Victor L. Whiteman

Development of the Rational Behavior Inventory: Initial Validity and Reliability:

The purpose of the study was to develop a brief and efficient instrument for assessment, treatment planning, and evaluation of clients by counselors who use Rational Emotive Therapy (RET). Subjects were 235 undergraduate students. Eleven Guttman scales were developed following factor analysis. Each factor is measured by a Guttman scale with a coefficient of reproducibility of 0.90 or greater and with a coefficient of scalability of 0.60. Pre- and posttest scores were obtained for 40 mental health professionals attending an all-day workshop on RET. Over-all test scores were significantly different at the 0.025 level in the predicted direction. There was also a significant difference in the predicted direction between pretest scores of the professionals and the college students. In another study, 87 professionals attending a two day workshop on RET were tested before and after the workshop. There were significant differences in the predicted direction at the 0.025 level or beyond for the overall test scores and for scores on 10 of the 11 subfactors. Data on sex differences for the three groups tested are also presented.

Validation Testing of the Rational Behavior Inventory

Two hundred twenty-two students at Michigan State University completed a questionnaire including the Rational Behavior Inventory (RBI), the Srole Anomia scale, Lanes Authoritarianism scale, a ten-item Dogmatism scale, and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale— each of the last four scales having been described by Robinson and Shaver (1969). Students in this stratified sample were randomly selected from the student telephone directory. The validity of the RBI was examined by testing hypothesized relationships between scores on the RBI and scores on each of the other four personality measures, class standing, and age. Support for the validity of the RBI was indicated by significant associations in the predicted direction between the RBI index and each of the four personality measures. Ten of the eleven factors of the RBI were correlated significantly in the predicted direction with two or more of these personality measures. The correlations between the RBI index and age and between the RBI index and class standing of the respondents were in the predicted direction, but not statistically significant.

Development of an Australian Version of the Rational Behavior Inventory

An Australian version of the Rational Behavior Inventory was developed by modifying 10 of the 37 scale items. Validity of the Australian version was supported by zero-order correlations in the predicted direction between scores on the inventory and on tests of self-esteem, dogmatism, and anomia for a sample of 74 Australian students in social work. The Australian version had a reliability of .70 as measured by Cronbachs alpha and coefficients of reproducibility which averaged .90 for the 11 factors in the index. No significant differences were found between the mean scores of Australian and U. S. students in social work on the Australian test or between the U. S. students on the Australian test and a sample of 47 students at Michigan State University on the original version, supporting the comparability of the tests in terms of level of scoring.

Correlations between standard English and dialectical Spanish versions of five personality scales.

Although there have been increased attempts to provide bilingual, bicultural mental health services to Spanish-speaking residents of major Southwestern cities, little effort has been directed toward the development and testing of Spanish versions of easily administered personality scales for use in assessment, treatment, and evaluation. The Spanish versions of the five tests were developed for use as a part of a project involving native Spanish-speaking clients at the Austin Child Guidance Clinic. Tests selected for the project included the Rational Behavior Inventory that provides an index of rational beliefs based on 37 items scored on a five-point Likert scale (2, 3, 4) . Other scales included a five-item Anomia scale developed by Srole; a 10-item Self-esteem scale developed by Rosenberg; a 10-item Dogmatism scale developed by Schulze; and a 4-item Authoritarianism scale developed by Lane ( 1 ) . A preliminary version of each scale was developed by integrating independently developed stimulus items constructed by rwo native bilingual social work students of Mexican descent. The preliminary items were then independently reviewed by two native bilingual social workers of Mexican descent for choice of words, sentence construction, and verbal flow. The final items were then selected jointly by the social work professionals. Thirty-two native bilingual students of Mexican descent from four sections of a lower division Mexican American studies class at the University of Texas at Austin completed both the Spanish and English versions of the test. Half of the students first complered the English version followed by the Spanish version of the test, and the others completed the test in the opposite order. Correlation coefficients computed for the English and Spanish versions of each test were all significant ( p < .DO1 ) . Values of the correlations included: Rational Behavior Inventory (.93 ) , Self-esteem scale ( .91), Anomia scale (.97 ) , Authoritarianism scale (.77), and the Dogmatism scale ( .88). Differences between the means of the English and Spanish versions of all five tests were analyzed using t test. Means and standard deviations for the English and Spanish versions, respectively, were: Rational Behavior Inventory (22.78 and 5.33; 23.34 and 5.63), Self-esteem scale (8.08 and 2.20; 7.83 and 2.41), Anomia scale (2.31 and 1.51; 2.17 and 1.47), Authoritarianism scale (2.00 and 1.16; 1.93 and 1.24), and Dogmatism scale (4.69 and 1.89; 4.86 and 2.10). A significant difference between mean scores was found only for the Anomia scale ( p < .05). The difference between the mean scores on the English and Spanish versions of the Anomia scale were small but significant; SDs were small. These results provide preliminary support for use of the Spanish dialectical versions of the four scales.

