A PSYCHOMETRIC INVESTIGATION OF A SELF-CONTROL SCALE
A PSYCHOMETRIC INVESTIGATION OF A SELF-CONTROL SCALE:THE RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF GRASMICK ET AL.’S SCALEFOR A SAMPLE OF INCARCERATED MALE OFFENDERSByChristopher L. GibsonA DISSERTATIONPresented to the Faculty ofThe Graduate College at the University of NebraskaIn Partial Fulfillment of RequirementsFor the Degree of Doctor of PhilosophyMajor: Criminal JusticeUnder the Supervision of Dr. Ineke Haen MarshallOmaha, NebraskaAugust, 2005Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 3175888Copyright 2005 byGibson, Christopher L.All rights reserved.INFORMATION TO USERSThe quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copysubmitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations andphotographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improperalignment can adversely affect reproduction.In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscriptand there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorizedcopyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. UMIUMI Microform 3175888Copyright 2005 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected againstunauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.ProQuest Information and Learning Company300 North Zeeb RoadP.O. Box 1346Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
DISSERTATION TITLEA Psychometric Investigation of a Self-Control Scale: The Reliabilityand Validity of Grasmick et al.'s Scale for a Sample of IncarceratedMale OffendersBYChristopher L. GibsonSUPERVISORY COMMITTEE:APPROVEDDATEKu Ls— h., Dlfc f-ZJ*ISignatureIneke Haen Marshall, Ph.D.Typed Name7'r'SignatureMiriam A. DeLone, Ph.D.Typed Name,yrSignatureDennis W. Roncek, Ph.D.Typed N a m e - 7SignatureRussell L. Smith. Ph.D.Typed Namei/z-c/orSignalJihong Zhao. Ph.D.Typed NameSignatureTyped NameU N IV E R S IT Y ! OFOmahaReproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
A PSYCHOMETRIC INVESTIGATION OF A SELF-CONTROL SCALE:THE RELAIBILITY AND VALIDITY OF GRASMICK ET AL.’S SCALEFO R ASAMPLE OF INCARCERATED MALE OFFENDERSChristopher L. Gibson, Ph.D.University o f Nebraska, 2005Advisor: Ineke Haen Marshall, Ph.D.ABSTRACT. This dissertation investigates the reliability and internal validity o f one o f themost commonly used measures o f self-control, i.e., Grasmick et al.’s 24 item selfcontrol scale. Using a sample o f 651 male offenders residing in the Diagnostic andEvaluation center in Lincoln, Nebraska, this dissertation explores the psychometricproperties o f Gramsick et al.’s scale by answering the following questions. First, isGrasmick et al.’s scale reliable? Second, does it show observed differences acrossblack and white offender groups? Third, is Grasmick et al.’s scale unidmensional?Fourth, is Grasmick et al.’s scale multidimensional? Fifth, can Grasmick et al.’s scaleitems discriminate among levels o f self-control for a sample of incarceratedoffenders? Sixth, do respondents’ levels of self-control affect survey responses?Finally, are Grasmick et al.’s scale items invariant across black and white offendergroups? These questioned are answered using several analytic methods includingCronbach’s reliability coefficients, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, anda Rasch rating scale model.Results from this study lead to several interesting conclusions. First,Grasmick et al.’s scale has high reliability for a sample of incarcerated maleoffenders. Second, racial differences were observed, but these differences were notwhat would be expected according to self-control theory. Second, confirmatoryfactor analysis and a Rasch model confirmed that Grasmick et al.’s scale was notmeasuring one construct, but was shown to measure six correlated dimensions.Third, a Rasch analysis showed that items were able to discriminate among offenders’levels of self-control. Fourth, a Rasch analysis revealed that level o f self-controlaffects responses to survey items: low self-control offenders have unexpectedly lowerscores. Finally, several of Gramsick et al.’s scale items exhibited differential itemfunction or bias across black and white offenders. Directions for future research arediscussed.Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS“One thing I have learned in a long life: that all our science, measured againstreality, is primitive and childlike- and yet is the most precious thing we have. ”-Albert Einstein (1879-1955)Here I want to show my profound gratitude to those who have opened myeyes and led me to respect the power, beauty, parsimony, and importance o f science;but yet have equally encouraged me to realize the limits, misuses, and abuses o f thismethod. Many scholars, researchers, and laymen have directly and indirectlyprovided invaluable ideas, information, knowledge, and science that has challengedan affected not only my pathway to becoming a social scientist, but most importantlymy worldview. To acknowledge every individual would be a daunting task.Therefore, I would like to generally thank all o f those who have contributed to myevolution in becoming a social scientist and my growth as a person.Particularly, I would like to give a special thanks to Dr. Ineke Haen Marshall, Dr.Dennis W. Roncek, Dr. Jihong Zhao, Dr. Miriam A. DeLone, and Dr. Russell Smith, fortheir insights, guidance and patience through this process. Furthermore, I would like tothank Dr. Julie Homey for providing access to her data for my dissertation. Finally, Iwould like to thank Leah E. Daigle for her love, support, and friendship.Two more scholars and friends deserve acknowledgements. In pursuit o f aMA degree in criminology, Dr. Steve Tibbetts and Dr. John Wright were mostinfluential in my decision to choose an academic trajectory. How both o f themshared their passion for knowledge and science with me will never be forgotten.Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
DEDICATIONI want to dedicate this research to my immediate family. These people havealways given me their unconditional love, acceptance, encouragement, and support.They include my father, Harry, my mother, Nancy, my twin brother, Derrick, and mygrandmother, Imogene.Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE OF CONTENTSCHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION.1An Introduction to Self-Control and the Dimensionality D ebate. 5Project Significance and Contribution. 9CHAPTER TWO: PSYCHOMETRICS AND ITS HISTORY: RELIABILITYAND VALIDITY IN SOCIAL SCIENCEMEASURMENT.14Defining Psychometrics. 17Tracing the Evolution o f Psychometrics.20Fundamental Concepts in Psychometrics.29Measurement Reliability.30Measurement Validity. 40The Use o f Psychometrics in Criminology. 48Summary. 58CHAPTER THREE: SELF CONTROL AND THE PSYCHOMETRICPROPERTIES OF GRASMICK ET AL.’S SCALE.60Conceptualization and Operationalization o f Self-Control. 71Creation o f Grasmick et al.’s Scale. 81Psychometric Properties o f Grasmick et al.’s Scale. 85Reliability o f Grasmick et al.’s Scale. 86Internal Structure of Grasmick et al.’s Scale. 89Summary and Research Questions.101CHAPTER FOUR: RESEARCH DESIGN AND ANALYTIC STRATEGYReproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.107
Research Design.107Participants. 108Procedures and Administration o f the Interview Instrument. 110Measures. 114Analytic Strategy. 115General Outline of A nalyses.115Continuous Versus Categorical Data in Statistical Estim ation. 117Exploratory Factor A nalysis. 120Confirmatory Factor Analysis. 127The Rasch M odel.130Advantages o f the Rasch M odel. 139A Rasch Analysis: What is Important to Report?. 143Some Uses o f the Rasch M odel. 153Summary.159CHAPTER FIVE: RESULTS. 162Univariate and Bivariate Analyses. 162Results from Reliability Analyses. 165Results from Independent Samples T-Tests.167Results from Principal Components Analyses.169Results from Principal Axis Factor A nalyses. 178Results from Confirmatory Factor Analyses. 186Results from a Rasch Rating Scale A nalysis.205Category Functioning Analysis. 205Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Item Fit Analysis.2 1 1A Rasch Person/Item Map.214Assessment o f the Item Characteristic Curve.217DIF Analysis across Racial G roups.219C H A PTER SIX: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. 224Summary o f Findings. 227Is Grasmick et al.’s Scale a Reliable Measure for a Sample o f IncarceratedMale Offenders?. 227Does Grasmick et al.’s Scale Show Observed Differences Across RacialGroups for a Sample o f Incarcerated Male Offenders?.230Is Grasmick et al.’s Scale Unidim ensional?.232Is Grasmick et al.’s Scale Multidimensional?.237Can Grasmick et al.’s Scale Items Discriminate between Levels o f Abilityfor a Sample o f Incarcerated Offenders?. 240Do Respondents’ Levels o f Ability on Grasmick et al.’s Scale AffectSurvey Responses?.242Are Grasmick et al.’s Items Invariant Across Racial G roups?.244Limitations and Future Research. 247Reliability and Grasmick et al.’s Scale: What should be done next?. 247Revisiting and Replication.249Limits Placed on Validity: What else can be done?. 250Challenges to the Face Validity o f Grasmick et al.’s S cale.250Limit on the Cross-Structure Validity o f Grasmick et al.’s Scale.255Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
