Skip to main content

Posts

Showing posts from February, 2024

Intellectual Humility Scale (IHS) Review

  Assessment name: Intellectual Humility Scale (IHS) Scale overview: The Intellectual Humility Scale (IHS) is a 6-item single factor, self-report measure of general intellectual humility. Authors: Mark Leary et al. (2017) Response Type: Participants rate each item on a five-point scale as the item applies to them. The anchors are not at all like me and very much like me . Scale items: There are 6 items   Examples   I question my own opinions, positions, and viewpoints because they could be wrong.   I recognize the value in opinions that are different from my own. Psychometric properties A factor analysis supported one factor. Cronbach’s Alpha = .82 The authors provided evidence of significant positive and negative correlations with other measures including all of the Big Five scales. A few examples of correlation values between the HIS and other measures follow: Openness .33 Existential Quest .35 Dogmatism -.49 self-righteousness - .35   Availabili

Specific Intellectual Humility Scale (SIHS)- Review

  Assessment name: Specific Intellectual Humility Scale (SIHS) Scale overview: The Specific Intellectual Humility Scale (SIHS) is a nine-item self-report measure of humility in a specific domain, topic, or area of interest such as politics or religion. Authors: Rick H. Hoyle and others (2016) Response Type: Participants rate each item on a five-point scale of degree of how much the item applies to them. The anchor points range from not at all like me to very much like me. Scale items: Each item has a blank to be filled in by the researchers who wish to assess a specific area of humility.  Examples    My views about _____ are just as like to be wrong as other views.    When it comes to my views about _____ I may be overlooking evidence. Psychometric properties Coefficient alpha values were high in several studies for the 9-item version. Coefficient alphas ranged from .77 to .86 for an abbreviated 3-item version. CFA evidence supported a single factor for the con