Development of the Ego and Discomfort Anxiety Inventory: Initial Validity and Reliability

This article reports on four studies regarding the development, reliability, and validity of scales to measure two forms of anxiety, ego anxiety and discomfort anxiety. In the first study 140 undergraduates completed fourteen items related to ego anxiety and discomfort anxiety, as well as the Self-esteem Scale, the IPAT Anxiety Scale, and the Hopelessness Scale. Principal component analyses produced two factors, each with five items that showed differentiation between ego anxiety and discomfort anxiety. Guttman scales were developed from the items in the two factors. The resulting Ego Anxiety Scale had a coefficient of reproducibility of .94, a coefficient of scalability of .67 and estimated scale reliability of .84. The Discomfort Anxiety Scale had a coefficient of reproducibility of .91, a coefficient of scalability of .65 and estimated scale reliability of .83. Significant relationships were found between the scores on the two anxiety scales and scores on the Self-esteem Scale and the IPAT. Correlations between scores on the new anxiety scales and scores on the Hopelessness Scale were not significant. In the second study, undergraduates completed the Ego and Discomfort Anxiety Scales, the Self-esteem Scale, the IPAT Anxiety Scale, and the Hopelessness Scale. The reliability of the Ego Anxiety Scale (0.77) and the Discomfort Anxiety Scale (0.85) was estimated using Cronbachs alpha measure. t tests for scores of independent samples for students in Studies I and II were completed for scores on the Ego and Discomfort Anxiety Scales, Self-esteem Scale, IPAT Anxiety Scale, and Hopelessness Scale. None of these test comparisons were significant. The data from Studies I and II were pooled to provide tentative normative data for the Ego and Discomfort Anxiety Scales. The third study explored the reliability and validity of the new scales, testing 79 undergraduates who completed the Ego and Discomfort Anxiety Scales, the Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale, and the Problem Solving Inventory. The reliability coefficients of the Ego Anxiety Scale and Discomfort Anxiety Scale were 0.75 and 0.82, respectively. The differences between the combined scores of subjects in Studies I and II and the scores of subjects in the third study on the Ego and the Discomfort Anxiety Scale were not significant. A significant positive correlation, however, was found between scores on the Ego Anxiety Scale and scores on the Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale. Significant negative correlations were found between scores on the Discomfort Anxiety Scale and Problem-solving Confidence and Perception of Personal Control factors of the Problem Solving Inventory. The final study explored the construct validity of the Ego Anxiety Scale and the Discomfort Anxiety Scale by comparing scores of the tentative normative sample of subjects with scores of a sample of 187 chemically dependent clients receiving treatment at a residential treatment center. Reliabilities of the Ego Anxiety Scale and the Discomfort Anxiety Scale for the sample of chemically dependent subjects were 0.78 and 0.87, respectively. t tests were carried out between scores of the control sample and scores of the chemically dependent subjects on the Ego and Discomfort Anxiety Scales. A significant difference in the predicted direction (<.001) was found between scores for the two groups on the Discomfort Anxiety Scale. There was no significant difference between groups in scores on the Ego Anxiety Scale.

Reliability and validity of the Ego and Discomfort Anxiety Inventory.

This article reports significant test-retest reliability scores for the Ego and Discomfort Anxiety Inventory. Positive significant correlations with the Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale supported the construct validity of the Ego Anxiety Scale. Positive significant correlations with the Costello-Comrey Anxiety Scale supported the construct validity of the Discomfort Anxiety Scale. The sample included 28 graduate social work students in a research methods class and 28 undergraduate students in an introductory social work class at Michigan State University.

The Development and Validation of the Macro-Practice Social Work Knowledge Test:

The purpose of the study was to construct and to provide initial evidence of reliability and of content and concurrent validity for the Macro-Practice Social Work Knowledge Test which measures cognitive learning of Social Work students in the subject areas of policy, administration, research, and evaluation. The total (the Allitem) scale which measures overall knowledge in these areas was divided into subscales representing policy-administration and research-evaluation. The Allitem scale was also divided into subscales measuring recall of factual knowledge and knowledge of more complex cognitive processes. Test items were administered to 80 Master of Social Work students at Michigan State University. The five scales exhibited Cronbach alpha coefficients ranging from.73 to .85, and a mean index of discrimination ranging from 24 to 28. Initial supporting evidence for the validity of the test is reported.