2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2017.09.039
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Using factor analysis to validate the Clance Impostor Phenomenon Scale in sample of science, technology, engineering and mathematics doctoral students

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
18
0
5

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 35 publications
(35 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
3
18
0
5
Order By: Relevance
“…Two other studies were also allocated an indeterminate rating for content validity. Simon and Choi (2018) and Brauer and Wolf's (2016) studies provided brief measurement aims, explanations for the constructs of interest and little to no justification for the target populations sampled.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Two other studies were also allocated an indeterminate rating for content validity. Simon and Choi (2018) and Brauer and Wolf's (2016) studies provided brief measurement aims, explanations for the constructs of interest and little to no justification for the target populations sampled.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Correlation of responses to individual instrument items with the total score has been used as a measure of instrument and item validity and to assess the predictive potential of each item, but can vary depending on the demographics of the study population [32][33][34][35][36]. In this study, ratings of 18 of the 20 items on the CIPS had moderate-to-strong correlation with total CIPS score (Spearman's r = 0.40-0.80) (Tab.…”
Section: Correlation Of Cips Items With the Cips Total Score In Medicmentioning
confidence: 80%
“…Another study in undergraduates indicated clustering of CIPS items into four subgroups: fake, luck, discount, and a fourth consisting of item 1, which concerns having succeeded at a task when one was afraid of failure [35]. In contrast, a study in doctoral students in science, technology, engineering, and math fields found a single factor model of impostorism to be most parsimonious [36]. Although the existence of subcategories of impostorism within the CIPS is debatable and may vary depending on the study population, these studies raise the question of whether individual impostors manifest all aspects of impostorism equally, or if certain impostors predominantly express, or do not express, certain impostor beliefs.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The first component had an eigenvalue of 8.328 and explained 41.64% of the total variance. A one-factor model was therefore used, following the example of Simon and Choi (2018), who performed a CFA on the CIPS and concluded that a one-factor model was indeed the most appropriate. In respect of the AAA-S, only one factor was found.…”
Section: Construct Reliability and Validitymentioning
confidence: 99%