{"title":"Face, Construct and Criterion Validity, and Test-Retest Reliability, of the Adult Rejection Sensitivity Questionnaire","authors":"Mandira Mishra, Mark S. Allen","doi":"10.1027/1015-5759/a000782","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract: This research sought to test the face, construct and criterion validity, and test-retest reliability of the Adult Rejection Sensitivity Questionnaire (ARSQ). In Study 1, participants ( n = 45) completed the ARSQ and questions assessing scale item relevancy, clarity, difficulty, and sensitivity. In Study 2, participants ( n = 513) completed the ARSQ and demographic questions. In Study 3, participants ( n = 244) completed the ARSQ and returned 2 weeks later to complete the ARSQ and measures of depression, anxiety, and self-silencing behavior. Study 1 provided strong support for face validity with all items deemed relevant, clear, easy to answer, and neither distressing nor judgmental. Study 2 provided adequate support for the factor structure of the ARSQ (single-factor model and two-factor model) but suggested modifications could be made to improve scale validity. Study 3 provided further support for an adequate (but not good) factor structure, and evidence for criterion validity established through medium-large effect size correlations with depression, anxiety, and self-silencing behavior. However, the 2-week scale stability appeared poor ( r = .45) in a subsample of participants. Overall, the ARSQ showed sufficient validity to recommend its continued use, but we recommend further tests of scale reliability and potential modifications to increase construct validity.","PeriodicalId":48018,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Psychological Assessment","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Psychological Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000782","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Abstract: This research sought to test the face, construct and criterion validity, and test-retest reliability of the Adult Rejection Sensitivity Questionnaire (ARSQ). In Study 1, participants ( n = 45) completed the ARSQ and questions assessing scale item relevancy, clarity, difficulty, and sensitivity. In Study 2, participants ( n = 513) completed the ARSQ and demographic questions. In Study 3, participants ( n = 244) completed the ARSQ and returned 2 weeks later to complete the ARSQ and measures of depression, anxiety, and self-silencing behavior. Study 1 provided strong support for face validity with all items deemed relevant, clear, easy to answer, and neither distressing nor judgmental. Study 2 provided adequate support for the factor structure of the ARSQ (single-factor model and two-factor model) but suggested modifications could be made to improve scale validity. Study 3 provided further support for an adequate (but not good) factor structure, and evidence for criterion validity established through medium-large effect size correlations with depression, anxiety, and self-silencing behavior. However, the 2-week scale stability appeared poor ( r = .45) in a subsample of participants. Overall, the ARSQ showed sufficient validity to recommend its continued use, but we recommend further tests of scale reliability and potential modifications to increase construct validity.
期刊介绍:
The main purpose of the EJPA is to present important articles which provide seminal information on both theoretical and applied developments in this field. Articles reporting the construction of new measures or an advancement of an existing measure are given priority. The journal is directed to practitioners as well as to academicians: The conviction of its editors is that the discipline of psychological assessment should, necessarily and firmly, be attached to the roots of psychological science, while going deeply into all the consequences of its applied, practice-oriented development.