REFERENCES257APPENDIX A: FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS OF GRASMICK ET AL.’S24 SELF-CONTROL IT EM S. 270APPENDIX B: UNIVARIATE STATISTICS OF GRASMICK ET AL.’S 24SELF- CONTROL IT EM S. 271APPENDIX C: PEARSON CORRELATIONS FOR GRASMICK ET AL.’S 24SELF-CONTROL IT EM S. 272Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LIST OF TABLESTable 1. Grasmick et al.’s (1993) self-control item s.83Table 2. Skewness and kurtosis statistics for Grasmick et al.’s scale item s.Table 3. Descriptive statistics for the offender sample (n 651). 164Table 4. Cronbach’s reliability analysis o f the Grasmick et al.’s self-control scale andits six dimensions. 166Table 5. Independent samples t-tests assessing racial groups differences on Grasmicket al.’s self-control scale and its six dim ensions. 168Table 6. Principal Components Analysis o f Grasmick et al.’s 24 self-control items:Results for the full sample (n 651). 170Table 7. Principal Components Analysis o f Grasmick et al.’s 24 self-control items:Results for the Black sample (n 122). 173Table 8. Principal Components Analysis o f Grasmick et al.’s 24 self-control items:Results for the White sample (n 3 7 8 ). 176Table 9. Principal Axis Factor analysis o f Grasmick et al.’s 24 self-control items:Results for the full sample (n 651). 179Table 10. Principal Axis Factor analysis o f Grasmick et al.’s 24 self-control items:Results for the Black sample (n 122). 181Table 11. Principal Axis Factor analysis o f Grasmick et al.’s 24 self-control items:Results for the full sample (n 651). 184Table 12. Confirmatory Factor Analysis-One factor m o d el.191Table 13. Fit statistics for each Confirmatory Factor Analysis. 195Table 14. Confirmatory Factor Analysis-Six factor m odel.197Table 15. Confirmatory Factor Analysis- Second order m odel.199Table 16. Category functioning o f Grasmick et al.’s four category rating scale:Observed counts, average measures, and thresholds. 207Table 17. Item fit statistics for Grasmick et al.’s 24 self-control items for the fullSample (n 651). 213with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 18. Differential Item Function (DIF) analysis for the Grasmick et al. scale: Anassessment across Black and White offenders .221Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LIST OF FIGURESFigure 1. A visual display of the Rasch m o d el.137Figure 2. Example o f a category probability plot. 146Figure 3. Example of a Rasch person-item map: A measure of visual ability.151Figure 4. Scree plot for the Principal Components Analysis o f Grasmick et al.’s 24self-control items: Results for the full sample (n 6 5 1 ). 171Figure 5. Scree plot for the Principal Components Analysis of Grasmick et al.’s 24self-control items: Results for the Black sample (n 1 2 2 ). 174Figure 6. Scree plot for the Principal Components Analysis of Grasmick et al.’s 24self-control items: Results for the White sample (n 3 7 8 ). 177Figure 7. Scree plot for the Principle Axis Factor analysis o f Grasmick et al.’s 24self-control items: Results for the full sample (n 6 5 1 ). 180Figure 8. Scree plot for the Principle Axis Factor analysis of Grasmick et al.’s 24self-control items: Results for the Black sample (n 122). 182Figure 9. Scree plot for the Principle Axis Factor analysis of Grasmick et al.’s 24self-control items: Results for the White sample (n 3 7 8 ). 