Based on everything you’ve learned so far, please select an instrument of your own choosing. Create a sample report of the psychometric properties of that instrument, similar to what might be found in a methodology section of a research article
Locate a suitable instrument for your topic of interest. (I am researching secondary trauma and traumatic resilience.)
Create a paragraph presenting the psychometric properties of this instrument, similar to one that might appear in a quantitative methodology section (see example). *Note* you may need to search for this information in multiple research articles, if you do not have access to a test manual.
An example is provided for you here: Sample Instrument Report.docxBELOW
The instruments need to be used are The Secondary Traumatic Stress Scale (STSS)
Professional Quality of Life Measure andConnor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC)
Both instruments need to be discussed
Sample Instrument Report Docx
The following instruments were used to measure the variables for each participant. Ordinal and nominal variables were coded numerically in the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences 21.0 (SPSS 21.0) before conducting any statistical analyses.
Spiritual Competency Scale. A review of the literature indicated that the Spiritual Competency Scale (SCS) is the only existing scale that measures counselor competency levels in relation to the ASERVIC Spiritual and Religious Competencies. The SCS produces an interval aggregate score along with six factored subscale scores. This study specifically used the SCS-R-II, the most recent edition of the scale.
The SCS was initially tested using a two-time administration with a sample of 18 secular schools and 10 faith-affiliated schools (Robertson, 2008). The original full scale featured 90 items, with an internal reliability of α = 0.93. Social desirability, as measured though the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale given concurrently with the SCS, had no correlation with respondent’s answers on the SCS (2008). The competency cut-off score was set at 450, though participants failed to meet this level (2008). The SCS was modified into a 22-item, six-factor instrument, SCS-R, with each factor directly relating to one of the six foci of the ASERVIC competencies (Robertson, 2010). Robertson reported internal reliability for the factor SCS at α = 0.88. The SCS-R-II, as its earlier versions, uses a modified Likert-type scale response set for presented items. All responses are scored as follows: High Disagreement: 1; Mid-range Disagreement: 2; Low Disagreement: 3; Low Agreement: 4; Mid-range Agreement: 5; and High Agreement: 6 (Robertson correspondence, 2013). The SCS-R-II retested the SCS-R using a new sample of ASERVIC members; the SCS-R-II removed one item and adjusted the aggregate competency cut-off score to 105 (Robertson correspondence, 2013). The study for this most recent version of the SCS has not yet been published.
The multiple factors of the SCS allowed for more detailed information to be gathered about counseling student competencies, with the original six factor model explaining 54% of variance in participant scores (Robertson, 2008). These six factors directly corresponded with the ASERVIC competency foci: Culture and Worldview; Diagnosis and Treatment; Assessment; Human and Spiritual Development; Counselor Self-Awareness; and Communication. The factored SCS-II-R allowed for assessment of specific areas of strength or weakness; for example, a student may demonstrate a desirable score related to Culture and Worldview, but not in the area of Diagnosis and Treatment.
Counselor Activity Self-Efficacy Scale. Self-efficacy has been found to correlate with spirituality and spiritual training (Watkins van Asselt & Senstock, 2009). Therefore, counselor self-efficacy was measured as a potential correlating in impacting spiritual competency scores. The Counselor Activity Self-Efficacy Scale (CASES) was developed by Lent, Hill, and Hoffman (2003) to assess counselors’ perceptions of their own skills. CASES served as a strong instrument for measuring self-efficacy amongst counseling students for two reasons: a) the scale detected changes over a semester, as demonstrated with changes of 0.70 to 0.95 standard deviations with practicum students, and b) the scale differentiated between students of different competency levels (2003). The sensitivity of the CASES allowed for differentiation of skill levels of counseling students, for counseling experience was found by Lent et al. to correlate positively with self-efficacy. Previous studies indicated that scores were found to be stable over a two week period, particularly for students with more experience (2003).
The CASES consisted of six factors: integrating skills, exploration skills, action skills, session management, relationship conflict, and client distress. Lent et al. (2003) found a significant increase in scores on various subscales in as years of counseling experience levels increased from less than one year to one to three years experience and over three years of experience. CASES demonstrated high concurrent validity with alternate measures of self-efficacy (2003). Test-retest reliability was 0.96 for the overall CASES and a range of 0.78 to 0.94 for each of the six factors (2003).
Spiritual Well-Being Scale. A counselor’s own spirituality was found to be a predictor of spiritual competency on the SCS (Robertson, 2010). Therefore, the participants’ spirituality was accounted for as a potential correlating variable. A scale historically used in counseling research and clinical practice is the Spiritual Well-Being Scale (SWBS) developed by Ellison in 1983. The SWBS was developed to measure the subjective state of spiritual well-being, defined as a reflection of one’s spiritual health and maturity manifested by hopefulness and connection with others (Ellison, 1983). Ellison theorized that two constructs contributed to spiritual health: religious and existential well-being, as determined by the two separate subscales of Existential Well-Being (EWB) and Religious Well-Being (RWB). The SWBS identified existential well-being as a sense of purpose and satisfaction in life, while religious well-being spoke to the individual’s relationship with God or a higher power (Ellison, 1983).
The SWBS was a 20-item Likert-type scale with choices ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree (Paloutzian & Ellison, 2009). Scores can be categorized into low, moderate, and high for the overall SWBS as well as subscales (2009). A score between 20 to 40 would indicate low overall spiritual well-being, while a score of 41 to 99 and 100 to 120 indicate moderate and high spiritual well-being, respectively (2009). Within the subscales, a score between 10 and 20 indicates dissatisfaction with relationship with God (RWB) or dissatisfaction with life and uncertainty about purpose (EWB), while a score of 21 to 49 indicates moderate satisfaction and a score between 50 and 60 indicates high satisfaction (2009).
A norm group was featured within the test manual for interpretation of scores. Test-retest reliability has ranged from 0.82 to 0.99 for the composite scale, 0.96 for the RWB, and 0.86 for the EWB (Gill, et al., 2011; Paloutzian & Ellison, 2009; Schoenrade, 1992; Stanard, et al., 2000). Concurrent validity has been demonstrated with scales such as the Intrinsic Religious Orientation and the UCLA Loneliness Scale (Frame, 2003; Genia, 2001; Gill, et al., 2011; Paloutzian & Ellison, 2009; Schoenrade, 1992; Stanard, et al., 2000).
One disadvantage to the SWBS was a documented ceiling effect (Genia, 2001) that limited the ability of the SWBS to discriminate amongst individuals of high SWBS. The RWB subscale does refer to a concept of “God” within the assessment tool, thereby possibly impacting the answers of individuals who do not ascribe to that construct. These disadvantages were not anticipated to significantly impact this study, as this study was not seeking to differentiate between individuals of high SWBS.
Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.
You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.Read more
Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.Read more
Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.Read more
Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.Read more
By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.Read more