Low-Stakes Testing and Psychological Reactance: Using the Hong Psychological Reactance Scale to Better Understand Compliant and Non-Compliant Examinees
The current study examined whether psychological reactance differs across compliant and non-compliant examinees. Given the lack of consensus regarding the factor structure and scoring of the Hong Psychological Reactance Scale (HPRS), its factor structure was evaluated and subsequently tested for mea...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | International journal of testing 2011-07, Vol.11 (3), p.248-270 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 270 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 248 |
| container_title | International journal of testing |
| container_volume | 11 |
| creator | Brown, Allison R. Finney, Sara J. |
| description | The current study examined whether psychological reactance differs across compliant and non-compliant examinees. Given the lack of consensus regarding the factor structure and scoring of the Hong Psychological Reactance Scale (HPRS), its factor structure was evaluated and subsequently tested for measurement invariance (configural, metric, and scalar) across two types of examinees: examinees that attended university assessments (i.e., compliant examinees) and examinees that skipped these assessments (i.e., non-compliant examinees). Measurement invariance of the HPRS across compliant and non-compliant examinees was supported, enabling the testing of latent mean differences, which provided known-groups validity evidence: non-compliant examinees reported significantly higher levels of reactance than did compliant examinees. Implications for low-stakes testing internationally, including strategies to increase compliance, are discussed. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1080/15305058.2011.570884 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_eric_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_902096827</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ericid>EJ933577</ericid><sourcerecordid>2463761001</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c387t-ff9405afc6c5fb17d046297f55c2a3aac65c92dc443d8471c1cdd4f7478fab973</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kd9uFCEUxonRxLr6Br0g3ng1WxhgAW9M3WxtzUaN7V4TykBLnYEtsKn7JH3dMh3_JE30isPhd85Hvg-AQ4zmGAl0hBlBDDExbxHGc8aREPQZOKjttuGM0-ePNWpG5iV4lfMNQkhiTg_A_TreNedF_7AZXthcfLiCOnTwW96b69jHK290D79bbYoOxr6Hmzwi5drC01iLf3DwvF4tLBF-tKXYBDehsymXcfUyDtve61Aehb7E0PztrH7qwQdr82vwwuk-2ze_zhnYnKwulqfN-uuns-XxujFE8NI4Jyli2pmFYe4S8w7RRSu5Y8y0mmhtFszItjOUkk5Qjg02XUcdp1w4fSk5mYF3095tire7aoAafDa273WwcZeVRC2SC9GO5Nsn5E3cpVA_p4QkNQdRPZ4BOkEmxZyTdWqb_KDTXmGkxqzU76zUmJWasqpjh9OYTd78GVl9loQwPkp_mJ59cDEN-i6mvlNF7_uYXKp--6zIfwUeAEolpgo</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>893108815</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Low-Stakes Testing and Psychological Reactance: Using the Hong Psychological Reactance Scale to Better Understand Compliant and Non-Compliant Examinees</title><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>EBSCOhost Education Source</source><creator>Brown, Allison R. ; Finney, Sara J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Brown, Allison R. ; Finney, Sara J.</creatorcontrib><description>The current study examined whether psychological reactance differs across compliant and non-compliant examinees. Given the lack of consensus regarding the factor structure and scoring of the Hong Psychological Reactance Scale (HPRS), its factor structure was evaluated and subsequently tested for measurement invariance (configural, metric, and scalar) across two types of examinees: examinees that attended university assessments (i.e., compliant examinees) and examinees that skipped these assessments (i.e., non-compliant examinees). Measurement invariance of the HPRS across compliant and non-compliant examinees was supported, enabling the testing of latent mean differences, which provided known-groups validity evidence: non-compliant examinees reported significantly higher levels of reactance than did compliant examinees. Implications for low-stakes testing internationally, including strategies to increase compliance, are discussed.