ISEL-12
Interpersonal Support Evaluation List (ISEL)
Instructions: This scale is made up of a list of statements each of which may or may not be true about you. For each statement circle "definitely true" if you are sure it is true about you and "probably true" if you think it is true but are not absolutely certain. Similarly‚ you should circle "definitely false" if you are sure the statement is false and "probably false" if you think it is false but are not absolutely certain.

1. If I wanted to go on a trip for a day (for example‚ to the country or mountains)‚ I would have a hard time finding someone to go with me.

1. definitely false
2. probably false
3. probably true
4. definitely true

2. I feel that there is no one I can share my most private worries and fears with.

1. definitely false
2. probably false
3. probably true
4. definitely true

3. If I were sick‚ I could easily find someone to help me with my daily chores.

1. definitely false
2. probably false
3. probably true
4. definitely true

4. There is someone I can turn to for advice about handling problems with my family.

1. definitely false
2. probably false
3. probably true
4. definitely true

5. If I decide one afternoon that I would like to go to a movie that evening‚ I could easily find someone to go with me.

1. definitely false
2. probably false
3. probably true
4. definitely true

6. When I need suggestions on how to deal with a personal problem‚ I know someone I can turn to.

1. definitely false
2. probably false
3. probably true
4. definitely true

7. I don't often get invited to do things with others.

1. definitely false
2. probably false
3. probably true
4. definitely true

8. If I had to go out of town for a few weeks‚ it would be difficult to find someone who would look after my house or apartment (the plants‚ pets‚ garden‚ etc.).

1. definitely false
2. probably false
3. probably true
4. definitely true

9. If I wanted to have lunch with someone‚ I could easily find someone to join me.

1. definitely false
2. probably false
3. probably true
4. definitely true

10. If I was stranded 10 miles from home‚ there is someone I could call who could come and get me.

1. definitely false
2. probably false
3. probably true
4. definitely true

11. If a family crisis arose‚ it would be difficult to find someone who could give me good advice about how to handle it.

1. definitely false
2. probably false
3. probably true
4. definitely true

12. If I needed some help in moving to a new house or apartment‚ I would have a hard time finding someone to help me.

1. definitely false
2. probably false
3. probably true
4. definitely true

Primary Reference:
Cohen‚ S.‚ Memelstein‚ R.‚ Kamarck‚ T.‚ & Hoberman‚ H. (1985). Measuring the functional components of social support. In I.G. Sarason & B. Sarason (Eds.)‚ Social support: Theory‚ research and application (pp.73-94). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
Type of Measure: Modified. Original scale consists of 40 items (ten items in each of the four sub-cales measuring separate aspects of social support). The modified version includes only three sub-scales (the self-esteem sub-scale was excluded because it overlaps with the self-esteem measure) and only four highest-loading items for each sub-scale.
Purpose: To assess perceived availability of four types of social support (appraisal‚ belonging‚ self-esteem‚ and tangible). Availability of social support has been linked to reduced mortality (Rosenberg‚ Orth-Gomer‚ Wedel‚ & Wilhemsen‚ 1993) and improved psychological state (Cohen & Wills‚ 1985).
Description: Respondents indicate the extent to which sentences describing availability of different types of social support in their lives are true or false. No time frame or referent period is used.
Scaling: 0 = Definitely False; 1 = Probably False; 2 = Probably True; 3 = Definitely True
# items: 12
Sample items: “If I were sick‚ I could easily find someone to help me with me daily chores.” (Tangible) “I don’t often get invited to do things with others.” (Reversed; belonging) “When I need suggestions on how to deal with a personal problem‚ I know someone I can turn to.” (Appraisal)
Psychometrics:
Reliability: undergraduate students‚ alpha = .77 - .86 general population‚ alpha = .88 - .90
Validity: Correlates positively with other support scales (Inventory of Socially Supportive Behaviors)‚ with number of close friends‚ and with the measure of the quality of marital relationships (Partner Adjustment Scale). The sub-scales are also associated in the predicted direction with related trait measures: self-esteem subscales correlates with self-esteem measure whereas appraisal subscale correlates with self-disclosure measure.
ISEL 12 scoring
We are currently using a shorter version of the ISEL consisting of 3 subscales with 4 items in each. Please see the subscales below. To score‚ sum across all items (reverse- code items 1‚ 2‚ 7‚ 8‚ 11‚ 12).
Appraisal: item numbers 2‚ 4‚ 6‚ 11
Belonging: item numbers 1‚ 5‚ 7‚ 9
Tangible: item numbers 3‚ 8‚ 10‚ 12
Scoring:
Reversed Items: 1‚ 2‚ 7‚ 8‚ 11‚ 12
Appraisal Subscale: Sum items: 2R‚ 4‚ 6‚ 11R
Belonging Subscale: Sum items: 1R‚ 5‚ 7R‚ 9
Tangible Subscale: Sum items: 3‚ 8R‚ 10‚ 12R
Overall Support: Sum of 3 Subscales

