The Validity of the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS) Employing Projective and Behavioral Criteria

Caputo, Daniel V.; Plapp, Jon M.; Hanf, Constance; Anzel, Anne Smith

doi:10.1177/001316446502500313

Educational and Psychological Measurement

1965

DOI: 10.1177/001316446502500313

|View full text |Cite

The Validity of the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS) Employing Projective and Behavioral Criteria

Daniel V. Caputo¹,

Jon M. Plapp²,

Constance Hanf

et al.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

1970

1980

Publication Types

Select...

Article4

Relationship

Self Cite0

Independent4

Authors

Journals

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 29 publications

(4 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is entirely possible that this inconsistency may be due to differences in the measures which have been employed as trait definitions. This possibility is supported by the results of a number of studies which have indicated that tests claiming, implicitly or explicitly, to measure the same trait do not necessarily correlate highly (e.g., Himelstein, et al, 1958;Melikian, 1958;Weiss, et al, 1959;Shaw, 1961;Caputo, et al, 1965;Poe, 1969). In view of such evidence additional validational efforts seem advisable.…”

mentioning

confidence: 92%

CONVERGENT AND DISCRIMINANT VALIDITY OF THREE MEASURES OF ABILITY, ASPIRATION‐LEVEL, ACHIEVEMENT, ADJUSTMENT AND DOMINANCE¹

Dielman

Wilson

1970

J Educational Measurement

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The convergent and discriminant validity of three measures of the concepts of aspiration level, ability, achievement, adjustment, and dominance were examined in the context of a multitrait‐multimethod matrix. Self‐reports and peer‐reports on 75 Ss were employed as two measures of each trait. In addition, aspiration level was measured by the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS) Nach scale, dominance by the EPPS (dom scale), achievement by cumulative college grade point ratio (GPR), ability by the Ohio State Psychological Examination (OSPE), and adjustment by the Bell Adjustment Inventory. Of the paper and pencil instruments, only the OSPE and EPPS (dominance scale) exhibited satisfactory convergent validity. No measure met all the requirements of discriminant validity. The desirability of establishing adequate validational evidence prior to using “trait” measures in studies relating theoretical variables was emphasized.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 92%

CONVERGENT AND DISCRIMINANT VALIDITY OF THREE MEASURES OF ABILITY, ASPIRATION‐LEVEL, ACHIEVEMENT, ADJUSTMENT AND DOMINANCE¹

Dielman

Wilson

1970

J Educational Measurement

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

A factor analysis of the edwards personal preference schedule and 16 PF in a psychiatric population

Burton

1971

J. Clin. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

RESULTSThe Pearsori product moment correlation between SDS indices and R-S scores was .70. Using multiple regression analysis, the resultant equation is Y = 0.41X + 30.5. The correlation between SDS indices and F-I scores was -.53 wjt,h a regression equation of Y = -0.32X + 39.6. Lastly, correlation between R-S and F-I scores n-as --.68 with a regression equation of Y * -0.69X + 59.1.The statistically significant correlations between patient's self-rating on the Zurig depression scale and t,he Byrne and Ullmann repression-sensitization dimension scales (p < .01) indicate that patients with depression do not repress or deny their illnesses and are proportionately sensitive t o their symptoms, as evidenced by correspondingly higher scores on the SDS and the R-S and F-I scales, which reflect degrees of severity of depression and sensitization, respectively.

show abstract

Achievement and Affiliation: A Motivational Perspective of Sex Differences

Kelemen¹

1980

soc behav pers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Achievement and affiliation behavior are important issues in the literature of sex-role differences. Males have been viewed as being achievement-oriented, and female affiliation-oriented. Deaux (1976) has mentioned a series of arguments which attempt to explain how and why males and females differ in these behaviors. This study replicated the Lunneborg and Rosenwood (1972) study in an attempt to further review the achievement versus affiliation argument. In addition to their techniques, the Personality Research Form (Form A) was also administered to a sample of 180 high school and college males and females. While the results of this study fail to resolve the achievement versus affiliation argument, it nevertheless offers some new possible explanations to the noted differences. Ultimately, the achievementaffiliation argument will have to be viewed only insofar as age and education remain important considerations in the sex differences studies of achievement behavior.In The Behavior of Women and Men, Deaux (1976) has mentioned a series of arguments which attempt to explain how and why males and females differ in their achievement behavior. Achievement behavior is behavior which is directed toward improving or accomplishing in any endeavor. The notion of success underlies achievement behavior. Affiliation behavior is behavior which is directed toward the establishment of friendly and satisfying interpersonal relationships. Simply stated, the primary argument says that males are predominantly m6tivated by achievement needs, whereas females are motivated more by affiliative needs. Deaux has also stated that while one group of researchers has argued that males and females are motivated by different needs, another group believes that a conflict may be present between two different needs in both males and females -achievement and affiliation.

show abstract

scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.

Contact Info

customersupport@researchsolutions.com

10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614

Henderson, NV 89052, USA

Blog Terms and Conditions API Terms Privacy Policy Contact Cookie Preferences Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Made with 💙 for researchers

Part of the Research Solutions Family.

The Validity of the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS) Employing Projective and Behavioral Criteria

Cited by 4 publications

References 29 publications

CONVERGENT AND DISCRIMINANT VALIDITY OF THREE MEASURES OF ABILITY, ASPIRATION‐LEVEL, ACHIEVEMENT, ADJUSTMENT AND DOMINANCE¹

CONVERGENT AND DISCRIMINANT VALIDITY OF THREE MEASURES OF ABILITY, ASPIRATION‐LEVEL, ACHIEVEMENT, ADJUSTMENT AND DOMINANCE¹

A factor analysis of the edwards personal preference schedule and 16 PF in a psychiatric population

Achievement and Affiliation: A Motivational Perspective of Sex Differences

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

The Validity of the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS) Employing Projective and Behavioral Criteria

Cited by 4 publications

References 29 publications

CONVERGENT AND DISCRIMINANT VALIDITY OF THREE MEASURES OF ABILITY, ASPIRATION‐LEVEL, ACHIEVEMENT, ADJUSTMENT AND DOMINANCE1

CONVERGENT AND DISCRIMINANT VALIDITY OF THREE MEASURES OF ABILITY, ASPIRATION‐LEVEL, ACHIEVEMENT, ADJUSTMENT AND DOMINANCE1

A factor analysis of the edwards personal preference schedule and 16 PF in a psychiatric population

Achievement and Affiliation: A Motivational Perspective of Sex Differences

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

CONVERGENT AND DISCRIMINANT VALIDITY OF THREE MEASURES OF ABILITY, ASPIRATION‐LEVEL, ACHIEVEMENT, ADJUSTMENT AND DOMINANCE¹

CONVERGENT AND DISCRIMINANT VALIDITY OF THREE MEASURES OF ABILITY, ASPIRATION‐LEVEL, ACHIEVEMENT, ADJUSTMENT AND DOMINANCE¹