psych

Part A

Minimum 300 words, APA format, must have in-text citation and references.

The Self-Statements During Public Speaking (SSPS) scale is a 10-item questionnaire consisting of two 5-item subscales, the “Positive Self-Statements” (SSPS-P) and the “Negative Self-Statements” subscale (SSPS-N). Four studies were conducted to report on the development and the preliminary psychometric properties of this instrument.  Please read the article    An Instrument to Assess Self-Statements During Public Speaking: Scale Development and Preliminary Psychometric Properties  and answer the following questions: 

· This is a VERY brief scale with only 5 items associated with each subscale.  How did the authors of the assessment select the most appropriate items for the subscales? 

· Compare and discuss the samples used for the pilot studies. Do you think these samples were large enough? Representative enough? 

· Based upon the information provided regarding the three pilot studies, do you feel that the authors have created a valid and reliable scale to assess fearful thoughts experienced during public speaking? 

· Be sure to include references to scholarly sources in your discussion.

Part B

Please provide discussion responses for 1 and 2.

Minimum 150 words for each responses, APA Format, must have in-text citation and references

Response 1

Hofmann and DiBartolo (2000) developed a 10 question self-report survey to determine how one feels when engaging in public speaking. Those ten questions assess two subscales based on five questions each. To arrive at the ten questions survey, the authors first used the SISST survey as a starting point because that survey is psychometrically sound. With the first draft of results from a 30 items survey, the authors removed items with low item validity to improve internal consistency. The authors then removed items with low factor loading to enhance the factor analytic validity. After evaluating the first set of results, Hofmann and DiBartolo (2000) deleted four questions from the 30 items survey. Next, principal component analysis and VARIMAX rotation were conducted, which brought the survey to 10 questions that had acceptable psychometrical properties.

The samples used to generate the results lack generalizability. The first sample contained only younger undergraduate students, which does not tell us how older or non-college students would perform. The first sample was also nearly 80% Caucasian. Therefore, we would need more participants to better generalize to other race/ethnic groups. For the second study, the authors analyzed data from only women who were in college and predominately Caucasian. This sample can not be generalized to represent other groups. The third group contained a limited number of participants who were diagnosed with social phobic, which can negatively affect how the assessment relates to other groups.

Overall, I think the authors did a good job at creating a valid and reliable scale. The authors did the due diligence of revising the test with the samples they were able to recruit, which Miller and Lovler (2020) noted is critical. The authors often used several statistical methods to properly estimate the validity and reliability of the survey. I think the survey would now just need more and diverse samples to enhance generalizability. References Miller, L., & Lovler, R. (2020). Foundations of psychological testing: A practical approach (6th Edition). SAGE.

Response 2

Compare and discuss the samples used for the pilot studies. Study 1: just about half of this sample was female, which was appropriate. The age range was 17-23 years old, which on a college campus encompasses just about every age group. And 78% of the sample was Caucasian, which did not demonstrate the appropriate amount of diversity (Hofmann & DiBartolo, pp. 3). In this study, the sample was made up of 100 undergraduate students, which I think is a very small pool of students from this group, so it may not be entirely representative. In study 2, there were 201 participants from a women’s college, ages 17-46, and 76% of whom were Caucasian. Because the sample was from a women’s college, it was to be assumed that there would be no male representatives. I think that the age gap was extremely inclusive and probably brought some variety to the responses, but again, the ethnicity of the sample was majorly Caucasian, which takes away from the diversity of the sample, and in turn the responses (Hofmann & DiBartolo, pp.5). For study three, I thought that the sample pool was fairly inclusive. Aside from the race of the population being primarily Caucasian, the sample had a large range of age, gender, and diagnosis (Hofmann & DiBartolo, pp. 6). Based upon the information provided regarding the three pilot studies, do you feel that the authors have created a valid and reliable scale to assess fearful thoughts experienced during public speaking? Overall, I believe that the studies lacked some reliability. The sample sizes and populations were not broad enough to create generalizations. The course textbook emphasizes how important it is to adjust surveys or exams appropriately according to who is taking them (Miller & Lovler, 2020). To their credit, the creators of the surveys did this. And I believe that the test validity was high because of what it was being used for. References Hofmann, S., & DiBartolo, P. (2000). “An Instrument to Assess Self-Statements During Public Speaking: Scale Development and Preliminary Psychometric Properties.” Behavior Therapy, vol. 31, no.3. Miller, L., & Lovler, R. (2020). Foundations of psychological testing: A practical approach (6th Edition.) Sage.