Dated: April 5, 2011 Essay Example

  • Category:
    Psychology
  • Document type:
    Assignment
  • Level:
    Undergraduate
  • Page:
    3
  • Words:
    1714

Scale Evaluation Project (Research Report, Statistics)

Title:
Scale Evaluation Project (Research Report, Statistics)

Dated: April 5, 2011

Introduction:

Basic principles are of reliability and validity is applied for the construction of scales for measuring the authenticity through its linkages on the basis of the evidence for the psychometric properties of the scale. The scales provide a picture of the individuals and the members of the group under test, therefore, application of the scales extra care and vigilance for the generation of natural results. Any deviation in the construction and application of scales will have the potential to jeopardize the entire testing process along with the utilization of scale during the whole process used for testing the sample for the research question(Hodge, D. R. & Gillespie, D. F. 2003)(1). A Scale in a survey research is simply a formalized and systematic version of the everyday activity with a composite measure of the concept along with a measure of composed information with specific targets. Creation of scale requires conversion of information contained in the sample into several relatively specific indicators in the shape one new and as abstract variable for the understanding of reliability and validity of the applied data in the exercise. There are a variety of reasons to measure a concept by using multiple indicators instead of single scale. The study has been completed through the application of multiple indicators instead of single indicator as component for the scale. The methodology has many inter-related and inters- coordinated advantages which work in synergetic pattern for the solution of the issue through the application of scales as part of the research process. Mindfulness is defined as the ability to maintain a state of attentional involvement on current experience and is generally

measured using the Tellegen Absorption Scale (Tellegen & Atkinson,

1974)(2).However, Toronto Mindfulness Scale (TMS) is a reliable and valid measure of

Mindfulness and demonstrates as a state of de-centered awareness of individuals’s experience that is conceptually and operationally distinct from other such scales. The goal of Mindfulness is twofold as to increase insight and to reduce the vulnerability to different mind states1.

Scales are applied by practitioners and clinicians to analyze psychological disorders and to compute the effectiveness of therapeutic interventions. The TMS scores improved with increasing mindfulness meditation experience. These scales are used by the researchers to provide procedures of the psychological variables being examined. TMS represents an initial step in a line of research for evaluating and assessing mindfulness as an instrument underlying the efficacy of mindfulness-based treatments (Clark, L. A., & Watson, D., 1995(3). A total of 195 students responded to the TMS with a composition of 156 female and 39 male with a range of ages 19 to 59 years. Mean of the age of the test was 24.4 years and the Standard Deviation as 7.3. Out of these students, the data for meditation experience includes 83 students with no experience of meditation, beginners as 80, several months to a year 13, several years 12, and many years regular as 7. The results of the study will help in understanding the psychometric properties of the instrument along with its utility for similar issues.

Multiple questions approach for the application of scale has many advantages which include; first of all it helps in the understanding of the complex process with specific answers for comprehension of the issue. The definition of a concept requires multiple indicators to explore the complexity of the concept with a set of inter-related questions with appropriate wording. These questions present a better understanding of the subject rather than a single a partial scale relating to the whole issue. Second, the multiple indicators for the scale assist in the development of more valid measures with a focused approach. These multiple indicators provide a guideline for the solution of the issue rather a single misleading indicator which might have the potential for the destabilization of the research process relating to the subject. Third , the application of multiple indicators increase reliability of the whole research process through the use of all key input factors for the completion of the task. The arrangements in which the questions are worded have its positive co-relationship with answers given by people in response to that specific question. Applying a number of questions should minimize the impact of one only question which is poorly worded. Fourth, multiple indicators provide greater precision as a single question does not allow to differentiate between people with much more precision on the subject. Fifth, multiple questions by summarizing the information conveyed by a number of questions into the shape of one variable and analysis has simplified the whole process considerably. Instead of analyzing each question in the separate form, the mechanism has provided a set of variables in simple as in the one attempt to determine a scale for understanding the issue.

The results of the study will provide a better understanding of the validity and reliability of the whole process with a focuses approach in psychometric terms. Reliability as a reliable measurement is a mechanism where we obtain the sane results on the repeated questions. Scales provide an opportunity to test the reliability through a number of well established methods of testing the reliability of indicators. Similarly, the study will also focus on the validity which includes a set of valid measures along with what is too intended to measure in the study. Criteria for validity along with the content and construction will illustrate the subject as valid results of the study.

