Realiability and Validity Rosenburg Scale

Reliability and Validity of the Rosenberg Self Esteem Scale Texas A&ampM University Psychology 203 Introduction The purpose of our speculate was to evaluate the reliability and harshness of the Rosenber self-confidence plate advance. Reliability is plainly whether the invoicement putz you are using measures something consistently. For example does the resembling interrogation show the same results when administered repeatedly. Validity is the aspect of a measuring tool that signifies its measuring what it says it does.A valid test measures what it says its measuring. However you can commence a test that is reliable and non valid, for example if a instructor administers a spell test that the bookman has to complete on the calculator in a five minute time period. A student may get the same nominate over and over again, indicating its reliable, but it may non be valid because what if that student was let up at typing but knew how to spell every word. The test would n ot be valid because its not measuring just spelling as intended but also typing speed.Both reliability and validity are crucial in and believe because if the research instruments are not reliable and valid, then the results of your experiment will always be in perplexity. Method All ninety-nine A&ampM students (N=99) that participated in the appraise were in the same statistical writing family and were required to take the good deal as part of the course curriculum. The survey consisted of 24 males and 75 females, with the average age of these participants being around 20 years old, ranging any(prenominal)where from 19 to 24 (M=20. 7, SD=. 997). the survey measured vanity by using ten items from the Rosenberg Self Esteem Scale. The students were scored by pickings the mean of any their responses to the ten questions. 10 different statements that the participant rated on a scale of 1 to 7, (1 being disagree strongly and 7 being agree strongly), the higher the score the hi gher the individuals egotism. The scale consisted of 5 revers coded items an example of a normal item is on the whole I am satisfied with myself.A reverse coded item is an opponent statement for example is I feel I do not have much to be proud of. Results The 10 item subscale from the Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale appeared to have good internal consistency, (? = . 90). All the survey question appeared to be worth keeping in fact the deletion of any of the questions would have resulted in a lower alpha score. All 99 participants (N=99) responses to the 10 item survey were averaged together and the egotism score for all the participants had ranged from 2. 6-7 with a mean of 5. 4 (M=5. 4, SD=1. 08).The frequency distribution of the average self-esteem scores, illustrated on the histogram, portrays a distribution that is pretty normal but approximately negatively. This negative distributions means that the participants more frequently had high self-esteem scores than low scores. In fa ct no participants had a self-esteem score lower than 2. 6. Discussion To ensure that the survey instrument used in this study was actually measuring self-esteem we took a measure of Cronbachs alpha ( or ? ), which is a special measure of reliability known as internal consistency.The internal consistency reliability of survey instruments (e. g. Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale), is a measure of reliability of different survey items intended to measure the same characteristic, in this case self-esteem. For example, there were 10 different questions related to self-esteem level. Each question implies a response scale from 1 to 7. Responses from the congregation of the 99 respondents have been obtained. In reality, answers to different questions vary for each peculiar(prenominal) respondent, although the items are intended to measure the same aspect or quantity.The small this variability (or stronger the correlation), the greater the internal consistency reliability of this survey instru ment. So in this survey the self-esteem scale was found to be highly reliable (10 items ?? = . 90). We can safely assume that our survey items reliably measure self-esteem levels. One other way we might have assessed reliability would have been to get all the participants to take another Self-Esteem survey of similar design but with different questions.In social sciences in particular(prenominal) making sure that your research has construct validity is very important. make validity has traditionally been defined as the experimental demonstration that a test is measuring the construct it claims to be measuring, in laymens scathe does the measuring tool actually measure the theory under examination.? Am I actually measuring what I think I am measuring? In our example construct validity would be how hearty dos our observational tool (Rosenberg self-esteem scale) assess one proportionality of self-esteem.We could of inter-correlated measures of depression with the measures of the r evers coded items (SE3,SE5,SE8,SE9,SE10), because depression and the revers coded items have similar underlie constructs. Finally the low correlation between height and self-esteem in our study strengthens our construct validity. I believe it strengthens the overall resolve because commons theories of self-esteem have no reliable and valid evidence correlating the two, so we can assume that construct between the two would be low, and if our study showed a strong relationship it would be casue for questions.