The Analyze of Moral Personality Structure of Chinese and Scale Development

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (10) ◽  
pp. 1252-1264
Author(s):  
Gao Ran ◽  
Peng Zongyi ◽  
Wang Yuzhong ◽  
Gu Huiyi
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.


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

2020 ◽  
Vol 134 (3) ◽  
pp. 349-360 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcelo Fernández-Bolaños ◽  
Irene Delval ◽  
Robson Santos de Oliveira ◽  
Patrícia Izar

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan Alewyn Nel ◽  
Velichko Valchev ◽  
Sebastiaan Rothmann ◽  
Fons van de Vijver ◽  
Deon Meiring ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth T. Wang ◽  
G.E. Kawika Allen ◽  
Hannah Stokes ◽  
Han Na Suh

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document