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1530-5058</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1532-7574</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1080/15305058.2011.570884</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis Group</publisher><subject>Assessment ; bifactor model ; College Students ; Compliance ; Compliance (Psychology) ; Educational evaluation ; Error of Measurement ; Factor Structure ; Factor structures ; invariance ; low-stakes testing ; Measurement ; Measures (Individuals) ; Psychological aspects ; Psychological reactance ; reactance ; Scoring ; Studies ; Testing ; Tests</subject><ispartof>International journal of testing, 2011-07, Vol.11 (3), p.248-270</ispartof><rights>Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC 2011</rights><rights>Copyright Routledge 2011</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c387t-ff9405afc6c5fb17d046297f55c2a3aac65c92dc443d8471c1cdd4f7478fab973</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c387t-ff9405afc6c5fb17d046297f55c2a3aac65c92dc443d8471c1cdd4f7478fab973</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27922,27923,30997,30998</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ933577$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Brown, Allison R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Finney, Sara J.</creatorcontrib><title>Low-Stakes Testing and Psychological Reactance: Using the Hong Psychological Reactance Scale to Better Understand Compliant and Non-Compliant Examinees</title><title>International journal of testing</title><description>The current study examined whether psychological reactance differs across compliant and non-compliant examinees. Given the lack of consensus regarding the factor structure and scoring of the Hong Psychological Reactance Scale (HPRS), its factor structure was evaluated and subsequently tested for measurement invariance (configural, metric, and scalar) across two types of examinees: examinees that attended university assessments (i.e., compliant examinees) and examinees that skipped these assessments (i.e., non-compliant examinees). Measurement invariance of the HPRS across compliant and non-compliant examinees was supported, enabling the testing of latent mean differences, which provided known-groups validity evidence: non-compliant examinees reported significantly higher levels of reactance than did compliant examinees. Implications for low-stakes testing internationally, including strategies to increase compliance, are discussed.</description><subject>Assessment</subject><subject>bifactor model</subject><subject>College Students</subject><subject>Compliance</subject><subject>Compliance (Psychology)</subject><subject>Educational evaluation</subject><subject>Error of Measurement</subject><subject>Factor Structure</subject><subject>Factor structures</subject><subject>invariance</subject><subject>low-stakes testing</subject><subject>Measurement</subject><subject>Measures (Individuals)</subject><subject>Psychological aspects</subject><subject>Psychological reactance</subject><subject>reactance</subject><subject>Scoring</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Testing</subject><subject>Tests</subject><issn>1530-5058</issn><issn>1532-7574</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2011</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kd9uFCEUxonRxLr6Br0g3ng1WxhgAW9M3WxtzUaN7V4TykBLnYEtsKn7JH3dMh3_JE30isPhd85Hvg-AQ4zmGAl0hBlBDDExbxHGc8aREPQZOKjttuGM0-ePNWpG5iV4lfMNQkhiTg_A_TreNedF_7AZXthcfLiCOnTwW96b69jHK290D79bbYoOxr6Hmzwi5drC01iLf3DwvF4tLBF-tKXYBDehsymXcfUyDtve61Aehb7E0PztrH7qwQdr82vwwuk-2ze_zhnYnKwulqfN-uuns-XxujFE8NI4Jyli2pmFYe4S8w7RRSu5Y8y0mmhtFszItjOUkk5Qjg02XUcdp1w4fSk5mYF3095tire7aoAafDa273WwcZeVRC2SC9GO5Nsn5E3cpVA_p4QkNQdRPZ4BOkEmxZyTdWqb_KDTXmGkxqzU76zUmJWasqpjh9OYTd78GVl9loQwPkp_mJ59cDEN-i6mvlNF7_uYXKp--6zIfwUeAEolpgo</recordid><startdate>201107</startdate><enddate>201107</enddate><creator>Brown, Allison R.</creator><creator>Finney, Sara J.</creator><general>Taylor & Francis Group</general><general>Routledge</general><general>Taylor & Francis Ltd</general><scope>7SW</scope><scope>BJH</scope><scope>BNH</scope><scope>BNI</scope><scope>BNJ</scope><scope>BNO</scope><scope>ERI</scope><scope>PET</scope><scope>REK</scope><scope>WWN</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QJ</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201107</creationdate><title>Low-Stakes Testing and Psychological Reactance: Using the Hong Psychological Reactance Scale to Better Understand Compliant and Non-Compliant Examinees</title><author>Brown, Allison R. ; Finney, Sara J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c387t-ff9405afc6c5fb17d046297f55c2a3aac65c92dc443d8471c1cdd4f7478fab973</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2011</creationdate><topic>Assessment</topic><topic>bifactor