Evaluation and Application of
Attitude Instruments
One goal of attitude measurement
is to ensure reliability of scores. Researchers use a variety of techniques to
assess the reliability of their instruments. One technique is internal
consistency, which refers to whether or not the individual items on the instrument
are assessing the same attitude construct. Another technique is test-retest
reliability, which refers to the consistency in respondents’ scores over time.
A reliable attitude instrument should produce similar scores with repeated
administration when attitude change is not intended. Another goal of attitude
measurement is to ensure validity. A valid instrument is one that measures what
it states it is designed to measure. There are three measures of validity that
are important in the context of attitude measurement: discriminate validity,
convergent validity, and predictive validity. Consider this example: To assess
the validity of an instrument, that is designed to measure attitudes toward
volunteerism, would involve demonstrating that the instrument is (1) not
related to measures of other constructs irrelevant to volunteerism
(discriminate validity), (2) related to other existing attitude measures of
volunteerism (convergent reliability), and (3) predictive of behavior, such as
volunteering one’s time in the community (predictive validity).
Required:
A brief description of the
attitude instrument, and include the type of measurement used.
In terms of reliability and
validity, describe the methodological strengths and limitations of the attitude
instrument.
Describe an area of interest in
social psychology.
Explain two ways you might use
this instrument to assess attitudes in your area of interest. Justify your
response with some of the following references, resources and scholarly
literature.
Resources, references and
readings:
Alwin, D. F., & Krosnick, J.
A. (1991). The reliability of survey attitude measurement: The influence of
question and respondent attributes. Sociological Methods Research, 20(1),
139-181.
The Reliability of Survey Attitude
Measurement: The Influence of Question and Respondent Attributes by Alwin, D.
F., & Krosnick, J. A., in Sociological Methods & Research, Vol.
20/Issue 1. Copyright 1991 by Sage Publications Inc. – Journals. Reprinted by
permission of Sage Publications Inc. – Journals via the Copyright Clearance
Center.
Banaji, M. R., & Heiphetz, L.
(2010). Attitudes. In S.T. Fiske, D.T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.),
Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 353-393). Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley & Sons.
Handbook of Social Psychology, 5th
Edition by S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.). Copyright 2010
by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. – Books. Reprinted by permission of John Wiley
& Sons, Inc. – Books via the Copyright Clearance Center.
oRead pp. 359-370
Kieruj, N. D., & Moors, G.
(2010). Variations in response style behavior by response scale format in
attitude research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 22(3),
320-342. Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.
Roberts, J. S., Laughlin, J. E.,
& Wedell, D. H. (1999). Validity issues in the Likert and Thurstone
approaches to attitude measurement. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
59(2), 211-233.
Schwartz, N. (1999). Self-reports:
How the questions shape the answers. American Psychologist, 54(2), 93-105.
Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M.
(1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of the
empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84(5), 888-918.
Crites, S. L., Fabrigar, L. R.,
& Petty, R. E. (1994). Measuring the affective and cognitive properties of
attitudes: Conceptual and methodological issues. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 20(6), 619-634.
Cunningham, W. A., Preacher, K.
J., & Mahzarin, R. B. (2001). Implicit attitude measures: Consistency,
stability, and convergent validity. Psychological Science, 12(2), 163-170.
Hong, Y., & Chiu, C. (1991).
Reduction of socially desirable responses in attitude assessment through the
enlightenment effect. The Journal of Social Psychology, 131(4), 585-587.
Newcomb, M. D., Rabow, J., &
Hernandez, A. C. R. (1992). A cross-national study of nuclear attitudes,
normative support, and activist behavior: Addictive and interactive effects.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(10), 780-800.
Schwarz, N., & Hippler, H. J.
(1995). The numeric values of rating scales: A comparison of their impact in
mail surveys and telephone interviews. International Journal of Public Opinion
Research, 7(1), 72-74.
Tourangeau, R., & Rasinki, K.
A. (1988). Cognitive processes underlying context effects in attitude
measurement. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 299-314.
Waples, C. J., Weyhrauch, W. S.,
Connell, A. R., & Culbertson, S. S. (2010). Questionable defeats and discounted
victories for Likert rating scales. Industrial and Organizational Psychology:
Perspectives on Science and Practice, 3(4), 477-480.
Weigel, R. H., & Newman, L. S.
(1976).Increasing attitude behavior correspondence by broadening the scope of
the behavioral measure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33(6),
793-802.
Zaller, J., & Feldman, D.
(1992). A simple theory of the survey response: Answering questions versus
revealing preferences. American Journal of Political Science, 36(3), 579-616.
