中国临床心理学杂志

人格测验中条目呈现方式与记分方式的效应初探

作者：罗杰戴晓阳

单位：1. 贵州师范大学教育科学学院贵州省普通高校基础心理与认知神经科学特色重点实验室贵阳550001
2. 深圳大学心理系深圳518060

分类号：R395.1

出版年,卷(期):页码：2015,23(2):236-241

摘要：

目的:初步探讨人格测验中条目呈现方式和记分方式的效应。方法:采用2×2研究设计,运用《大五人格形容词评定词表》对734名在校大学生进行测试。结果:①无论6点还是7点记分,双极词的因子结构均优于单极词的结果;②6点记分双极词的因子结构较优于7点记分,而7点记分双极词的α系数略高于6点记分的结果,在重测信度上两种记分方式的结果比较接近。结论:不同的条目呈现方式和记分方式对人格测验的心理测量学性能存在影响,测验编制者在建构或开发测验工具时应尽量选择合适的测验条目与记分方式,以达到事半功倍的效果。

Objective:To explore the effects of the item-presenting and item-scoring in personality measurement.Methods:This study applied a 2×2 two factor experiment design, 734 university students were surveyed with the big fivefactor personality trait-descriptive adjectives scale.Results:①Whatever it was 6-point or 7-point, the bipolar variables provided more robust and univocal factor structure than unipolar counterpart. ②The 6-point bipolar scales provided more robust and univocal factor structure than the 7-point bipolar counterpart; additionally, with this format the coefficient α estimate was a little lower than the 7-point bipolar counterpart, but the test-retest reliability coefficients of the two formats were similar.Conclusion:The different item-presenting and item-scoring influence the psychometric properties of personality measurement, and the appropriate item-presenting and item-scoring should be taken into account while developing the personality meausurement, the viewpoints of researcher.