Generative Behavior Checklist (GBC)


Generativity is a complex psychosocial construct that can be expressed through societal demand‚ inner desires‚ conscious concerns‚ beliefs‚ commitments‚ behaviors‚ and the overall way in which an adult makes narrative sense of his or her life. Researchers at the Foley Center have designed a number of measures for assessing individual differences in generativity among adults. Included among these are thematic coding schemes for assessing generative imagery in (a) reports of personal goals or strivings and (b) narrative accounts of significant autobiogrpaphical scenes. The two most commonly used measures‚ however‚ are self-report questionnaires -‎- the Loyola Generativity Scale (LGS) and the Generative Behavior Checklist (GBC).
[Download as PDF]

Information concerning the construction and validation of the LGS and GBC can be found in:
  • McAdams‚ D.P.‚ & de St. Aubin‚ E. (1992). A theory of generativity and its assessment through self-report‚ behavioral acts‚ and narrative themes in autobiography. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology‚ 62‚ 1003-1015
  • McAdams‚ D.P.‚ Hart‚ H.M.‚ & Maruna‚ S. (1998). The anatomy of generativity. In D.P. McAdams and E. de St. Aubin (Eds.)‚ Generativity and adult development: How and why we care for the next generation (pp. 7-43). Washington‚ D.C.: APA Press.
See also: [Scoring the GBC]

Instructions
Below is a list of specific behaviors or acts. Over the past two months‚ it is likely that you may have performed some of these behaviors. It is also likely that you have not performed many of them as well during this time. Please consider each behavior to determine whether or not you have performed the behavior during the past two months. If you have performed the behavior‚ please try to determine how many times you have performed it during the past two months. For each behavior‚ provide one of the following ratings:  

Write a "0" in the blank before the behavior if you have not performed the behavior during the past two months.
Write a "1" in the blank if you have performed the behavior one time during the past two months. 
Write a "2" in the blank if you have performed the behavior more than once during the past two months.

____1. Taught somebody a skill.
____2. Served as a role model for a young person.
____3. Won an award or contest.
____4. Went to see a movie or play.
____5. Gave money to a ch‎arity.
____6. Did volunteer work for a ch‎arity.
____7. Listened to a person tell me his or her personal problems.
____8. Purchased a new car or major appliance (e.g.‚ dishwasher‚ television set).
____9. Taught Sunday School or provided similar religious instruction.
____10. Taught somebody about right and wrong‚ good and bad.
____11. Told somebody about my own childhood.
____12. Read a story to a child.
____13. Babysat for somebody else's children.
____14. Participated in an athletic sport.
____15. Gave clothing or personal belongings to a not-for-profit organization (such as the "Good Will‚" "Salvation Army‚" etc.).
____16. Was elected or promoted to a leadership position.
____17. Made a decision that influenced many people.
____18. Ate dinner at a restaurant.
____19. Produced a piece of art or craft (such as pottery‚ quilt‚ woodwork‚ painting‚ etc).
____20. Produced a plan for an organization or group outside my own family.
____21. Visited a nonrelative in a hospital or nursing home.
____22. Read a novel.
____23. Made something for somebody and then gave it to them.
____24. Drew upon my past experiences to help a person adjust to a situation.
____25. Picked up garbage or trash off the street or some other area that is not my property.
____26. Gave a stranger directions on how to get somewhere.
____27. Attended a community or neighborhood meeting.
____28. Wrote a poem or story.
____29. Took in a pet.
____30. Did something that other people considered to be unique and important.
____31. Attended a meeting or activity at a church (not including conventional worship service such as Mass‚ Sunday morning service‚ etc.).
____32. Offered physical help to a friend or acquaintance (e.g.‚ helped them move‚ fix a car‚ etc.).
____33. Had an argument with a friend or family member.
____34. Contributed time or money to a political or social cause.
____35. Planted or tended a garden‚ tree‚ flower‚ or other plant.
____36. Wrote a letter to a newspaper‚ magazine‚ Congressman‚ etc. about a social issue.
____37. Cooked a meal for friends (nonfamily members).
____38. Donated blood.
____39. Took prescription medicine.
____40. Sewed or mended a garment or other object.
____41. Restored or rehabbed a house‚ part of a house‚ a piece of furniture‚ etc.
____42. Assembled or repaired a child's toy.
____43. Voted for a political candidate or some other elected position.
____44. Invented something.
____45. Provided first aid or other medical attention.
____46. Attended a party.
____47. Took an afternoon nap.
____48. Participated in or attended a benefit or fund-raiser.
____49. Learned a new skill (e.g.‚ computer language‚ musical instrument‚ welding‚ etc.).
____50. Became a parent (had a child‚ adopted a child‚ or became a foster parent).
School of Education and Social Policy 2120 Campus Drive Evanston‚ IL 60208
Phone: 847-491-8193 E-mail:
این آدرس ایمیل توسط spambots حفاظت می شود. برای دیدن شما نیاز به جاوا اسکریپت دارید
©2009
Northwestern University

