John Roodenburg Krongold Centre, Faculty of Education Monash University, Victoria 3800 Australia Esther M.

Transcription

1 John Roodenburg Krongold Centre, Faculty of Education Monash University, Victoria 3800 Australia Esther M. Roodenburg Institute for Human Development and Counselling, Faculty of Education Monash University, Victoria 3800 Australia

2 Function of the modern world Practitioners: predictive validity Empiricism run rampant-need to ask the JSM why is this so? theoretical explanation An Individual Difference... A Disposition? Curry s Onion A reflection of underlying innate individual difference...some sort of trait? Not sufficiently explained by personality... Not enough ability either... IF there s more than personality traits and abilities...is there a Third Player in IDs/dispositions?

3 MBTI serendipitous demographic profiles Psychometrically problematic What does MBTI measure? Personality? Jung s Psychological type Cognitive Style Does MBTI give us a clue as to the traits that underlie occupational interests as being CS?

4 A conflation of abilities and personality Style a moderator on Abilities -> Personality? Problems with a plethora of CS constructs Ability type measures Maximal performance Personality type measures Questionnaire/Opinion Polling Pursuing a personality type model Psycholexical method well established in Py research

5 690 secondary teachers Brainstorm (staff meeting focus groups) - fit the stem sentence the student s style of thinking is <XXX> responses adjectives 99 key words balanced comprehensive set Avoiding bloated specificity and construct underrepresentation Macquarie Thesaurus Expert panel psychs

6 622 secondary teachers (16 schools) 9 point rating scale 2 different individuals well known Split at random: Calibration sample 572 responses Replication sample: 573 responses (set aside) Acquiescence removed Acquiescence and Social Desirability removed Calibration Sample A & SD removed used for model building

7 Calibration Sample A & SD sample Model Building NOT questionnaire construction Remember set of evenly distributed adjectives, ie already higher order Extensive exploration for optimum number of Principal Components supporting six correlated factors Scree Plot, Eigenvalue, Parallel Analysis, PSPwin Autoscree, Velicer s Map, and Amor s Theta as well as interpretability of the various solutions Single factor Congeneric Modeling Optimize factorial homogeneity

8 1. Surgency, social-verbal 2. Creative 3. Controlled 4. Intuitive 5. Freethinking (narrow) 6. Sensate

9 The six factor model was confirmed using EQS to build a structural model where all factors were allowed to correlate. 3models: 1. Without soc desirability nice fit 2. With social desirability inadequate fit 3. Nested factor model (NB NOT hierarchically related nested model) nice fit

10

11 Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) predictive fit; Satora-Bentler Normed Chi-square; ( SB NC ) is included as a relative best fit indicator; Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) comparison of fit between non-nested (Kline, 2005; Schumacker & Lomax, 1996)

12

13 Different methods should form confirmatory clusters... A series of various representations were considered, including 3D modelling and cluster analysis...

14

15 Dendrogram of hierarchical cluster analysis using Wards method with residualised calibration data and the 21 optimally unipolar variables only. N= 572. All labels in italics and colouring added; factor numbering taken exploratory PCs.

16 The psycholexical approach developed by Hofstee et al involves plotting the loadings of all items on a two factor orthogonal principal components solution as coordinates in a circumplex representation F6 C+B scientific technical C rigid narrow 120 F Circumplex 1 vs B+ 0.3 plodding 0.4 careful F lateral persuasive B-A+ 330 imaginative confident alternative A+ creative conceptual questioning energetic verbal abstract erratic positive F openminded artistic A+B+ 240 F7? F F3

17 Then, simplification involves projecting the points out to their relative positions on the circumference Objective Sensate Narrow Intuitive Creative Subjective Humanities Controlled

18 Model comparison in the absence of a refined instrument

19 Thinking styles matching occupational interests Realistic Sensate F6 Investigative Intuitive F4 Artistic Creative F2 Social Conventional Narrow F5 Subjective Humanities F1 Enterprising Controlled F3