Minimum 150 Words For Each Response Must Have In-Text Citati

Minimum 150 Words For Each Responses Must Have In Text Citation and

The user assignment involves analyzing two classmates' questions related to psychological assessment tools, identifying which questions require revision, and then providing a revised response per the construction principles outlined by DeLapp and colleagues on the Dequesne University site. Specifically, the task is to critique and improve the qualitative and quantitative items used in psychological testing, emphasizing the appropriateness of different test formats (multiple choice, forced choice, sentence completion, interviews, simulations) based on the assessment's purpose, whether clinical or employment-related. The instructions require responses to be at least 150 words each, incorporating in-text citations and APA-formatted references, and the overarching goal is to enhance the clarity, validity, and reliability of the test items, grounded in established principles of psychological measurement and test construction.

Paper For Above instruction

In reviewing the two classmates' submissions, it is evident that both sets of questions possess strengths and areas that need refinement in line with construction principles outlined by DeLapp et al. (2016). Response 1's focus on Emotional Empathy employs scenario-based items that target emotional reactions, which is beneficial in capturing affective components of empathy. However, some items exhibit potential issues with response clarity and behavioral relevance. For example, item 4's response options, such as "Downplay the situation," may not directly measure empathy but rather a person's attitude toward the situation, which could confound the construct. According to DeLapp et al. (2016), test items should align directly with the construct’s domain and avoid ambiguous or leading options. Therefore, revising this item to specify more observable reactions, such as offering help or emotional support, would improve validity.

Additionally, the multiple-choice format employed in Response 1 is appropriate for assessing broad attitudes, but some distractors lack plausibility or may cue respondents. For example, options like "Get drunk and make out with their best friend" might evoke social desirability biases or be deemed too extreme, thus reducing the item’s effectiveness. Including more nuanced response options grounded in realistic behaviors would enhance discriminant validity.

Response 2's questions about attitudes towards mobile device use reveal a well-constructed set aligned with the principles of clarity and relevance. However, one question includes an example of a sentence completion item, which, as Miller and Lovler (2020) argue, offers subjective insights into attitudes but should be carefully worded to avoid confusion. Moreover, employing forced choice questions for personality assessment, as suggested, reduces social desirability bias, making responses more reliable. According to DeLapp et al. (2016), a balanced mix of item formats that align with the construct’s nature—either subjective or objective—is essential for high-quality assessment tools.

In revising these questions, I recommend ensuring all items are directly tied to the construct of workplace attitudes toward device use, with response options that are both plausible and discriminative. For example, a question like "I often find it hard to resist checking my phone during work" can gauge impulsivity related to device use, with frequency-based options. This aligns with DeLapp et al. (2016), who emphasize clarity, relevance, and the avoidance of social desirability biases to improve validity. Overall, both responses could benefit from more precise wording, appropriate response formats, and alignment with construct definitions to optimize measurement accuracy.

References

• DeLapp, T., Sittner, B., & Johnson, M. (2016). Principles of test construction. Dequesne University. Retrieved from https://www.dequesne.edu
• Miller, L., & Lovler, R. (2020). Foundations of psychological testing: A practical approach (6th ed.). Sage.