All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Assessing the Reliability and Validity of the Generalized Ethnocentrism Scale
Unformatted Document Text:  Assessing Reliability 15 In this study, the overall reliability was .84. The data presented here also point to the revised GENE scale’s predictive, concurrent, and construct validity. McCroskey (1992) and others have argued that assessing an instrument’s predictive validity may be the most critical test of an instrument. The data regarding the revised GENE’s predictive validity are promising. In an earlier study, Amos and McCroskey (1999) found that scores on the revised GENE were predictive of students’ attitudes about teachers. In the present study, scores on the revised GENE were significantly predictive of participants’ attitudes about travelling to other cultures and working with foreigners. Specifically, as scores on the revised GENE score increased (i.e., higher ethnocentrism) attitudes about travelling to other cultures and working with foreigners decreased, indicating that high ethnocentrics report negative attitudes about travelling to other cultures and working with foreigners. Furthermore, the data presented here are an initial indication that the revised GENE scale possesses concurrent validity. There was a statistically significant correlation between Gudykunst’s (1998) Ethnocentrism and scale and the revised GENE scale. To assess the revised GENE's construct validity, participants in this study completed three scales thought to be theoretically linked to ethnocentrism, including the Adorno et al., (1950) Patriotism scale, Shimp and Sharma’s (1987) CETSCALE, and the interdependent and independent Self-Construal scale (Singelis, 1994). Only one other study has reported evidence of the revised GENE’s construct validity. In that study Wrench and McCroskey (2002) reported a significant correlation between scores on the revised GENE and scores on a scale measuring homophobia. Of the four scales used in the present study, scores on the revised GENE scale

Authors: Neuliep, James W..
first   previous   Page 15 of 25   next   last



background image
Assessing Reliability
15
In this study, the overall reliability was .84.
The data presented here also point to the revised GENE scale’s predictive, concurrent,
and construct validity. McCroskey (1992) and others have argued that assessing an instrument’s
predictive validity may be the most critical test of an instrument. The data regarding the revised
GENE’s predictive validity are promising. In an earlier study, Amos and McCroskey (1999)
found that scores on the revised GENE were predictive of students’ attitudes about teachers. In
the present study, scores on the revised GENE were significantly predictive of participants’
attitudes about travelling to other cultures and working with foreigners. Specifically, as scores
on the revised GENE score increased (i.e., higher ethnocentrism) attitudes about travelling to
other cultures and working with foreigners decreased, indicating that high ethnocentrics report
negative attitudes about travelling to other cultures and working with foreigners. Furthermore,
the data presented here are an initial indication that the revised GENE scale possesses concurrent
validity. There was a statistically significant correlation between Gudykunst’s (1998)
Ethnocentrism and scale and the revised GENE scale.
To assess the revised GENE's construct validity, participants in this study completed three
scales thought to be theoretically linked to ethnocentrism, including the Adorno et al., (1950)
Patriotism scale, Shimp and Sharma’s (1987) CETSCALE, and the interdependent and
independent Self-Construal scale (Singelis, 1994). Only one other study has reported evidence of
the revised GENE’s construct validity. In that study Wrench and McCroskey (2002) reported a
significant correlation between scores on the revised GENE and scores on a scale measuring
homophobia. Of the four scales used in the present study, scores on the revised GENE scale


Convention
All Academic Convention makes running your annual conference simple and cost effective. It is your online solution for abstract management, peer review, and scheduling for your annual meeting or convention.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 15 of 25   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.