ARSI (PERSIAN)
Here are a number of personality traits that may or may not apply to you. Please write a number next to each statement to indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with that statement. You should rate the extent to which the pair of traits applies to you‚ even if one ch‎aracteristic applies more strongly than the other.
1 = Disagree strongly
2 = Disagree moderately
3 = Disagree a little
4 = Neither agree nor disagree
5 = Agree a little
6 = Agree moderately
7 = Agree strongly
I see myself as:
1. _____ Extraverted‚ enthusiastic.
2. _____ Critical‚ quarrelsome.
3. _____ Dependable‚ self-disciplined.
4. _____ Anxious‚ easily upset.
5. _____ Open to new experiences‚ complex.
6. _____ Reserved‚ quiet.
7. _____ Sympathetic‚ warm.
8. _____ Disorganized‚ careless.
9. _____ Calm‚ emotionally stable.
10. _____ Conventional‚ uncreative.
________________________________________________________________
TIPI scale scoring (“R” denotes reverse-scored items):
Extraversion: 1‚ 6R; Agreeableness: 2R‚ 7; Conscientiousness; 3‚ 8R; Emotional Stability: 4R‚ 9; Openness to Experiences: 5‚ 10R.

Attachment Style Measure
In a similar vein to Collins & Read (1990)‚ Simpson (1990) measured attachment using 13 self-report items‚ each of which was decomposed from the three prototypical descriptions in the Adult Attachment Questionnaire. Each item was scored using a seven item Likert-type scale that ranged from 'strongly agree' to 'strongly disagree'. Three of the items were reworded in a negative directions and minor changes to some of the wordings were introduced. The 13 items used (and the AAQ description from which they were taken) were as follows:
  1. I find it relatively easy to get close to others (S)
  2. I'm not very comfortable ha‎ving to depend on other people (S)
  3. I'm comfortable ha‎ving other depend on me (S)
  4. I rarely worry about being abandoned by others (S)
  5. I don't like people getting too close to me (S)
  6. I'm somewhat uncomfortable being too close to others (Av)
  7. I find it difficult to trust others completely (Av)
  8. I'm nervous whenever anyone gets too close to me (Av)
  9. Others often want me to be more intimate than I am comfortable being (Av)
  10. Others often are reluctant to get as close as I would like (Ax)
  11. I often worry that my partner(s) don't really love me (Ax)
  12. I rarely worry about my partner(s) leaving me (Ax)
  13. I often want to merge completely with others‚ and this desire sometimes scares them away (Ax)
Note:  (S) = Secure‚  (Av) = Avoidant‚ (Ax) = Anxious/Ambivalent
Rather than conducting a factor analysis‚ Simpson used the attachment style descriptions from which the items had been taken as his basic dimensions.  Internal validity was calculated using Cronbach's Alpha and found to be relatively good for the avoidant dimension (alpha = 0.79) but poor for the secure (alpha = 0.51) and anxious/ambivalent (alpha = 0.59) dimensions.
Simpson experimented with different conceptions of attachment style.  Apart from correlating his results with scores from the secure‚ avoidant and anxious/ambivalent sub-scales‚ he repeated his calculations using two dimensions (avoidant and anxious) and with scores reduced to three simple‚ descrete categories (classification as secure‚ avoidant and anxious/ambivalent). He found the general pattern of findings was the same‚ regardless of how attachment style was handled.
Note that the internal validity scores for the secure and anxious/ambivalent dimensions were not good and this measure has been criticised for being based on dimensions that were chosen for conventional‚ rather than empirical reasons (Carver1997).
http://www.rich‎ardatkins.co.uk/atws/page/44.html

Multidimensional Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale:
Introduction and Rationale
MSLSS Items

 

