Section 3. Thinking Style
Below are some statements which may describe your style of thought during task performance. Read each one
carefully and indicate how true each statement was of your thoughts WHILE PERFORMING THE TASK . To answer
circle one of the following answers:
Extremely 54; Very much 53; Somewhat 52; A little bit 51; Not at all 50
1.I tried to figure myself out 01234
2.I felt confident about my abilities 01234
Section 4. Thinking Content
Below is a list of thoughts, some of which you might have had recently. Please indicate roughly how often you had
each thought during THE LAST TEN MINUTES (while performing the task), by circling a number from the list below.
15Never; 2 5Once; 3 5A few times; 4 5Often; 5 5Very often
1.I thought about how I should work more carefully 12345
2.I thought about members of my family 12345
Notes :
The DSSQ is available from Gerald Matthews at the Institute of Simulation and Training, University of Central
Florida, 3100 Technology Parkway, Orlando, Florida, 32826, USA. Contact Gerald Matthews at: gmatthew@ist.ucf.edu
Reproduced with permission.
FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
In this chapter we have reviewed the psychometric properties of 10 important measures of affect dimensions.
Clearly, measurement timeframes can vary on a continuum, ranging all the way from brief situationally-sensitive
emotional states (that may change throughout the day), through longer-lasting moods (remaining somewhat
stable over a period of a week or even months), to motivational dynamic traits showing only relative stability, to
enduring dispositional traits (persisting over years, or even the lifespan). It is clear that adherence to discrete/
dichotomous state /C0trait concepts provides an oversimplified approach to the measurement of affect dimensions.
An ‘immediate state’ instruction is also restricted because the respondent is asked to report on the current con-
tents of short-term memory. With any other timeframe, the respondent is being asked to retrieve information
from long-term memory.
Nevertheless, the state /C0trait distinction originally proposed by Cattell and Scheier (1963) has been incorpo-
rated into the construction of the MCI, STPI, and MAACL instruments reviewed in this chapter. Other measures
provide additional instructional sets that allow measurement of affects across a wider range of time intervals
(e.g., the DES-IV provides at least three separate measurement timeframes; the PANAS-X provides eight separate
measurement timeframes; the MMSI allows for multiple timeframes). A similar approach could be adopted with
other affect measures reviewed here, greatly enhancing their measurement utility. The PANAS-X provides the
most comprehensive range of timeframe instructions to-date, and this more inclusive approach is recommended
for use with affect measures rather than focusing merely on a limited state /C0trait dichotomy.
Another limitation relates to the tendency to maximize ‘Internal Consistency’ of scales. As Boyle (1991, p. 291)
stated, ‘The term ‘Internal Consistency’ ...is a misnomer, as a high estimate of internal item consistency/item
homogeneity may also suggest a high level of item redundancy, wherein essentially the same item is rephrased
in several different ways.’ Kline (1986) suggested that Cronbach alpha coefficients should fall within the 0.3 to 0.7
range. Below 0.3, there is too little commonality (Internal Consistency); above 0.7, there may be significant item
redundancy (where, for example, a particular item is effectively repeated by being rephrased in different ways),
resulting in a narrow breadth of measurement of the factor/construct.
Furthermore, reverse-worded items are often loaded by a distinct factor suggesting that they measure a rather
different construct ( Boyle, 1977, 1989a ). For this reason, the common practice of including reverse-keyed items in
rating and self-report scales is potentially problematic. Some scales/measures have been constructed, so as to219 FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
II. EMOTIONAL DISPOSITIONS