Measurement instruments often provide the basis upon which an entire research effort rests.

Measurement instruments often provide the basis upon which an entire research effort rests.

As Leedy and Ormrod (2005) suggest, "Just as a building with a questionable foundation is unlikely to be safe for habitation, so, too, will a research effort employing faulty measurement tools provide little of value in solving the problem of investigation" (p. 91). Demonstrate your ability to determine the validity and reliability of measurement instruments by answering the following: Explain the difference between an instrument’s validity and its reliability; outline at least four forms of validity and provide specific examples of each; discuss ways in which a researcher could enhance the validity of a self-constructed research instrument, describe at least four types of reliability and provide specific examples of each; and suggest at least three ways a researcher could enhance the reliability of a measurement instrument. Now, evaluate the effectiveness of an existing instrument in your field by applying some of the issues relating to validity and reliability that you have addressed above. You will want to search a journal common in your field for the complete "debut" of this research instrument. Often times, the authors of the research article will describe the instrument development process in detail. Provide a complete description of the instrument including title, authors, year, purpose, format (e.g. Likert, open-ended, etc), and intended audience. Then, defend or debate whether this instrument is valid and reliable based on the development description you found in the "debut" article.

References:
Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2005). Practical research: Planning and design (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

QUESTION_2: One issue that has generated a lot of research and discussion in the field of personality is whether the best taxonomy for personality disorders is dimensional or categorical (e.g., Markon, Kruger & Watson, 2005; Widiger, 1993). Can normal and abnormal personality be found at different points on the same continua, or is abnormal personality best represented separately as a categorical construct? Discuss the relative merits of dimensional and categorical views of personality disorders. Please support your answer with relevant research and theory.

References:
Markon, K.E, Kruger, R.F., &Watson, D. (2005). Delineating the structure of normal and abnormal personality: An integrative Hierarchical Approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 139-157.

Widiger, T.A., The DSM-III-R categorical personality disorder diagnoses: A critique and an alternative. Psychological Inquiry, 4, 75-90.

QUESTION_3: The Strengths Perspective (Saleebey, 1997) argues that every individual, family, and community possess assets, resources, wisdom, and knowledge. Counselors who adhere to the Strengths Perspective are directed to use these attributes as the focus of and tools for intervention. Discuss the Strengths Perspective’s implicit emphasis on collaboration between clients and counselors. Summarize and analyze case material that illustrates the use of collaboration in individual counseling, family counseling, and community action. Compare and Contrast the Strengths Perspective’s orientation toward the therapeutic relationship with the Ecological Perspective’s orientation to the same. Synthesize the core aspects of these two perspectives as they relate to issues of establishing rapport, empathic response, and advocacy.

References: Saleebey, D. (1997). The strengths perspective in social work practice, 2nd edition. New York: Longman.

 

 

ORDER THIS ESSAY HERE NOW AND GET A DISCOUNT !!!

 

You can place an order similar to this with us. You are assured of an authentic custom paper delivered within the given deadline besides our 24/7 customer support all through.

 

[order_calculator]