Family
I enjoy being at home with my family.
My family gets along well together.
I like spending time with my parents.
My parents and I doing fun things together.
My family is better than most.
Members of my family talk nicely to one another.
My parents treat me fairly.
Friends
My friends treat me well.
My friends are nice to me.
I wish I had different friends.*
My friends are mean to me.*
My friends are great
I have a bad time with my friends.*
I have a lot of fun with my friends.
I have enough friends.
My friends will help me if I need it.
School
I look forward to going to school.
I like being in school.
School is interesting.
I wish I didn’t have to go to school.*
There are many things about school I don’t like.*
I enjoy school activities.
I learn a lot at school.
I feel bad at school.*
Living Environment
I like where I live.
I wish there were different people in my neighborhood.*
I wish I lived in a different house.*
I wish I lived somewhere else.*
I like my neighborhood.
I like my neighbors.
This town is filled with mean people.*
My family’s house is nice.
There are lots of fun things to do where I live.
Self
I think I am good looking.
I am fun to be around.
I am a nice person.
Most people like me.
There are lots of things I can do well.
I like to try new things.
I like myself.

*reverse keyed items
Administration and Scoring
The 40-item MSLSS may be administered to children in groups as well as individually. The instructions for the scale are provided prior to the rest of the scale‚ with younger children‚ (grades 3-5)‚ it is recommended that the examiner read the directions aloud to the students and encourage them to ask questions as necessary. With all students‚ it is essential to monitor their responses to ensure that they respond appropriately (e.g.‚ answer all questions‚ non-random and non-biased responding). The readability of the scale is at the 1.5 grade level‚ so most students require little or no assistance in responding to the questions.
Scoring is straightforward. The four response options are assigned points as follows: (never = 1); (sometimes = 2); (often = 3); and (almost always = 4). Negatively-keyed items must be reverse scored (see pp. 3-4 for the list of negatively-keyed items). Hence‚ negatively-keyed items are scored so that almost always = 1‚ and so forth. Higher scores thus indicate higher levels of life satisfaction throughout the scale.
It should be noted that a 6-point agreement format has been used with middle and high school students (Huebner et al.‚ 1998). In this case‚ response options are assigned points as follows: (1 = strongly disagree‚ 2 = moderately disagree‚ etc.).
Because the domains consist of unequal number of items‚ the domain and total scores are made comparable by summing the item responses and dividing by the number of domain (or total) items.
Normative Data
Normative data obtained to date are available for elementary (grades 3-5) (Huebner‚ 1994)‚ middle (Huebner et al.‚ 1998)‚ and high school students (Gilman et al.‚ 2000; Greenspoon & Saklofske‚ 2997; Huebner‚ 1994; Huebner‚ Laughlin‚ Ash‚ & Gilman‚ 1997).
Reliability
Internal consistency (alpha) coefficients have been reported in various publications (Dew‚ 1996; Greenspoon & Saklofske‚ 1997; Huebner‚ 1994; Huebner‚ Laughlin‚ Ash‚ & Gilman‚ 1997). The findings suggest that the reliabilities all range from .70s to low .90s; thus they are acceptable for research purposes. Test-retest coefficients for two- and four-week time periods have also been reported (Dew‚ 1996; Huebner et al.‚ 1997; Huebner & Terry‚ 1995) falling mostly in the .70 - .90 range‚ providing further support for the reliability of the scale.
Validity
The results of exploratory factor analyses have supported the dimensionality of the MSLSS (Huebner‚ 1994). Confirmatory factor analyses have provided further support or the multidimensional‚ hierarchical model consisting of a general life satisfaction higher-order factor at the apex of the hierarchy along with five specific domains below (Gilman et al.‚ 2000; Huebner et al.‚ 1998). Findings have generalized to school age students in Canada (Greenspoon & Saklofske‚ 1997) Korea (Park‚ 2000)‚ and Spain (Casas et al.‚ 2000).
Convergent and discriminant validity have also been demonstrated through predicted correlations with other self-report well-being indexes (Dew et al.‚ 2001; Gilman et al.‚ 2000; Greenspoon & Saklofske‚ 1997; Huebner‚ 1994; Huebner et al.‚ 1998)‚ parent reports (Dew et al.‚ 2001; Gilman & Huebner‚ 1997)‚ teacher reports (Huebner & Alderman‚ 1993)‚ and social desirability scales (Huebner et al.‚ 1998). Findings of weak relationships with demographic variables (e.g.‚ age‚ gender) also fit with theoretical expectations (Huebner‚ 1994; Huebner et al.‚ 1998).
Nevertheless‚ additional validation research is needed to clarify the precise boundaries of the life satisfaction construct as well as the range of applications for particular children. For example‚ Ash and Huebner (1998) and Griffin and Huebner (2000) reported on unique aspects of the validity and usefulness of the MSLSS in the assessment of the well-being of two groups of exceptional children (i.e.‚ academically gifted and emotionally disordered middle school students). Studies of the usefulness of the MSLSS and other life satisfaction scales with other groups of children (e.g.‚ children with mental disabilities‚ ADHD) would be illuminating as well.
Permission to Use
The MSLSS is in the public domain. Researchers may use it without permission. The author welcomes any feedback regarding its usefulness.
این آدرس ایمیل توسط spambots حفاظت می شود. برای دیدن شما نیاز به جاوا اسکریپت دارید
2001 Version
Scott Huebner‚ Ph.D.
University of South Carolina
Department of Psychology
Columbia‚ SC 29208

RELATIONSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE

This section provides a brief introduction to the Relationship Questionnaire (Bartholomew & Horowitz‚ 1991) and the Relationship Scales Questionnaire (Griffin & Bartholomew‚ 1994). Readers are advised to conduct a review of the relevant literature in order to thoroughly acquaint themselves with the concept of adult attachment and the wide array of measures available to assess adult attachments in close relationships (see‚  for example‚ Phil Shaver's attachment web page . Also included in this section are answers to frequently asked questions related to the use of the Relationship Questionnaire and the Relationship Scales Questionnaire.
We want to emphasize that research papers testing the validity of the model do not rely on these self-report measures.  Specifically‚  validation results in Bartholomew & Horowitz (1991) relied on ratings obtained from the Peer Attachment Interview (PAI).   Further‚ validation of the attachment dimensions (Griffin & Bartholomew‚ 1994) are based on multiple measures of attachment including interview measures.
Self-Report Attachment Measures:
Relationship Questionnaire (RQ; Bartholomew & Horowitz‚ 1991).
The RQ is a single item measure made up of four short paragraphs‚ each describing a prototypical attachment pattern as it applies in close adult peer relationships.  Participants are asked to rate their degree of correspondence to each prototype on a 7-point scale.  An individual might rate him or herself something like: Secure 6‚ Fearful 2‚ Preoccupied 1‚ Dismissing 4.  These ratings (or "scores") provide a profile of an individual's attachment feelings and behaviour.
The RQ can either be worded in terms of general orientations to close relationships‚ orientations to romantic relationships‚ or orientations to a specific relationship (or some combination of the above). It can also be reworded in the third person and used to rate others' attachment patterns. For instance‚ we have had close same sex friends and romantic partners rate themselves and their friend or partner.
The RQ was designed to obtain continuous ratings of each of the four attachment patterns‚ and this is the ideal use of the measure. However‚ if necessary‚ the RQ can also be used to categorize participants into their best fitting attachment pattern. The highest of the four attachment prototype ratings can be used to classify participants into an attachment category. A problem arises when two or more attachment prototypes are rated equally high.  To deal with this‚ we also ask participants to choose a single‚  best fitting attachment pattern.   However‚ if they have not chosen a best fitting attachment pattern‚ the researcher can either de‎lete the participant(s) from the data set‚ or use a method of randomly (perhaps flipping a coin) se‎lecting one of the two prototypes as the attachment category.  Unfortunately‚ if there is a 3-way tie for highest rating and a best fitting attachment pattern has not been chosen‚ then there is no option but to de‎lete that participant's data. Although the RQ can be used categorically‚ we do NOT recommend doing so. A continuous approach‚ using prototypes or dimensions‚ is the best approach.
**It is important to administer BOTH the forced-choice paragraph (1st page of measure) AND the likert rating scales of the paragraphs (2nd page of measure)‚ even if you will not use the RQ categorically. Completing the forced-choice paragraph first serves as a counterbalancing effect to minimize order effects when participants rank the degree to which each prototype is self-ch‎aracterizing.

DERIVING SELF-MODEL AND OTHER-MODEL ATTACHMENT DIMENSIONS FOR THE RQ
The underlying attachment dimensions can be derived from linear combinations of the prototype ratings obtained from the RQ (or the composite attachment measure‚ see below).
Self Model - patterns ch‎aracterized by positive self models minus patterns ch‎aracterized by negative self models [i.e. (secure plus dismissing) MINUS (fearful plus preoccupied)] . If you wish your results to correspond in the same direction to the ‘anxiety’ dimension often referred to in the attachment field‚ the calculation can be reversed [i.e. (fearful plus preoccupied) MINUS (secure plus dismissing)]. In the latter calculation‚ higher scores will refer to more negative models of self.
Other Model - patterns ch‎aracterized by positive other models minus patterns ch‎aracterized by negative other models [i.e. (secure plus preoccupied) MINUS (fearful plus dismissing)].
You are encouraged to read:

