Combining quality and quantity. A psychometric evaluation of the self-anchoring scale

Quality and Quantity

Volumn 43, Issue 5, 2009, Pages 703-716

  Hofmans, Joeri ^a   Theuns, Peter ^a   van Acker, Frederik ^a  

^a VRIJE UNIVERSITEIT BRUSSEL   (Belgium)

Author keywords

End anchors; Internal consistency; Measurement invariance; Multi group structural equation modeling; Psychometrics; Self anchoring scale; Test retest reliability

Indexed keywords

EID: 70349230075     PISSN: 00335177     EISSN: 15737845     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11135-007-9154-7     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Atkinson T.: The stability and validity of quality of life measures. Soc. Indic. Res. 10: 113-132 (1982).
2. Bartoshuk L.M., Duffy V.B., Green B.G., Hoffman H.J., Ko C.-W., Lucchina L.A., Marks L.E., Snyder D.J. and Weiffenbach J.M.: Valid across-group comparisons with labeled scales: the gLMS versus magnitude matching. Physiol. Behav. 82: 109-114 (2004).
3. Bernheim J.L. and Buyse M.: The Anamnestic Comparative Self-Assessment for measuring the subjective quality of life of cancer patients. J. Psychosoc. Oncol. 1: 25-38 (1984).
4. Bernheim J.L., Theuns P., Mazaheri M., Hofmans J., Fliege H. and Rose M.: The potential of Anamnestic Comparative Self-Assessment (ACSA) to reduce bias in the measurement of Subjective Well-being. J. Happiness Stud. 7: 227-250 (2006).
5. Bloom M., Fischer J. and Orme J.: Evaluating Practice: Guidelines for the Accountable Professional, 2nd edn. Allyn & Bacon, Boston (1999).
6. Bollen K.A.: Structural Equations with Latent Variables. John Wiley, New York (1989).
7. Byrne B.M.: Structural Equation Modeling with Lisrel, Prelis and Simplis: Basic Concepts, Applications and Programming. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey (1998).
8. Cantril H.: The Pattern of Human Concerns. Rutgers University Press, New Jersey (1965).
9. Carpenter J.S.: Applying the Cantril methodology to study self-esteem: psychometrics of the self-anchoring self-esteem scale. J. Nurs. Meas. 4: 171-189 (1996).
10. Chen C., Lee S.-Y. and Stevenson H.W.: Response style and cross-cultural comparisons of rating scales among East Asian and North American students. Psychol. Sci. 6: 170-175 (1995).
11. Cheung M.W.-L. and Chan W.: Testing dependent correlation coefficients via structural equation modelling. Organ. Res. Methods 7: 206-223 (2004).
12. Cheung G.W. and Rensvold R.B.: Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Struct. Equ. Model. 9: 233-255 (2002).
13. D'Agostino R.B. and Pearson E.S.: Tests for departure from normality. Empirical results for the distributions of b2 and {check mark} b1.Biometrica 60: 613-622 (1973).
14. DeCarlo L.T.: On the meaning and use of kurtosis. Psychol. Methods 2: 292-307 (1997).
15. Feldt L.S. and Seonghoon K.: Testing the difference between two alpha coefficients with small samples of subjects and raters. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 66: 589-600 (2006).
16. Friedman H.H. and Amoo T.A.: Rating the rating scales. J. Mark. Manage. 9: 114-123 (1999).
17. Grier S.A. and Deshpandé R.: Social dimensions of consumer distinctiveness: the influence of social status on group identity and advertising persuasion. J. Mark. Res. 38: 216-224 (2001).
18. Kilpatrick F.P. and Cantril H.: Self-anchoring scale: a measure of the individual's unique reality world. J. Individ. Psychol. 16: 158-170 (1960).
19. Kline R.B.: Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 2nd edn. The Guilford Press, New York (2005).
20. Lee J.W., Jones P.S., Mineyama Y. and Zhang X.E.: Cultural differences in responses to a likert scale. Res. Nurs. Health 25: 295-306 (2002).
21. Lefcowitz M.J. and Wallston B.: Self-anchoring scale: does it make a difference? Sociol. Methods Res. 1: 387-399 (1973).
22. Little T.D.: Mean and covariance structures (MACS) analyses of cross-cultural data: practical and theoretical issues. Multivariate Behav. Res. 32: 53-76 (1997).
23. McIntosh C.N.: Report on the construct validity of the temporal satisfaction with life scale. Soc. Indic. Res. 54: 37-56 (2001).
24. Mullen M.R.: Diagnosing measurement equivalence in cross-national research. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 26: 573-596 (1995).
25. Nugent W.R.: Differential validity in social work measurement. Soc. Serv. Rev. 67: 631-650 (1993).
26. Nugent W.R.: A Validity study of scores from self-anchoring-type scales for measuring depression and self-esteem. Res. Soc. Work Pract. 14: 171-179 (2004).
27. O'Brien R.M.: Generalizability coefficients are reliability coefficients. Qual. Quant. 29: 421-428 (1995).
28. Peter J.P.: Reliability: a review of psychometric basics and recent marketing practices. J. Mark. Res. 16: 6-17 (1979).
29. Preston C.C. and Colman A.M.: Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: reliability, validity, discriminating power and respondent preferences. Acta Psychol. 104: 1-15 (2000).
30. Schmitt N.: Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha. Psychol. Assess. 8: 350-353 (1996).
31. Thomas E.H. and Galambos N.: What satisfies students? Mining student-opinion data with regression and decision tree analysis. Res. Higher Educ. 45: 251-269 (2004).
32. Vandenberg R.J. and Lance C.E.: A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: suggestions, practices and recommendations for organizational research. Organ. Res. Methods 3: 4-70 (2000).
33. Van Der Eijk C.: Measuring agreement in ordered rating scales. Qual. Quant. 35: 325-341 (2001).
34. Weng L.: Impact of the number of response categories and anchor labels on coefficient alpha and test-retest reliability. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 64: 956-972 (2004).