The importance of cross-cultural studies is highlighted by including a chapter on personality, beliefs and values
across cultures. From the social /C0psychological perspective, measures of intergroup contact may define both
positive and negative aspects of contact between different ethnic groups. Regrettably, contacts are often
harmed by stereotyping and prejudice . An example is the prejudice often experienced by gay, lesbian and
bisexual individuals, explored here in relation to attitudes towards sexual orientation. Finally, contrasting with
the ‘emic’ approach of investigating culturally-rooted traits, researchers also pursue the ‘etic’ approach of
applying general measures of personality across cultures .
CRITERIA FOR SCALE EVALUATION
As in the 1991 volume, a number of evaluative criteria were employed in reviewing the scales/measures,
including item construction criteria, motivational distortion criteria, and psychometric properties. In determining
the approach to the presentation and evaluation of the scales to be described in each chapter we were guided by
several criteria relating to reliability, standardization, validity, and utility ( Boyle et al., 2012; Ormrod, Saklofske,
Schwean, Andrews, & Shore 2010; Saklofske et al., 2013 ). Thus, the lens for viewing and evaluating any psycho-
logical scale, test or assessment instrument must take into account both psychometric properties and practical
considerations. In regard to the psychometric criteria for assessing construct validity, the present volume focuses
closely on the factor analytic structure of each of the scales/measures discussed, as well as providing close scru-
tiny of convergent/concurrent, divergent/discriminant, and criterion/predictive validity as well as the reliability
of each of the respective measures.
Reliability
A scale/measure may be deemed psychometrically sound if the scores obtained from it manifest ‘good’ reliabil-
ity reflecting consistency over time (test /C0retest), consistency across parallel forms, as well as consistency across
raters (inter-rater reliability). Despite the common misperception, reliability coefficients reported in test manuals
relate only to the scores obtained from specific samples . Importantly, and overlooked by many textbooks on assess-
ment, reliability is nota feature of an actual scale/measure itself, but rather it is a property of the responses of indi-
viduals to the items within the particular scale/measure (see Thompson & Vacha-Haase, 2000 ).
Measures of item homogeneity within a scale (Cronbach alpha, KR 20, split half) cannot assess the consistency
of individuals’ responses over time. Such indicators (e.g., Cronbach, 1951, 2004 ) provide not only an index of (i)
internal consistency; but also of (ii) item redundancy. A high Cronbach alpha coefficient (0.8 or 0.9) may simply
reflect high item homogeneity related to internal consistency and/or item redundancy ( Boyle, 1991 ). Thus, if an
item is rephrased in a number of different ways so that each is merely a variant of the same item (i.e., measuring
the same discrete piece of information), each of the variants cannot contribute new information, and the breadth
of measurement of the particular construct/factor remains narrow. Therefore, despite common misperceptions,
maximizing alpha coefficients may not necessarily be a good strategy for selecting which items to retain within a
given scale/measure.
More desirable is a greater breadth of measurement whereby each item contributes new information with
regard to the particular construct/factor under consideration ( Boyle, 1991 ).Kline (1986) proposed that Cronbach
alpha coefficients should fall within the 0.3 to 0.7 range. Lower than 0.3 and the scale has insufficient internal
consistency; higher than 0.7 and the scale has too much item redundancy (cf. Schmitt, 1996 ). Furthermore,
Zinbarg et al. (2005, p. 123) stated that, ‘ important information about the psychometric properties of a scale may be miss-
ing when scale developers and users only report αas is almost always the case. ’ The frequent reporting of high alpha
coefficients in the psychological test literature as the sole evidence of a scale’s reliability can only be frowned
upon. While statistical packages such as SPSS may view the alpha coefficient as an index of ‘internal reliability’
this is really a misnomer, as what is being measured is not consistency over time, but rather, item homogeneity.
Moreover, Cronbach (2004) argued that measurement error is a better metric for reporting and assessing reliabil-
ity than is the alpha coefficient. Indeed, Cronbach (2004, p. 403) concluded that, ‘ I no longer regard the alpha formula
as the most appropriate way to examine most data. Over the years, my associates and I developed the complex generalizabil-
ity (G) theory ...’ (cf. Brennan, 2001 ;Webb et al., 2006 ). Thus, analysis should go beyond computing simple ‘inter-
nal consistency’ coefficients to determining reliability generalization ( Thompson, 2003 ). However, as the authors7 CRITERIA FOR SCALE EVALUATION
I. INTRODUCTION: CORE ISSUES IN ASSESSMENT