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 8 analysis of the influence of ethnocentrism on perceptions of interviewee attractiveness, credibility, and socio-communicative style, Neuliep and McCroskey (2001) report a mean ethnocentrism score of 29.7. In their study of ethnocentrism and perceptions of teacher communication Amos and McCroskey (1999) report a mean score of 30.39. In their work on communibiology and ethnocentrism, Wrench and McCroskey (2002) report a mean ethnocentrism score of 32.5. In her analysis of student responses to foreign and domestic instructors, McCroskey (2002) found that men had a mean ethnocentrism score of 35. 5 while women scored significantly lower, with a mean score of 30.6. Reliability Estimates Scientists generally agree that a measurement device or procedure is useful only to the extent that it is reliable and valid. According to Carmines and Zeller (1979), reliability refers to the extent to which a measurement device or procedure yields consistent results over repeated trials. For example, if the GENE scale were administered to a group of students on Monday, we would expect to obtain similar results from the same group of students if it were administered to them again on Friday, (i.e., provided nothing happened to the students during the week that might influence their ethnocentrism). In the case of a self-report measurement device like the GENE scale, reliability also refers to the extent that the items of the scale are internally consistent. For example, considering the GENE scale, participants completing the scale would be expected to respond similarly to Item #2 "My culture should be the role model for other cultures" and Item #13 "People in my culture have just about the best lifestyles of anywhere." The revised GENE scale appears to be a reliable instrument. All of the studies cited here

Authors: Neuliep, James W..
first   previous   Page 8 of 25   next   last



background image
Assessing Reliability
8
analysis of the influence of ethnocentrism on perceptions of interviewee attractiveness,
credibility, and socio-communicative style, Neuliep and McCroskey (2001) report a mean
ethnocentrism score of 29.7. In their study of ethnocentrism and perceptions of teacher
communication Amos and McCroskey (1999) report a mean score of 30.39. In their work on
communibiology and ethnocentrism, Wrench and McCroskey (2002) report a mean
ethnocentrism score of 32.5. In her analysis of student responses to foreign and domestic
instructors, McCroskey (2002) found that men had a mean ethnocentrism score of 35. 5 while
women scored significantly lower, with a mean score of 30.6.
Reliability Estimates
Scientists generally agree that a measurement device or procedure is useful only to the
extent that it is reliable and valid. According to Carmines and Zeller (1979), reliability refers to
the extent to which a measurement device or procedure yields consistent results over repeated
trials. For example, if the GENE scale were administered to a group of students on Monday, we
would expect to obtain similar results from the same group of students if it were administered to
them again on Friday, (i.e., provided nothing happened to the students during the week that might
influence their ethnocentrism). In the case of a self-report measurement device like the GENE
scale, reliability also refers to the extent that the items of the scale are internally consistent. For
example, considering the GENE scale, participants completing the scale would be expected to
respond similarly to Item #2 "My culture should be the role model for other cultures" and Item
#13 "People in my culture have just about the best lifestyles of anywhere."
The revised GENE scale appears to be a reliable instrument. All of the studies cited here


Convention
All Academic Convention is the premier solution for your association's abstract management solutions needs.
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 8 of 25   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.