Griffin‚ D.‚ & Bartholomew‚ K. (1994). Models of the self and other: Fundamental dimensions underlying measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology‚ Vol. 67‚ 430-445.
Griffin‚ D.‚  & Bartholomew‚ K. (1994).    Metaphysics of measurement:  The case of adult attachment.  In K. Bartholomew & D. Perlman (Eds.)‚ Advances in personal relationships‚ Vol. 5:  Attachment processes in adulthood (pp.17-52).  London: Jessica Kingsley.
PLEASE READ THE DIRECTIONS!
1. Following are descriptions of four general relationship styles that people often report.
Please read each description and CIRCLE the letter corresponding to the style that best describes you or is closest to the way you generally are in your close relationships.
A. It is easy for me to become emotionally close to others. I am comfortable depending on them and ha‎ving them depend on me. I don’t worry about being alone or ha‎ving others not accept me.
B. I am uncomfortable getting close to others. I want emotionally close relationships‚ but I find it difficult to trust others completely‚ or to depend on them. I worry that I will be hurt if I allow myself to become too close to others.
C. I want to be completely emotionally intimate with others‚ but I often find that others are reluctant to get as close as I would like. I am uncomfortable being without close relationships‚ but I sometimes worry that others don’t value me as much as I value them.
D. I am comfortable without close emotional relationships. It is very important to me to feel independent and self-sufficient‚ and I prefer not to depend on others or have others depend on me.

Page 2
2. Please rate each of the following relationship styles according to the extent to which you think each description corresponds to your general relationship style.
A. It is easy for me to become emotionally close to others. I am comfortable depending on them and ha‎ving them depend on me. I don’t worry about being alone or ha‎ving others not accept me.
B. I am uncomfortable getting close to others. I want emotionally close relationships‚ but I find it difficult to trust others completely‚ or to depend on them. I worry that I will be hurt if I allow myself to become too close to others.
C. I want to be completely emotionally intimate with others‚ but I often find that others are reluctant to get as close as I would like. I am uncomfortable being without close relationships‚ but I sometimes worry that others don’t value me as much as I value them.
D. I am comfortable without close emotional relationships‚ It is very important to me to feel independent and self-sufficient‚ and I prefer not to depend on others or have others depend on me.

Not at all
like me
Somewhat
like me
Very much
like me
Style A.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Style B.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Style C.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Style D.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

http://www.sfu.ca/psyc/faculty/bartholomew/s

Measure of Attachment Qualities
Carver (1997) published a paper describing four studies which had used his Measure of Attachment Qualities (MAQ).  This measure consists of 14 items‚ some of which were newly written but most of which were derived from earlier measures (AAS and ASM) both of which had‚ in turn‚ been based on decompositions of the prototypes in the Adult Attachment Questionnaire.  Each item was scored on a four-point Likert-type scale with items ranging from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree" with no neutral item.
The following list shows the items of the MAQ instrument grouped by the factor on which they most strongly loaded and followed by a prefix which indicates the Adult Attachment Questionnaire (AAQ) description from which the item was derived.
Avoidance
  • I get uncomfortable when someone wants to be very close (Av)
  • I find it easy to be close to others (S) (R)
  • I prefer not to be too close to others (Av)
  • I am very comfortable being close to others (S) (R)
  • Others want me to be more intimate than I feel comfortable being (Av)
Ambivalence-Worry
  • I often worry that my partner doesn't really love me (Amb)
  • I often worry my partner will not want to stay with me (Amb)
  • I don't worry about others abandoning me (S) (R)
Ambivalence-Merger
  • I have trouble getting others to be as close as I want them to be (Amb)
  • I find others often are reluctant to get as close as I would like (Amb)
  • My desire to merge sometimes scares people away (Amb)
Security
  • When I'm close to someone it gives me a sense of comfort about life in general (S)
  • It feels relaxing and good to be close to someone (S)
  • Being close to someone gives me a source of strength for other activites (S)
Notes:
(R) = Reverse scored item
(S) = Secure‚  (Av) = Avoidant‚ (Amb) = Anxious/Ambivalent
The authors grouped the items following a factor analysis‚ using oblique rotation‚ which resulted in four factors that together  accounted for 61% of the variance.  The factors for avoidance and security that were loosely‚ inversely related.  The other two factors were interpreted from their component items as ambivalence-worry‚ representing fear of abandonment‚ and ambivalence-merger‚ which included the items indicating a desire to merge. A second-order factor analysis yielded two high-order factors that were unrelated (r = 0.03)‚ one of which distinguished between security and avoidance and the other between the two types of ambivalence.
Scores on this scale were measured against participant's classifications using a variety of other attachment measures.
Comparison with the AAQ showed largely the expected relationships.  These results were taken to confirm the presence of an underlying three factor model of attachment. Although differences between types of ambivalence were acknowledged it was noted that the ambivalence-worry scale‚ which was scored higher by avoidant than by secure subjects‚ may be tapping a general 'insecurity' aspect of attachment.
Comparison with the RQ and the RSQ was problematic. Although many of the expected relationships emerged‚ the MAQ did not clearly differentiate two styles of avoidance‚ as required in the RQ. Cluster analysis was conducted on the MAQ scores solving for both three- and four-cluster models.  Results from this lent further support for an interpretation of MAQ results in terms of a three- rather than a four-component model.
http://www.rich‎ardatkins.co.uk/atws/page/49.html

