On use of student samples for scale construction

Psychological Reports

Volumn 102, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 459-464

  Pernice, Regina E ^a   Ommundsen, Reidar ^b   Van Der Veer, Kees ^c   Larsen, Knud ^d  

^a MASSEY UNIVERSITY   (New Zealand)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

^c VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^d OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE; CIVIL RIGHTS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; EPIDEMIOLOGY; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN RIGHTS; LAW ENFORCEMENT; LEGAL ASPECT; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MIGRATION; NEW ZEALAND; PSYCHOLOGIC TEST; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; PSYCHOMETRY; QUESTIONNAIRE; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY; STANDARD; STATISTICS; STUDENT;

ADULT; ATTITUDE; CIVIL RIGHTS; FEMALE; HUMAN RIGHTS; HUMANS; LAW ENFORCEMENT; MALE; NEW ZEALAND; PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS; PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL; PSYCHOMETRICS; QUESTIONNAIRES; RESEARCH DESIGN; SAMPLING STUDIES; STUDENTS; TRANSIENTS AND MIGRANTS;

EID: 45149087640     PISSN: 00332941     EISSN: 1558691X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2466/PR0.102.2.459-464     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. DUNN-RANKIN, P., KNEZEK, G. A., WALLACE, S., & ZHANG, S. (2004) Scaling methods. (2nd ed.) Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
2. ELLSWORTH, P. C., & GONZALES, R. (2007) Questions and comparisons: methods of research in social psychology. In M. A. Hogg & J. Cooper (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of social psychology. Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Pp. 24-42.
3. HAK, T., VAN DER VEER, K., & OMMUNDSEN, R. (2006) An application of the Three-step Test-Interview (TSTI): a validation study of the Dutch and Norwegian versions of the 'Illegal Aliens Scale'. The International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8, 215-227.
4. HAMBELTON, R. K., SWAMINATHAN, H., & ROGERS, H. J. (1991) Fundamentals of Item Response Theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
5. JOHN, O. P., & BENET-MARTINEZ, V. (2000) Measurement: reliability, construct validation, and scale construction. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology. New York: Cambridge Univer. Press. Pp. 339-369.
6. MERENDA, P. F. (2005) Cross-cultural adaptation of educational and psychological testing. In R. H. Hambelton, P. F. Merenda, & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Pp. 322-341.
7. MERENDA, P. F. (2006) An overview of adapting educational and psychological assessment instruments: past and present. Psychological Reports, 99, 307-314.
8. MOKKEN, R. J. (1991) A theory and procedure of scale analysis. The Hague, The Netherlands: Mouton.
9. MOLENAAR, I. W. (2000) MSP5 for Windows: a program for Mokken Scale analysis for polytomous items. Version 5.0. Groningen: ProGAMMA.
10. MOOK, D. G. (1983) In defense of external invalidity. American Psychologist, 38, 379-387.
11. OMMUNDSEN, R., & LARSEN, K. S. (1999) Attitudes toward illegal immigration in Scandinavia and United States. Psychological Reports, 84, 1331-1338.
12. SEARS, D. O. (1986) College sophomores in the laboratory: influences of a narrow data base on social psychology's view of human nature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 515-530.
13. SIJTSMA, K., & MOLENAAR, I. W. (1996) Mokken Scale analysis for polychotomous items: theory, a computer program and an empirical application. Quality and Quantity, 24, 173-188.
14. SIJTSMA, K., & MOLENAAR, I. W. (2002) Introduction to Nonparametric Item Response Theory. In Measurement methods for the social sciences. Vol. 5. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
15. VAN DER VEER, K., OMMUNDSEN, R., LARSEN, K. S., VAN LE, H., KRUMOV, K., PERNICE, R. E., & ROMANS, G. P. (2004) The structure of attitudes toward illegal immigration: the development of cross-national cumulative scales. Psychological Reports, 94, 897-906.
16. VAN SCHUUR, W. H. (2003) Mokken Scale analyses: between the Guttman Scale and Parametric Item Response Theory. Political Analysis, 11, 139-163.
17. WINTRE, M. G., NORTH, C., & SUGAR, L. A. (2001) Psychologists' response to criticism about research based on undergraduate participants: a developmental perspective. Canadian Psychology, 42, 216-225.