or GOOGLE

 


 

 





Reference List of Books about Forgiveness


Resource Link:  A – Z Test list Index

 

 Links to Connections

Checkout My Website   www.suttong.com

  

See my Books

  AMAZON      

 

  GOOGLE STORE

 

FOLLOW me on

   FACEBOOK   Geoff W. Sutton  

  

   TWITTER  @Geoff.W.Sutton

 

   PINTEREST  www.pinterest.com/GeoffWSutton

 

Read published articles:

 

  Academia   Geoff W Sutton   

 

  ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton 

 

 

 

 

Sunday, August 8, 2021

Presenting Data & Different Olympic Winners Stats

 Congratulations to Team USA for an outstanding performance at Tokyo 2020 in 2021

I enjoy sports. I used to follow player stats as a boy and kept track of my own even though I wasn't much of an athlete.

The Olympic medals offer an opportunity to see how different presentations of data make a difference. You could even offer more perspectives if you consider many other countries than the top winners. 


ALL MEDALS: The USA easily wins overall. Great Britain beats Japan.

USA WINS OVERALL

GOLD:  Team USA just edges China. Japan beats Great Britain in Gold.


POPULATION:  Team GB wins among the top 4. The odds of having top athletes increase with population size. China's population is huge compared to most nations so they don't do so well. You can find countries with smaller populations who did extremely well like Australia.



There are of course other factors to consider. Perhaps you thought of some?

Wealth.

Importance of Sport.

The unique problems of COVID-19 infections of some players.

The penalty against Russia whose athletes so well.

Note: The percentage was calculated by dividing the number of medals by the population in millions and rounding.

Read more about Research and Statistics

Applied Statistics Concepts for Counselors on   AMAZON or   GOOGLE




Learn More in Creating Surveys on AMAZON or GOOGLE



Please check out my website   www.suttong.com

   and see my books on   AMAZON       or  GOOGLE STORE

Also, consider connecting with me on    FACEBOOK   Geoff W. Sutton    

   TWITTER  @Geoff.W.Sutton    

You can read many published articles at no charge:

  Academia   Geoff W Sutton     ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton 



Wilson Stress Profile for Teachers (WSPT)

  Scale name: Wilson Stress Profile for Teachers (WSPT) Scale overview: The Wilson Stress Profile for Teachers (WSPT) is a 36-item self-r...