Assessing similarity between profiles.

Cronbach, Lee J.; Gleser, Goldine C.

doi:10.1037/h0057173

Cited by 1,110 publications

(690 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

666

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Ozer, 1986). This somewhat disrespectful approach to multiple methods quite possibly derives from the article that inspired this book (e.g., Cronbach & Gleser, 1953), in which the construct of interest is supposed to supersede the method and therefore converge in a robust fashion across diverse techniques of assessment. In contrast, more realistic appraisals of the information taken from multiple methods point to a more sobering conclusion that the information acquired from multiple methods may in fact be more independent than previously expected (Fiske, 1971;Meyer et al, 2001;Ozer, 1986).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using Multiple Methods in Personality Psychology.

Roberts¹,

Harms²,

Smith³

et al. 2006

Handbook of Multimethod Measurement in Psychology.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using Multiple Methods in Personality Psychology.

Roberts¹,

Harms²,

Smith³

et al. 2006

Handbook of Multimethod Measurement in Psychology.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Substantially higher Q correlations within individuals across time were observed than for simulated ratings, assuming a random pairing of Time 1 and Time 2 scores. Using Cronbach and Gleser's (1953) D indices, we found that less than 10% of the sample exhibited changes in the shape of their domain profile, suggesting that if change occurs, it is mostly change of elevation or scatter. Similar ipsative analyses conducted across a 4-year interval in undergraduate students (Robins et al, 2001) showed that 17% demonstrated changes in the shape of their profile, suggesting that individual-level changes are observed more frequently in young adulthood than in childhood or adolescence.…”

Section: Ipsative Stabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Cronbach and Gleser (1953) developed three indices, D 2 , DЈ 2 , and DЉ 2 , for quantifying these sources of variance. D 2 is sensitive to differences in elevation, scatter, and shape and quantifies the squared differences between Big Five traits at two assessment occasions.…”

Section: Ipsative Continuitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Five types of personality continuity in childhood and adolescence.

Fruyt¹,

Bartels²,

Leeuwen³

et al. 2006

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

312

316

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines 5 types of personality continuity-structural, mean-level, individual-level, differential, and ipsative-in a representative population (N ϭ 498) and a twin and sibling sample (N ϭ 548) of children and adolescents. Parents described their children on 2 successive occasions with a 36-month interval using the Hierarchical Personality Inventory for Children (I. . There was evidence for structural continuity in the 2 samples, and personality was shown to be largely differentially stable. A large percentage had a stable trait profile indicative of ipsative stability, and mean-level personality changes were generally small in magnitude. Continuity findings were explained mainly by genetic and nonshared environmental factors.

show abstract

“…Because the themes within each preference measure are not orthogonal, Mahalanobis, rather than Euclidean, distance measures were preferable here because they take into account the covariation among the profile's constituent dimensions. Cronbach and Gleser (1953) recommended the use of a Mahalanobis distance for correlated variates (especially for evaluating the profile similarity between groups), explaining that it "yields the same results as would be obtained if one factored the correlation matrix into k orthogonal factors, computed the person's scores on these components, and then applied the [Euclidean distance] formula to measure similarity" (p. 467).…”

Section: Profile Similaritymentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatial ability: A neglected dimension in talent searches for intellectually precocious youth.

Webb

Lubinski

Benbow

2007

Journal of Educational Psychology

166

143

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Students identified by talent search programs were studied to determine whether spatial ability could uncover math-science promise. In Phase 1, interests and values of intellectually talented adolescents (617 boys, 443 girls) were compared with those of top math-science graduate students (368 men, 346 women) as a function of their standing on spatial visualization to assess their potential fit with math-science careers. In Phase 2, 5-year longitudinal analyses revealed that spatial ability coalesces with a constellation of personal preferences indicative of fit for pursuing scientific careers and adds incremental validity beyond preferences in predicting math-science criteria. In Phase 3, data from participants with Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores were analyzed longitudinally, and a salient math-science constellation again emerged (with which spatial ability and SAT-Math were consistently positively correlated and SAT-Verbal was negatively correlated). Results across the 3 phases triangulate to suggest that adding spatial ability to talent search identification procedures (currently restricted to mathematical and verbal ability) could uncover a neglected pool of math-science talent and holds promise for refining our understanding of intellectually talented youth.

show abstract

Assessing similarity between profiles.

Cited by 1,110 publications

References 29 publications

Using Multiple Methods in Personality Psychology.

Using Multiple Methods in Personality Psychology.

Five types of personality continuity in childhood and adolescence.

Spatial ability: A neglected dimension in talent searches for intellectually precocious youth.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About