Assessment, Statistics, and Research

  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

  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

  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 indiv

  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 w

  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., Loiacon

 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

  Scale name:   Five-Factor LAMBI Scale of God Representations Scale overview A 25-item scale that measures how people view God. The five letters in LAMBI reflect the five dimensions based on factors identified by statistical analyses. Participants rate each one-word item based on their belief about or experience with God rather than what may be considered a correct belief. Authors: Johnson, Kathryn A., Okun, Morris A., Cohen, Adam B., Sharp, Carissa A., & Hook, Joshua N. Response Type A Likert-type scale with a 7-point rating from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree Subscales and sample items The five subscales are called dimensions. Following each dimension is one of the words participants rate. See the reference to obtain the full scale. L = Limitless e.g., infinite A = Authoritarian e.g., strict M = Mystical e.g., nature B = Benevolent e.g., gracious I = Ineffable Also, 3 items assess views of “No God” that is, Nonexistent, imaginary, and nor real.