Psychological Assessment 

Abstract: In the context of the development of prototypic assessment instruments in the areas of cognition, personality, and adaptive functioning, the issues of standardization, norming procedures, and the important psychometrics of test reliability and validity are evaluated critically. Criteria, guidelines, and simple rules of thumb are provided to assist the clinician faced with the challenge of choosing an appropriate test instrument for a given psychological assessment. Clinicians are often faced with the critical challenge of choosing the most appropriate available test instrument for a given psychological assessment of a child, adolescent, or adult of a particular age, gender, and class of disability. It is the purpose of this report to provide some criteria, guidelines, or simple rules of thumb to aid in this complex scientific decision. As such, it draws upon my experience with issues of test development, standardization, norming procedures, and important psychometrics, namely, test reliability and validity. As I and my colleagues noted in an earlier publication, the major areas of psychological functioning, in the normal development of infants, children, adolescents, adults, and elderly people, include cognitive, academic, personality, and adaptive behaviors (Sparrow, Fletcher, & Cicchetti, 1985). As such, the major examples or applications discussed in this article derive primarily, although not exclusively, from these several areas of human functioning.

Abstract: A primary goal of scale development is to create a valid measure of an underlying construct. We discuss theoretical principles, practical issues, and pragmatic decisions to help developers maximize the construct validity of scales and subscales. First, it is essential to begin with a clear conceptualization of the target construct. Moreover, the content of the initial item pool should be overinclusive and item wording needs careful attention. Next, the item pool should be tested, along with variables that assess closely related constructs, on a heterogeneous sample representing the entire range of the target population. Finally, in selecting scale items, the goal is unidimensionality rather than internal consistency ; this means that virtually all interitem correlations should be moderate in magnitude. Factor analysis can play a crucial role in ensuring the unidimensionality and discriminant validity of scales.

Abstract: In Study 1, the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) was administered to 425 undergraduates. Analyses yielded a three component solution comprising (a) rumination, (b) magnification, and (c) helplessness. In Study 2, 30 undergraduate participants were classified as catastrophizers (n = 15) or noncatastrophizers (n = 15) on the basis of their PCS scores and participated in an cold pressor procedure. Catastrophizers reported significantly more negative pain-related thoughts, greater emotional distress, and greater pain intensity than noncatastrophizers. Study 3 examined the relation between PCS scores, negative pain-related thoughts, and distress in 28 individuals undergoing an aversive electrodiagnostic medical procedure. Catastrophizers reported more negative pain-related thoughts, more emotional distress, and more pain than noncatastrophizers. Study 4 examined the relation between the PCS and measures of depression, trait anxiety, negative affectivity, and fear of pain. Analyses revealed moderate correlations among these measures, but only the PCS contributed significant unique variance t o the prediction of pain intensity.

Abstract: To satisfy the need in personality research for factorially univocal measures of each of the 5 domains that subsume most English-language terms for personality-traits, new sets of Big-Five factor markers were investigated. In studies of adjective-anchored bipolar rating scales, a transparent format was found to produce factor markers that were more univocal than the same scales administered in the traditional format. Nonetheless, even the transparent bipolar scales proved less robust as factor markers than did parallel sets of adjectives administered in unipolar format. A set of 100 unipolar terms proved to be highly robust across quite diverse samples of self and peer descriptions. These new markers were compared with previously developed ones based on far larger sets of trait adjectives, as well as with the scales from the NEO and Hogan personality inventories.

Abstract: The goals of both exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis are described and procedural guidelines for each approach are summarized, emphasizing the use of factor analysis in developing and refining clinical measures For exploratory factor analysis, a rationale is presented for selecting between principal components analysis and common factor analysis depending on whether the research goal involves either identification of latent constructs or data reduction Confirmatory factor analysis using structural equation modeling is described for use in validating the dimensional structure of a measure Additionally, the uses of confirmatory factor analysis for assessing the invariance of measures across samples and for evaluating multitrait-multimethod data are also briefly described Suggestions are offered for handling common problems with item-level data, and examples illustrating potential difficulties with confirming dimensional structures from initial exploratory analyses are reviewed