Data Analysis
1 Based on the information provided, from the William et al. (2017) study, which of the two scales have the higher Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for this study?
According to the study, the two scales with a higher Cronbach alpha are the Personal
Experiences Checklist (PECK) scale = 0.94 and the CESD-10 scale alpha = 0.86. Reliability for the current study was α = 0.86
- Would you consider the CESD-10 a reliable measure of depression in this population of ninth grade adolescents? Provide a rationale for your answer
Yes, I would consider the CESD-10 reliable because the alpha value is 0.86, which is greater than 0.80 showing it is strong.
3.What types of reliability testing were provided for the cyberbullying subscale of the PECK? Provide a rationale for your answer.
The types of reliability testing provided for the cyberbullying subscale are internal consistency and test-retest coefficient which show strong consistent reliability as indicated by Cronbach’s ∝ = 0.9. Also, the interclass shows moderate reliability as shown by the coefficient ranging from 0.60-0.86
- Were the reliability values acceptable? Provide a rationale for your answer.
Values less than 0.50 are indicative of poor reliability, values between 0.50 and 0.75 indicate moderate reliability, values between 0.75 and 0.90 indicate good reliability, and values greater than 0.90 indicate excellent reliability. Cyberbullying (8 items, α = 0.90, r = 0.86) indicating a reliable value.
- Which subscale of the PECK had the lowest Cronbach’s alpha?
The subscale with the lowest Cronbach’s alpha was cultural bullying ∝ = 0.78.
Chapter 5
- What scale was used to measure stressful life events in the Williams et al. (2017) study?
The life event scale for adolescent (CLES-A) was used to measure stressful life events in this study.
- What type of validity information was provided for this scale (stressful life events)? Provide a rationale for your answer.
The validity information provided for the CLES-A was not adequate. Only limited vague information. Successive verification validity and factor analysis validity were discussed related to CESD-10 scale but was not specific.
- Provide an example of how convergent validity might have been examined for the CESD-10.
Convergent validity compares a newer instrument with an existing instrument that measures the same thing. An example of convergent validity for the CESD-10 could be the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression because both scales shows a positive correlation of 0.40-0.80.
- Did the CESD-10 have evidence of criterion-related validity in the Williams et al. (2017) study? Provide a rationale for your answer. (Hint, consider information provided in Chapter 4 as well as Chapter 5 when answering this question.)
Yes, the CESD-10 shows evidence of criterion-related validity because the higher the total value is indicates that a patient has experienced depression.
- Was the information on validity provided for the CESD-10 scale adequate in this study? Provide a rationale for your answer
Yes, because it used two different types of validity which were successive verification validity and factor analysis validity, providing specific information that was adequate