185Figure 10. A one factor model for Grasmick et al.’s self-control item s.187Figure 11. A six factor model for Grasmick et al.’s self-control items.188Figure 12. A second-order model for Grasmick et al.’s self-control items.189Figure 13. Category probability curves for Grasmick et al.’s four-category scheme:The relationship between the latent trait and the probability o f selectingresponse category K .210Figure 14. Rasch person/item m ap.216Figure 15. Item Characteristic Curve for the Grasmick et al. self-control m easure.218Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTIONMeasurement is imperative, inevitable, and consequential across research inboth physical and social science disciplines. Scientists must find ways to quantifyparticular phenomena o f interest as accurately as possible before achieving theircentral research goals or before testing hypotheses. Each area o f scientificexploration develops its own measurement procedures and devices. Physics, forexample, uses established measures for mass, time, electric current, and luminousintensity. Neurologists and neuropsychologists use brain imaging techniques orinstruments to assess the presence o f brain abnormality, dysfunction, and tumors. Forexample, structural brain imaging instruments consist o f computerized tomography(CT) and magnetic imaging (MRI), while functional brain imaging techniques consistof positron emission tomography and regional cerebral blood flow (RCBF) (Raine,1993: 130-153). In contrast, measurement o f psychological and social concepts insocial science disciplines typically takes the form o f a mark on a questionnaire,behavior documented in an observational study, answers obtained through aninterview, or official records recorded by agencies and institutions (Carmines andZeller, 1979; DeVellis, 1991). Although researchers in the physical sciences share ageneral sense o f confidence in their measures, this has not been the case in the socialsciences where psychological and psychosocial measurements are used (Bond andFox, 2001: 2-3).Blalock (1968: 6) stated that social science theorists “often use concepts thatare formulated at rather high levels o f abstraction,” and “the problem o f bridging theReproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
gap between theory and research is then seen as one o f measurement error” (Blalock,1968: 12). Blalock’s statements proposed approximately thirty years ago suggest thatoperationalization and measurement in social sciences are challenging tasks thatinvolve creating empirical indicators to represent elusive concepts, frequently leadingto measurement error. Blalock’s observations concerning measurement, theory, andresearch are still concerns for social scientists today.Measurement validity and reliability are at the core of the research process,both having implications for theory and the interpretation o f empirical findings.Inaccurate and unreliable measures may lead to many unintended problems. The useo f “poor” measurement can impede the ability to make informed decisions that affectboth theory and policy. For example, consequences o f inadequate measurementmight include inaccurate diagnosis o f mental illness, misspecification o f the empiricalvalidity of a theory, or flawed police officer hiring decisions, to name only a few.Thus, theory specifying the relationship between concepts and empirical indicators isjust as vital to social science research as the substantive components o f theory thatspecify propositions or relationships between concepts (Carmines and Zeller, 1979:11 ).To prevent or minimize such problems, social scientists assess the validity andreliability o f their measures using psychometric analysis. Psychometricsencompasses a wide range o f methods and statistical techniques to examinemeasurement quality. Ranging from exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis tomore modem techniques such as Rasch modeling, researchers use these tools toempirically derive the most accurate and reliable measures o f theoretical conceptsReproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(Andrich, 1988; Bollen, 1989; Bond and Fox, 2001; Kline, 1998). Psychometrics hasa long history in disciplines such as psychology and education where researchersspend considerable effort attempting to quantify a range o f intangible human traits.One excellent example o f this can be found in the voluminous body o f literature onthe measurement o f intelligence (See Gould, 1996).Unlike some social science disciplines, criminology has not fully embracedthe long-standing tradition of psychomterics. As such, rigorous psychometricassessments o f measures representing elusive theoretical phenomena are often takenfor granted in