Comparison of the Matthews Youth Test for Health and the Hunter-Wolf A-B Rating Scale: Measures of Type A behavior in children.

Abstract

This study evaluated the extent to which two youth measures of Type A behavior--the Matthews Youth Test for Health (MYTH) and the Hunter-Wolf A-B Rating Scale--similarly assess the Type A construct. Data from 25 elementary teachers and from 300 of their students revealed that these scales are weakly correlated and that the concordance of their Type A-Type B classifications was only slightly above that expected by chance. Weak agreement was found even when teachers and students rated the same Type A behaviors, which suggests that variability in content was not the principal reason for the lack of agreement between these measures. The major implication of this study is that the MYTH and the Hunter-Wolf scale should not be considered interchangeable measures of Type A behavior. The study reveals that investigators' choice of a Type A measure may strongly affect the nature of their research findings and may inhibit the integration of their data with data from other investigators who employ different measures of the Type A construct. It is recommended that, if multiple measures cannot be used in a study, the investigator employ the MYTH.

Evidence for the Type in Type A behavior: A taxometric analysis.

“…To date, very little is known about the developmental sequence that gives rise to the patterns. Most developmental research has focused on developing reliable and valid measures of Type A behavior in children and adolescents (e.g., Bishop, Hailey, & Anderson, 1987; Jackson & Levine, 1987; Kirmil-Gray et al, 1987; Matthews & Angulo, 1980) or on validation of the major behavioral and psychophysiological characteristics (e.g., Corrigan & Moskowitz, 1983; Jennings & Matthews, 1984; Lundberg, 1983; Matthews, 1979; Matthews & Jennings, 1984). A latent class variable implies, however, that the antecedent conditions that give rise to Type A behavior should be relatively few in number, necessary (although not necessarily “necessary and sufficient”), or a continuous causal factor that is dichotomized by some threshold.…”

Stability (and instability) of Type A behavior from childhood to young adulthood.

“…Although this is an important concern that will need to be addressed in future studies of the behavior pattern, it is worth pointing out that even among researchers using so-called standard measures of Type A behavior, there exist considerable differences of opinion as to which of the different measures should be considered standard. Indeed, one recent report (Jackson & Levine, 1983) indicated that intercorrelations among existing measures are not at all high. More research directly examining sources of method variance in the assessment of Type A behavior is sorely needed.…”

Associations between Hunter Type A/B Personality and Cardiovascular Risk Factors from Adolescence through Young Adulthood

“…Therefore, it is still possible that individual variance in personality type A/B through young adulthood may affect the associations noted in our manuscript. Second, the Hunter-Wolf questionnaire is one of several personality assessment tools, many of which have been shown to be non-interchangeable and lead to different interpretations [17, 18]. The need for a standardized and comprehensive psychosocial tool to measure all components of personality is highlighted by studies such as ours, in which generalizability and comparability to similar studies using different tools can be problematic.…”

“…In contrast, more recent studies have failed to confirm a significant relationship between type A personality traits and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality [10, 11]. In these studies, the questionnaires used to assess personality types and traits (including the Matthews Youth Test for Health [12], Cook-Medley [13], Jenkins Activity Survey [14], Bortner [15], and Hunter-Wolf [16] assessments) have varied widely, and this variation has likely contributed to the conflicting results [17, 18]. Despite these recent inconsistencies, when personality type A/B is more narrowly classified into subtraits or components such as aggression or hostility, results have been indicative of greater risk for cardiovascular disease in adults [19–21].…”