A simplified method for scoring the Strong Vocational Interest Blank.

Peterson, Bryanne; Dunlap, Jack W.

doi:10.1037/h0062016

Cited by 10 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The second kind simply correlates the two keys and concludes from this very high correlation, say .98, that the two keys must necessarily have equivalent or nearly equivalent validities for any given criterion. This kind of study is illustrated by Trites and Sells (14) and others (e.g., 2,4,5,7,9,10,13,15).…”

mentioning

confidence: 91%

A criticism of studies comparing item-weighting methods.

McCornack¹

1956

Journal of Applied Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 91%

A criticism of studies comparing item-weighting methods.

McCornack¹

1956

Journal of Applied Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…One can impose orthogonality in the rotation of factor matrices, but the resulting item weights capitalize on measurement error and idiosyncratic features of a particular sample drawn from a particular population. Thus, there is a long-standing consensus that specific item weights are to be ignored, because unit weights function quite well and are more generalizable (Dawes, 1979; Peterson & Dunlap, 1941). It is not surprising that the unit weight scoring system yields correlated scales in college student and clinical samples (Bagby et al, 1994) and that even using original factor loadings from college student samples yields correlated scales in clinical populations (Klein, Harding, Taylor, & Dickstein, 1988).…”

Section: Orthogonality Of Dep-soc and Sc-autmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is the Promissory Note of Personality as Vulnerability to Depression in Default? Reply to Zuroff, Mongrain, and Santor (2004).

Coyne¹,

Thompson²,

Whiffen³

2004

Psychological Bulletin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In contrast to D. C. Zuroff, M. Mongrain, and D. A. Santor (2004), the current authors find the promissory note of dependency-sociotropy (DEP-SOC) and self-criticism-autonomy (SC-AUT) as a model of risk for depression to be in default. The authors propose reorganizing what has been cast as unitary effort into 3 distinct endeavors: a psychoanalytic clinical theory, development of a refined empirical model of risk for clinical depression, and research examining the effects of DEP-SOC and SC-AUT on interpersonal relationships in nonclinical samples. The authors identify some issues that need to be accommodated regardless of whether the assessment of Zuroff et al. ( 2004) or their own is accepted. DEP-SOC and SC-AUT are best construed as correlated, continuous dimensions. Future work also needs to accommodate depression as chronic recurrent condition, advances in developmental psychopathology, and more stringent criteria for positing a risk factor for clinical disorder.Truth lives . . . for the most part on a credit system. Our thoughts and beliefs "pass," so long as nothing challenges them, just as bank-notes pass as long as nobody refuses them. (James, 1978, p. 97

show abstract

“…If, however, the true score is B and the simplified The Journal of Educational Psychology score is B+, then slightly more emphasis is given to the occupation than is its due. This is not so serious as the failure of the counselor to mention the occupation 6 (pp. 272-3).…”

Section: C+ Cmentioning

confidence: 99%

Weighted vs. unit scales.

Strong¹

1945

Journal of Educational Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scoring test blanks is a routine, boresome job. Any discovery of a true short-cut would be a real contribution. Unfortunately in the elation of inventing a possible new procedure, the judgment is sometimes befogged and short-cuts are recommended which are distinctly less valid than the accepted routine.It is appropriate to ask the question: what criteria should be employed to determine the acceptability of a short-cut? The answer is not easy for it involves values which are incommeasureable at the present time.Such values as reliability and validity, fudging, convenience and competition with other tests must all be considered. The short-cut should have approximately the same reliability as the regular procedure. But how much is 'approximately'? Is .90 approximately .92? Is .86 approximately .88? Or, in the case of validity, how much decrease in validity is possible before reaching the invalid point?The responses to many paper and pencil tests can be fudged. Usually it is the items with the largest weights that are most likely to be so treated, for they are the items which are most clearly indicative of what is to be measured. If we short-cut the scoring of an interest test, for example, by dropping out all the items with low weights we increase very greatly the possibility of fudging. This would affect the usefulness of the test in selection, for applicants for a job are prone to try and make a good impression, that is, respond as desired by the boss rather than as they personally feel. The short-cut might, however, be acceptable for guidance purposes as there would be little motive for fudging in such case.193

show abstract

A simplified method for scoring the Strong Vocational Interest Blank.

Cited by 10 publications

References 0 publications

A criticism of studies comparing item-weighting methods.

A criticism of studies comparing item-weighting methods.

Is the Promissory Note of Personality as Vulnerability to Depression in Default? Reply to Zuroff, Mongrain, and Santor (2004).

Weighted vs. unit scales.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About