Search Results
Title: Scaling Back Survey Scales: How Short is too Short?
Resulting in 1 citation.
| 1. |
Moore, Kristin Anderson Halle, Tamara G. Vandivere, Sharon Mariner, Carrie L. |
|
Scaling Back Survey Scales: How Short is too Short? Sociological Methods and Research 30,4 (May 2002): 530-567. Also: http://smr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/30/4/530 Cohort(s): Children of the NLSY79 Publisher: Sage Publications Keyword(s): Behavior Problems Index (BPI); Child Development; Data Quality/Consistency; Home Observation for Measurement of Environment (HOME); Parent-Child Relationship/Closeness; Peabody Individual Achievement Test (PIAT- Reading); Scale Construction; Test Scores/Test theory/IRT Permission to reprint the abstract has not been received from the publisher. To understand children's development, one must examine an array of constructs. Yet the time and budget constraints of large-scale survey research create a dilemma: how to cut scales to the fewest possible items while still retaining their predictive properties. In this article, the authors compare the predictive validity of several shortened versions of the Behavior Problems Index and the Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment--Short Form with their full scales within the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth--1979 cohort. They use the scales to predict delinquency, reading recognition scores, parent-child activities, and smoking behavior of 2,017 children at ages 13 or 14 from data gathered 2, 4, and 6 years prior. Analyses leave the authors cautiously optimistic that short scales, especially scales composed of items gathered at different time points and repeated regularly, may enjoy substantial predictive power. However, two-item scales may be too short, and psychometric study on additional scales is warranted. (PsycINFO Database Record Copyright: 2002 APA, all rights reserved) |
|
|
Bibliography Citation
Moore, Kristin Anderson, Tamara G. Halle, Sharon Vandivere and Carrie L. Mariner. "Scaling Back Survey Scales: How Short is too Short?" Sociological Methods and Research 30,4 (May 2002): 530-567.
|