criminological research. Measures are sometimes employedhaphazardly based on face validity, theoretical arguments, or minimal empiricalexaminations alone when testing relational hypotheses between criminologicalconcepts.Most criminological theories including contemporary strain theory (Agnew,1992), social control theory (Hirschi, 1969), and self-control theory (Gottfredson andHirschi, 1990) rely on concepts that are not directly observable (See Duncan, 1984).As such, criminologists, like other social scientists, have to rely on indirect indicatorsto represent ambiguous theoretical concepts. In the absence o f well defined concepts,the result is often the inability o f social scientists to reach a consensus on how to bestpursue operationalization and measurement. This can often result in measures withquestionable validity, unknown psychometric properties, and a general inability tocompare findings across studies due to differential operationalizations o f the sameconcept. Criminologists disproportionately tend to invest more time testing relationalReproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
propositions between constructs from these theories rather than focusing on thedevelopment o f quality measures.Early quantification and replication efforts should focus on a basic, yetfundamental, question: Are criminological measures accurately measuring whatcriminology theories imply? As will be shown, the concept and measure underinvestigation in this dissertation represent an excellent example in criminology forwhich a lack o f conceptual clarity exists and, consequently, a lack o f psychometricagreement emerges. This lack o f conceptual clarity is thoroughly documented in laterchapters.A recent exception to the lack o f psychometric investigations o f constructsdeemed to be important in the etiology o f criminal behavior is the construct o f selfcontrol. This construct is entrenched in a hotly-debated theory known as self-controltheory proposed approximately a decade ago in Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990)book titled A General Theory o f Crime. While the formulation o f their theory is thesubject o f much criticism and empirical scrutiny, their theory more recently hassparked psychometric interest among researchers. Perhaps, this interest is due to thecompelling explanatory power Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) attribute to theirconstruct o f self-control.According to the theory, low self-control is a disposition which forms early inlife and consists of six elements— impulsivity, risk seeking, temperament, selfcenteredness, preference for simple tasks, and preference for physical activities— thatcoalesce in similar individuals (Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990). For example, thosewho are impulsive are more likely to also be risk seekers, self-centered and so on. ToReproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
date, there are several psychometric evaluations of the dimensionality of self-control(Ameklev, Grasmick, and Bursik, 1999; Grasmick, Tittle, Bursik, and Ameklev,1993; Longshore and Turner, 1998; Longshore, Turner, and Stein, 1996; Piquero andRosay, 1998; Piquero, Macintosh, and Hickman, 2000). From these studies, anempirical debate centers on whether self-control is a unidimensional ormultidimensional construct, i.e., whether self-control reflects one or several traits?Perhaps, this is both a conceptual and empirical question.This dissertation will address empirically the dimensionality debate on selfcontrol with data collected on a commonly used measure o f the self-control construct,i.e., the Grasmick et al. (1993) scale. In addition, this dissertation will be the firstextensive psychometric assessment o f this self-control measure on a sample ofincarcerated male offenders. Data for this dissertation are from a large randomsample of incarcerated male offenders residing at the Diagnostic and Evaluationcenter in Lincoln, Nebraska during October 1997 and December 1998. Support forthis research was provided by a grant from the National Institute o f Justice awarded toDr. Julie K. Homey, funded under Grant 96-IJ-CX-0015.AN INTRODUCTION TO SELF-CONTROL AND THEDIMENSIONALITY DEBATEIn Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) “general theory,” criminal behavior hassix basic elements that underlie criminal conduct. They contend that offenders willresemble the nature o f crime in that they “tend to be impulsive, insensitive, physical(as opposed to mental), risk-taking, short-sighted, and nonverbal” (Gottfredson andHirschi, 1990: 90). They argue that this constellation o f six elements develops inReproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