Rotter's Locus of Control Scale


1. a. Children get into trouble because their patents punish them too much.
b. The trouble with most children nowadays is that their parents are too easy with them.
2. a. Many of the unhappy things in people's lives are partly due to bad luck.
b. People's misfortunes result from the mistakes they make.
3. a. One of the major reasons why we have wars is because people don't take enough interest in politics.
b. There will always be wars‚ no matter how hard people try to prevent them.
4. a. In the long run people get the respect they deserve in this world
b. Unfortunately‚ an individual's worth often passes unrecognized no matter how hard he tries
5. a. The idea that teachers are unfair to students is nonsense.
b. Most students don't realize the extent to which their grades are influenced by accidental happenings.
6. a. Without the right breaks one cannot be an effective leader.
b. Capable people who fail to become leaders hive not taken advantage of their opportunities.
7. a. No matter how hard you try some people just don't like you.
b. People who can't get others to like them don't understand how to get along with others.
8. a. Heredity plays the major role in determining one's personality
b. It is one's experiences in life which determine what they're like.
9. a. I have often found tlint what is going to happen will happen.
b. Trusting to fate has never turned out as well for me as making a decision to take a definite course of action.
10. a. In the case of the well prepared student there is rarely if ever such.a thing as an unfair test.
b. Many times exam questions tend to be so unrelated to course work that studying in really useless.
11. a. Becoming a success is a matter of hard work‚ hick has little or nothing to do with it.
b. Getting a good job depends mainly on being in the right place at the. right time.
12. a. The average citizen can have an influence in government decisions.
b. This world is run by the few people in power‚ and there is not much the little guy can do about it.
13. a. When I make plans‚ I am almost certain that I can make them work.
b. It is not always wise to plan too far ahead because many things turn out to- be a matter of good or bad fortune anyhow.
14. a. There are certain people who are just no good.
b. There is some good in everybody.
15. a. In my case getting what I want has little or nothing to do with luck.
b. Many times we might just as well decide what to do by flipping a coin.
16. a. Who gets to be the boss often depends on who was lucky enough to be in the right place first.
b. Getting people to do the right thing depends upon ability‚ luck has little or nothing to do with it.
17. a. As far as world affairs are concerned‚ most of us are the victims of forces we can neither understand‚ nor control.
b. By taking an active part in political and social affairs the people can control world events.
18. a. Most people don't realize the extent to which their lives are controlled by accidental happenings.
b. There really is no such thing as "luck."
19. a. One should always be willing to admit mistakes.
b. It is usually best to cover up one's mistakes.
20. a. It is hard to know whether or not a person really likes you.
b. How many friends you have depends upon how nice a person you are.
21. a. In the long run the bad things that happen to us are balanced by the good ones.
b. Most misfortunes are the result of lack of ability‚ ignorance‚ laziness‚ or all three.
22. a. With enough effort we can wipe out political corruption.
b. It is difficult for people to have much control over the things politicians do in office.
23. a. Sometimes I can't understand how teachers arrive at the grades they give.
b. There is a direct connection between how hard 1 study and the grades I get.
24. a. A good leader expects people to decide for themselves what they should do.
b. A good leader makes it clear to everybody what their jobs are.
25. a. Many times 1 feel that I have little influence over the things that happen to me.
b. It is impossible for me to believe that chance or luck plays an important role in my life.
26. a. People are lonely because they don't try to be friendly.
b. There's not much use in trying too hard to please people‚ if they like you‚ they like you.
27. a. There is too much emphasis on athletics in high school.
b. Team sports are an excellent way to build ch‎aracter.
28. a. What happens to me is my own doing.
b. Sometimes I feel that I don't have enough control over the direction my life is taking.
29. a. Most of the time I can't understand why politicians behave the way they do.
b. In the long run the people are responsible for bad government on a national as well as on a local level.


