Equivalence of Computerized and Standard Administration of the Piers-Harris Children's Self-Concept Scale

Abstract

Two hundred seventy-nine 8- to 17-year-old children and adolescents were randomly assigned to complete paper-and-pencil or computer-administered versions of the Piers-Harris Children's Self-Concept Scale. The equivalence of these two administration modes was assessed by evaluating the comparability of scale means, variances, reliabilities, and validities. Results indicate that, of 27 comparisons, only 1 produced a statistically significant difference. We concluded that the computerized administration of the Piers-Harris scale did not affect its psychometric properties and that paper-and-pencil and computerized modes of testing for this questionnaire may be regarded as equivalent.

Examining the Psychometric Properties of the Family Accommodation Scale-Parent-Report (FAS-PR)

“…Importantly, higher T-scores represent greater/healthier self-concept. Available empirical evidence suggests that the scale demonstrates excellent internal consistency and good concurrent validity (Simola and Holden 1992). …”

Computer Assisted Clinical Assessment

“…Such studies have methodological limitations, as they do not compare identical content administered by different modes. However, Simola and Holden (1992) compared 279 young people (age 8 to 17 years) on randomly assigned paper‐and‐pencil and computer versions of the Piers‐Harris Children's Self‐concept Scale. They found only one significant difference – which could be due to chance – among the 27 comparisons made between the two forms.…”

The equivalence of computerized and paper-and-pencil psychological instruments: Implications for measures of negative affect

“…Research relating to such adaptations have included personality inventories (Pinsoneault, 1996;Rasulis, Schuldberg, & Murtagh, 1996;Watson, Thomas, & Anderson, 1992), intelligence measures (Elwood & Clark, 1978;Katz & Dalby, 1981;Kubinger et al, 1991), problem checklists and scales of self-concept (Hinkle, Sampson, & Radonsky, 1991;Simola & Holden, 1992), career and aptitude instruments (Harrell et aI., 1987;Reardon & Loughead, 1988;Vansickle & Kapes, 1993), and neuropsychological instruments (Berger, Chibnall, & Gfeller, 1994Choca & Morris, 1992), to name a few. It should again be noted that the definition as to what constitutes equivalence varies from study to study.…”