Reliability and Validity of the Self-Rating Scale as a Measure of Self-Criticism

Abstract

The Self-Rating Scale (SRS; Hooley et al., 2010), a widely used measure of self-criticism in self-injury research, did not utilize conventional test development methods and has limited psychometric data. We examined the internal consistency, test–retest reliability, and convergent and discriminant validity of the SRS. Participants were 295 psychology undergraduate students. The SRS demonstrated good internal consistency (α = .93), adequate test–retest reliability ( r = .76), and satisfactory convergent validity with other measures of self-criticism. Convergent validity was also adequate for expected dimensions of perfectionism (socially prescribed, self-oriented, concerns about mistakes, and doubts about actions), depressive symptoms, and negative and positive affect. The SRS demonstrated adequate discriminant validity with expected constructs of perfectionism (other-oriented, personal standards, and organizational perfectionism). Although the SRS appears to be a psychometrically sound measure of self-criticism, high correlations with depression and perfectionism raise questions regarding the overlap of these constructs.

Teaching self-criticism and peer-critique skills to engineering students through a temporal survey-based program

“…Finally, it was remarkable that the trend of the teachers' assessments was quite unlike the peer-and self-assessment ratings of the students, which decreased over time. It clearly shows that the students' capability to make critical judgments of both their peers' and their own work was increasing despite the fact that the objective quality of the presentations was also increasing, as was evident in the teachers' assessments and as was also noted in the literature (Glenn and Pepper, 2023).…”

“…Those results, together with the self-and teacher-assessments, were posted on the teaching platform the day after. In that way, the students were able to reflect on the assessments that their peers had advanced before the next in-class presentation (Hortigüela et al, 2015), and were able to compare them with the self-and teacher-assessments (Glenn and Pepper, 2023). • At the end of the study, the mean rating and the standard deviation of each survey dimension were separately obtained for each presentation number and for each rater (self-, peer-, and teacher-assessments).…”

“…In that way, the students could reflect on the ratings they had received, on their selfand peer-assessments, and on their own work over a suitable period of time and when preparing the next in-class presentation (Hortigüela et al, 2015). The teacher's rating that served as a comparative reference when conducting this reflection was also posted on the student platform (Glenn and Pepper, 2023). The same process was followed for the second and third presentations, although the third presentation was the last one for all the courses and any student reflections after that presentation were not monitored.…”

“…They therefore initially found it easier to be more demanding toward their own work. However, as time progressed, students gradually got used to the practice of co-assessment and those feelings faded, which led to greater demands that were focused on the work of others, which indeed responded to the usual tendency to consider one's own work as better (Glenn and Pepper, 2023).…”

“…If we solely focus on a numerical scale, the same rating in an assessment may correspond to two different levels of work or learning for two different people (Fagerlin et al, 2007). Furthermore, student ratings of their peers may often be influenced by friendship (Revilla-Cuesta et al, 2020) and many people cling on to the erroneous perception that their work is always of a high level of quality (Glenn and Pepper, 2023). Sharing an objective assessment, such as for example, the assessment of the teacher, can therefore serve as a reference element for the students to reflect upon both peer-and self-assessments.…”