Score one point for each of the following:
2.a‚ 3.b‚ 4.b‚ 5.b‚ 6.a‚ 7.a‚ 9.a‚ 10.b‚ 11.b‚ 12.b‚ 13.b‚ 15.b‚ 16.a‚ 17.a‚ 18.a‚ 20.a‚
21.a‚ 22.b‚ 23.a‚ 25.a‚ 26.b‚ 28.b‚ 29.a.
A high score = External Locus of Control
A low score = Internal Locus of Control
Locus of Control
Locus of Control refers to the extent to which individuals believe that they can control events that affect them. Individuals with a high internal locus of control believe that events result primarily from their own behavior and actions. Those with a high external locus of control believe that powerful others‚ fate‚ or chance primarily determine events. Those with a high internal locus of control have better control of their behaviour and tend to exhibit more political behaviors than externals and are more likely to attempt to influence other people; they are more likely to assume that their efforts will be successful. They are more active in seeking information and knowledge concerning their situation than do externals.The propensity to engage in political behavior is stronger for individuals who have a high internal locus of control than for those who have a high external locus of control.
http://guerin.ballarat.edu.au/ard/bssh/psych/rot.htm

Loyola Generativity Scale (LGS)

Loyal سایت روان سنجی : به نظر می رسد که کلمه مقابل درست است .
Generativity is a complex psychosocial construct that can be expressed through societal demand‚ inner desires‚ conscious concerns‚ beliefs‚ commitments‚ behaviors‚ and the overall way in which an adult makes narrative sense of his or her life.
Researchers at the Foley Center have designed a number of measures for assessing individual differences in generativity among adults. Included among these are thematic coding schemes for assessing generative imagery in (a) reports of personal goals or strivings and (b) narrative accounts of significant autobiogrpaphical scenes. The two most commonly used measures‚ however‚ are self-report questionnaires -‎- the Loyola Generativity Scale (LGS) and the
Generative Behavior Checklist (GBC).
[Download as PDF]

Information concerning the construction and validation of the LGS and GBC can be found in:
  • McAdams‚ D.P.‚ & de St. Aubin‚ E. (1992). A theory of generativity and its assessment through self-report‚ behavioral acts‚ and narrative themes in autobiography. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology‚ 62‚ 1003-1015
  • McAdams‚ D.P.‚ Hart‚ H.M.‚ & Maruna‚ S. (1998). The anatomy of generativity. In D.P. McAdams and E. de St. Aubin (Eds.)‚ Generativity and adult development: How and why we care for the next generation (pp. 7-43). Washington‚ D.C.: APA Press.
See also: [Scoring the LGS]
Instructions
For each of the following statements‚ please indicate how often the statement applies to you‚ by marking either a "0‚" "1‚" "2‚" or "3" in the space in front.
Mark "0" if the statement never applies to you.
Mark "1" if the statement only occsionally or seldom applies to you.
Mark "2" if athe statement applies to you fairly often.
Mark "3" if the statement applies to you very often or nearly always.

____1. I try to pass along the knowledge I have gained through my experiences.
____2. I do not feel that other people need me.
____3. I think I would like the work of a teacher.
____4. I feel as though I have made a difference to many people.
____5. I do not volunteer to work for a ch‎arity.
____6. I have made and cr‎eated things that have had an impact on other people.
____7. I try to be creative in most things that I do.
____8. I think that I will be remembered for a long time after I die.
____9. I believe that society cannot be responsible for providing food and shelter for all homeless people.
____10. Others would say that I have made unique contributions to society.
____11. If I were unable to have children of my own‚ I would like to adopt children.
____12. I have important skills that I try to teach others.
____13. I feel that I have done nothing that will survive after I die.
____14. In general‚ my actions do not have a positive effect on other people.
____15. I feel as though I have done nothing of worth to contribute to others.
____16. I have made many commitments to many different kinds of people‚ groups‚ and activities in my life.

____17. Other people say that I am a very productive person.
____18. I have a responsibility to improve the neighborhoond in which I live.
____19. People come to me for advice.
____20. I feel as though my contributions will exist after I die.
School of Education and Social Policy 2120 Campus Drive Evanston‚ IL 60208
Phone: 847-491-8193 E-mail: این آدرس ایمیل توسط spambots حفاظت می شود. برای دیدن شما نیاز به جاوا اسکریپت دارید
©2009 Northwestern University

counseling center

استخدام روانشناس و مشاور در تهران
جستجوی روانشناس و مشاور نزدیک شما
مشاوره رایگان ندای مهر

تماسinstagramاینستاگرامwhatsappواتس اپtelegramتلگرام