基金项目：

作者简介：

参考文献：

1 John OP, Naumann LP, Soto CJ. Paradigm shift to the integrative big five trait taxonomy:History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In John OP, Robins RW, Pervin LA(Ed.). Handbook of Personality:Theory and Research(3th). New York:The Guilford Press, 2008. 114-158
2 罗杰,戴晓阳."大五"人格测验在我国使用情况的元分析. 中国临床心理学杂志,2011,19(6):740-742
3 Weems GH, Onwuegbuzie AJ, Lustig D. Profiles of respondents who respond inconsistently to positively-and negatively worded items on rating scales. Evaluation and Research in Education, 2003, 17(1):45-60
4 郭庆科,韩丹,王昭,等. 人格测验中题目正反向陈述的效应. 心理学报,2006,38(4):626-632
5 Mook J, Kleijn WC, Ploeg HM. Positively and negatively worded items in a self-report measure of dispositional optimism. Psychological Reports, 1992, 71(1):275-278
6 Samuelstuen MS. Psychometric properties and item-keying direct ion effect s for the Learning and study strategies inventory- high school version with Norwegian students. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 2003, 63(3):430-446
7 Bae SW, Brekke JS. The measurement of self-esteem among Korean Americans:A cross-ethnic study. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 2003, 9(1):16-33
8 王孟成,蔡炳光,吴艳,等. 项目表述方法对中文Rosenberg 自尊量表因子结构的影响. 心理学探新,2010,30(3):63-68
9 Stansbury JP, Ried LD, Velozo CA. Unidimensionality and bandwidth in the center for epidemiologic studies depression (CES-D) scale. Journal of Personality Assessment , 2006, 86 (1):10-22
10 Goldberg LR, Kilkowski JM. The prediction of semantic consistency in self-descriptions:Characteristics of persons and of terms that affect the consistency of responses to synonym and antonym pairs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,1985, 48(1):82-98
11 Duijsens IJ, Diekstra RW. The 23BB5:a new bipolar big five questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences,1995, 19(5):753-755
12 Goldberg LR. The development of markers for the big-five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 1992, 4(1):26-42
13 Caprara GV, Barbaranelli C, Borgogni L, et al. The big five questionnaire:a new questionnaire to assess the five factor model. Personality and Individual Differences, 1993, 15(3):281-288
14 戴晓阳,姚树桥,蔡太生,等. NEO个性问卷修订本在中国的应用研究. 中国心理卫生杂志,2004,18(3):170-174
15戴晓阳,吴依泉. NEO-PI-R在16–20岁人群中的应用研究. 中国临床心理学杂志,2005,13(1):14-18
16 Lee K, Ashton MC. Psychometric properties of the HEXACO personality inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research,2004, 39(2):329-358
17 王登峰,崔红. 中国人人格量表(QZPS)的编制过程与初步结果. 心理学报,2003,35(1):127-136
18 王登峰,崔红,胡军生,等. 中国青少年人格量表(QZPS-Q) 的编制. 心理发展与教育,2006,(22)3:110-115
19 王孟成,戴晓阳,姚树桥. 中国大五人格问卷的初步编制 Ⅰ:理论框架与信度分析. 中国临床心理学杂志,2010,18 (5):545-548
20 Shafer AB. Brief bipolar markers for the five factor model of personality. Psychological Reports, 1999, 84(3):1173-1179
21 崔红,王登峰. 中国人人格形容词评定量表(QZPAS)的信度、效度与常模. 心理科学,2004,27(1):185-188
22 Chang L. A Psychometric evaluation of 4-point and 6-point likert-type scales in relation to reliability and validity. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1994, 18(3):205-215
23 Alberto MO, Kramp U, Carlos GF, et al. The effect of varying the number of response alternatives in rating scales:Experimental evidence from intra-individual effects. Behavior Research Methods, 2009, 41(2):295-308
24 Adelson JL, McCoach DB. Measuring the mathematical attitides of elementary students:The effects of a 4-point or 5- point likert-type scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement,2010, 70(5):796-807
25 Cronbach LJ. Further evidence on response sets and test design. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1950,10(1):3-31
26 Ory JC, Wise SL. Attitude change measured by scales with 4 and 5 response options. Paper Presented at the Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Ghica go, IL, 1981
27 Garland R. The mid-point on a rating scale:Is it desirable? Marketing Bulletin, 1991, 2(1):66-70
28 Busch M. Using likert scales in L2 research:A researcher comments. TESOL Quarterly, 1993, 27(4):733-726
29 Reid J. The dirty laundry of ESL survey research. TESOL Quarterly, 1990, 24(2):323-338
30 Aiken LR. Number of Response Categories and Statistics on a Teacher Rating Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement,1983, 43(2):397-401
31 Wong CS, Chuen KC, Fung MY. Differences between odd and even number of response scales:Some empirical evidence. Chinese Journal of Psychology, 1993, 35(2):75-86
32 Ko YH. A search for a better Likert point-scale for mental health questionnaires. Psychological Testing, 1994, 41(2):55-72
33 Preston CC, Colman AM. Optimal number of response categories in rating scales:Reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta Psychologuca,2000, 104(1):1-15
34 Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY, et al. Common method biases in behavioral research:Acritical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology,2003, 88(3):879-903
35 Saucier G, Goldberg LR. Lexical studies of indigenous personality factors:Premises, products, and prospects. Journal of Personality, 2001, 69(6):847-879
36 黄希庭,张蜀林. 562个人格特质形容词的好恶度、意义度和熟悉度的测定. 心理科学,1992,15(5):17-22
37 王登峰,方林,左衍涛. 中国人人格的词汇研究. 心理学报,1995,27(4):400-406
38 McCrae RR, Zonderman AB, Costa PT, et al. Evaluating replicability of factors in the revised NEO personality inventory:Confirmatory factor analysis versus procrustes rotation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1996, 70(3):552-566
39 Zwick WR, Velicer WF. Comparison of five rules for determining the number of components to retain. Psychological Bulletin, 1986, 99(3):432-442
40 Reise SP, Waller NG, Comrey AL. Factor analysis and scale revision. Psychological Assessment, 2000, 12(3):287-297

服务与反馈：

【文章下载】【加入收藏】