model</topic><topic>College Students</topic><topic>Compliance</topic><topic>Compliance (Psychology)</topic><topic>Educational evaluation</topic><topic>Error of Measurement</topic><topic>Factor Structure</topic><topic>Factor structures</topic><topic>invariance</topic><topic>low-stakes testing</topic><topic>Measurement</topic><topic>Measures (Individuals)</topic><topic>Psychological aspects</topic><topic>Psychological reactance</topic><topic>reactance</topic><topic>Scoring</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Testing</topic><topic>Tests</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Brown, Allison R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Finney, Sara J.</creatorcontrib><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Ovid)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>ERIC( SilverPlatter )</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC PlusText (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><jtitle>International journal of testing</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Brown, Allison R.</au><au>Finney, Sara J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>EJ933577</ericid><atitle>Low-Stakes Testing and Psychological Reactance: Using the Hong Psychological Reactance Scale to Better Understand Compliant and Non-Compliant Examinees</atitle><jtitle>International journal of testing</jtitle><date>2011-07</date><risdate>2011</risdate><volume>11</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>248</spage><epage>270</epage><pages>248-270</pages><issn>1530-5058</issn><eissn>1532-7574</eissn><abstract>The current study examined whether psychological reactance differs across compliant and non-compliant examinees. Given the lack of consensus regarding the factor structure and scoring of the Hong Psychological Reactance Scale (HPRS), its factor structure was evaluated and subsequently tested for measurement invariance (configural, metric, and scalar) across two types of examinees: examinees that attended university assessments (i.e., compliant examinees) and examinees that skipped these assessments (i.e., non-compliant examinees). Measurement invariance of the HPRS across compliant and non-compliant examinees was supported, enabling the testing of latent mean differences, which provided known-groups validity evidence: non-compliant examinees reported significantly higher levels of reactance than did compliant examinees. Implications for low-stakes testing internationally, including strategies to increase compliance, are discussed.</abstract><cop>Philadelphia</cop><pub>Taylor & Francis Group</pub><doi>10.1080/15305058.2011.570884</doi><tpages>23</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1530-5058 |
| ispartof | International journal of testing, 2011-07, Vol.11 (3), p.248-270 |
| issn | 1530-5058 1532-7574 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_902096827 |
| source | Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); EBSCOhost Education Source |
| subjects | Assessment bifactor model College Students Compliance Compliance (Psychology) Educational evaluation Error of Measurement Factor Structure Factor structures invariance low-stakes testing Measurement Measures (Individuals) Psychological aspects Psychological reactance reactance Scoring Studies Testing Tests |
| title | Low-Stakes Testing and Psychological Reactance: Using the Hong Psychological Reactance Scale to Better Understand Compliant and Non-Compliant Examinees |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-13T20%3A28%3A44IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_eric_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Low-Stakes%20Testing%20and%20Psychological%20Reactance:%20Using%20the%20Hong%20Psychological%20Reactance%20Scale%20to%20Better%20Understand%20Compliant%20and%20Non-Compliant%20Examinees&rft.jtitle=International%20journal%20of%20testing&rft.au=Brown,%20Allison%20R.&rft.date=2011-07&rft.volume=11&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=248&rft.epage=270&rft.pages=248-270&rft.issn=1530-5058&rft.eissn=1532-7574&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080/15305058.2011.570884&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_eric_%3E2463761001%3C/proquest_eric_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=893108815&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_ericid=EJ933577&rfr_iscdi=true |