Methods:

The selection of the Scale:

The study has been completed through the application of Toronto Mindfulness Scale (TMS) with the participation of 195 students for the evaluation of their experience of meditation. Mindfulness demonstrates the capacity to be aware of our ongoing thoughts, reactions and feelings without getting caught up in them(Germer, C. K. ,2005)(4). The same is also considered as an ability that that one can inculcate through practices like meditation. Mindfulness, therefore, would be labeled as a valuable tool for us in daily life, and for seeking more effective methods to cope with the psychological issues(Bishop, S et al,2004)(5). Different scales have been formulated for testing mindfulness such as the Mindfulness and Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS; 15 items, 1 factor,

a = .82–.87, Brown & Ryan, 2003), the Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Scale

Baer, Smith, & Allen, 2004), the Five Facets Mindfulness

Questionnaire (Baer, Smith, Hopkins, Krietemeyer, & Toney, 2006) and Toronto

Mindfulness Scale (TMS; 39 items, 2 factors, a = .95; Lau et al. 2006).

All the total 195 students were selected for seeking their response to the TMS. The group was selected as in the shape of both the sexes with 156 female and 39 male along with range of ages 19 to 59 years. Mean of the age of the selected sample was 24.4 years. Statistical like Standard Deviation was applied and for the group the same was as 7.3. Past experience for meditation as a variable was applied in the study to assess the participants experience on the issue and the results have shown that meditation experience of the sample includes 83 students equivalent to 42% of the sample with no experience of meditation followed by the beginners as 80 as 41% of the sample. Both of these two components constitute as 83 % of the sample as selected for the test. A negligible component of the group includes 13 members equivalent to 6% of the sample with several months to a year, several years 12 or 6% of the sample, and the lowest number 7 as 3% of the sample with many years regular.

Internal consistency:

The composition of the group with the participation of 195 students was completed to demonstrate a fair internal consistency for the completion of the study. The selection of the group was accomplished through open invitation for the selection of a neutral group. Factor loadings which are statistically significant were moderately large in magnitude, ranging from .55 to .81 indicating that the items converged meaningfully onto the predicted scales. Reliability Scale was assessed in several ways with the item variance indicated with squared correlation between factors and matched items ranged from .33 to .66. The participants were tested in groups of 15; all the participants were seated on the meditation cushions as per their preferences. Factor 1 was selected as curiosity which reflects awareness about meditation and factor 2 as de-centering element in the study. A set of instructions were given to the participants: Please pay attention to your breathing for next 15 minutes, anything might arise during the exercise may be reported to the organizers and no other instruction was given. To evoke a state of mindfulness, it was expected from the experienced participants to be aware of their breath during the exercise. After 15 minutes, TMS was completed(Buchheld, N., Grossman, P., & Walach, H. (2001)(6). Scale reliability estimates were recorded which include:

  1. Coefficient alpha as between the factor loading .87 to .84,

  2. Mean interim correlations as between. 50 and .38 factors,

  3. Standard deviation as 7,and

  4. Percentage of explained variance as between 30 to 66 %.

References:

  1. Hodge, D. R. & Gillespie, D. F. (2003). Phrase Completions: An alternative to Likert scales. Social Work Research, 27(1), 45–55.

  2. Tellegen, A., &Atkinson, G. (1974). Openness to absorbing and self-altering experiences (“absorption”), a trait related to hypnotic susceptibility. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 83, 268–277.

  3. Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7, 309–319.

  4. Germer, C. K. (2005). Mindfulness: What is it: What does it matter? In C. K. Germer, R. D. Siegel, & P. R. Fulton (Eds.), Mindfulness and psychotherapy. New York: Guilford Press.

  5. Bishop, S., Lau, M., Shapiro, S., Carlson, L.,Anderson, N., Carmody, J., et al. (2004). Mindfulness: A proposed operational definition. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 11, 230–241.

  6. Buchheld, N., Grossman, P., & Walach, H. (2001). Measuring mindfulness in insight meditation (Vipassana) and meditation-based psychotherapy: The development of the Freiberg Mindfulness Inventory (FMI). Journal for Meditation and Meditation Research, 1, 11–34.

1
Linehan, M. M. (1994). Acceptance and change: The central dialectic in psychotherapy. In S. C.Hayes, N. S. Jacobson, V. M. Follette, & M. J. Dougher (Eds.), Acceptance and change: Content and context in psychotherapy (pp. 73–86). Reno, NV: Context Press.