Scale Development: Theory and Applications

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sidney Thomas
1992 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 385-385
Author(s):  
Terri Gullickson

1993 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 179-181 ◽  
Author(s):  
David M. Shannon

1992 ◽  
Vol 21 (6) ◽  
pp. 876 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yu Xie ◽  
Robert F. DeVellis

GeroPsych ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 151-162 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qiao Chu ◽  
Daniel Grühn ◽  
Ashley M. Holland

Abstract. We investigated the effects of time horizon and age on the socioemotional motives underlying individual’s bucket-list goals. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three time-horizon conditions to make a bucket list: (1) an open-ended time horizon (Study 1 & 2), (2) a 6-month horizon (i.e., “Imagine you have 6 months to live”; Study 1 & 2), and (3) a 1-week horizon (Study 2). Goal motives were coded based on socioemotional selectivity theory and psychosocial development theory. Results indicated that time horizon and age produced unique effects on bucket-list goal motives. Extending past findings on people’s motives considering the end of life, the findings suggest that different time horizons and life stages trigger different motives.


Methodology ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 156-164 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keith A. Markus

Abstract. Bollen and colleagues have advocated the use of formative scales despite the fact that formative scales lack an adequate underlying theory to guide development or validation such as that which underlies reflective scales. Three conceptual impediments impede the development of such theory: the redefinition of measurement restricted to the context of model fitting, the inscrutable notion of conceptual unity, and a systematic conflation of item scores with attributes. Setting aside these impediments opens the door to progress in developing the needed theory to support formative scale use. A broader perspective facilitates consideration of standard scale development concerns as applied to formative scales including scale development, item analysis, reliability, and item bias. While formative scales require a different pattern of emphasis, all five of the traditional sources of validity evidence apply to formative scales. Responsible use of formative scales requires greater attention to developing the requisite underlying theory.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document