early childhood due to a lack o f adequate child rearing practices— deficientbehavioral monitoring, inability to recognize deviant behavior when it occurs, and notappropriately punishing the behavior when it occurs— and that it will remainrelatively stable throughout life. Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) label this attributelow self-control.In theory, low self-control, in the presence o f opportunity, should account fordisparities in offending rates and analogous behaviors such as promiscuous sex,gambling, smoking, involvement in accidents, and academic dishonesty. Accordingto Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990: 96), the presence o f low self-control will hinder“the achievement o f long-term individual goals.” Furthermore, Gottfredson andHirschi (1990: 96) argue that the elements o f low self-control, “impede educationaland occupational achievement, destroy interpersonal relations, and underminephysical health and economic well being.” From these claims, Gottfredson andHirschi (1990) reverse the causal order o f many theories o f crime and delinquency byendorsing a population heterogeneity perspecti
a psychometric investigation of a self-control scale: the relaibility and validity of grasmick
DNV has a long history of providing incident investigation services and . 2. Need for incident investigation 3. Investigation process 4. Investigation assessment – selected results 5. Findings of investigation - recommendations and expectations 6. Comments from GenCat 7. Concluding remarks
Science investigation (Open ended investigation) Scientific investigation is a holistic approach to learning science through practical work (Woolnough, 1991). ―The aim of science investigation is to provide students opportunities to use concepts and cognitive processes and skills to solve problems‖ (Gott & Duggan, 1996, p. 26).
Stantec Geotechnical Investigation City of Winnipeg Street Investigation WX19092 June 2020 Page i of iv Environment & Infrastructure Solutions 440 Dovercourt Drive, Winnipeg Manitoba, Canada R3Y 1N4 Phone: (204) 488-2997 www.woodplc.com Geotechnical Investigation City of Winnipeg Street Investigation Wood Project Number - WX19092 Prepared for:
Existing technologies repertoire Potential for industrialisation RHINO AND GRASSHOPPER TUTORIALS weeks 1 - 2 weeks 3 - 7 weeks 8 - 12 weeks 13 - 14 INVESTIGATION 01 Plant-based materials INVESTIGATION 02 Earth-based materials INVESTIGATION 03 Digital fabrication techniques INVESTIGATION 04 Historical references INVESTIGATION 05 Contemporary .
REPORT OF INVESTIGATION UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Case No. OIG-509. Investigation of Failure of the SEC To Uncover Bernard Madoff's Ponzi Scheme. Executive Summary . The OIG investigation did not find evidence that any SEC personnel who worked on an SEC examination or investigation of Bernard . L.
INVESTIGATION PROCESS Proper training and a clear understanding of roles and responsibilities is essential to the investigation process. All employees and people that will be involved in an incident investigation should be aware of what their role is in the process and how to perform their assigned responsibilities during an investigation process.
psychometric properties of the Beck Depression Inventory for Youth (BDI-Y) in a sample of 859 girls that were ages 9-13 years by age level and for selected races or ethnic groups. While research on the psychometric properties of the BDI-Y has been scarce the suggestion of its soundness has been made. In term of standardization, the manual provides separate normative information for 7 to 10 .
These have been graded as Very Easy (Level 1), Easy (Level 2), and Standard (Level 3). Penguin Readers/Pearson English Readers Penguin Readers and Pearson English Readers have a large selection of genres across 7 levels – Easystart to Level 6. CDs are included with some titles. Level Headwords CEFR Easystart 200 A1 Level 1 300 A1
