Advantages of the Rasch Model for Analysis and Interpretation of Attitudes: the Case of the Benevolent Sexism Subscale

José Andrey Zamora-Araya, Vanessa Smith-Castro, Eiliana Montero-Rojas, Tania Elena Moreira-Mora

Resumen


This paper describes how the use of Rasch Analysis (RA), compared with the Classical Test Theory (CTT) and other Item Response Theory (IRT) approaches, could enhance the study and interpretation of attitudinal scales. This is illustrated with data from 197 students from the University of Costa Rica who answered the Benevolent Sexism (BS) Scale (Glick & Fiske, 1996). Besides providing estimations of the measure’s specific accuracy at different levels of the construct, the RA, thanks to the person versus item map, allowed us to generate respondents’ profiles describing particular aspects of the construct and according to their estimated scores in the scale. The analysis indicated that construct categories for participants with scores between [-0.30, 0.5] in the logit scale are the most accurately represented, with more items covering this interval, and reflecting the three aspects of the scale described by the theory. On the other hand, results showed less measurement accuracy for a considerable number of respondents with lower scores, suggesting the need for the development of additional items for that level of the scale. These evidences are discussed in light of the benefits of using the RA for the understanding and interpretations of respondents’ scores in attitudinal scales, according to the underlying theory.


Palabras clave


benevolent sexism scale; lassical test theory; rasch analysis; extended rasch model, attitude scales, psychometric analysis

Texto completo:

PDF

Referencias


Becker, J. C., & Wagner, U. (2009). Doing gender differently: The interplay of strength of gender identification and content of gender identity in predicting women’s endorsement of sexist beliefs. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39(4), 487-508. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.551

Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2001). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Campbell, B., Schellenberg, E. G., & Senn, C. Y. (1997). Evaluating measures of contemporary sexism. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21(1), 89-101. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00102.x

Cárdenas, M., Lay, S. L., González, C., Calderón, C., & Alegría, I. (2010). Inventario de sexismo ambivalente: Adaptación, validación y relación con variables psicosociales. Revista Salud y Sociedad, 1(2), 125-135. doi: 10.22199/s07187475.2010.0002.00006

Carvalho, L., Primi, R., & Meyer, G. J. (2012). Aplicação do modelo de Rasch na medida de transtornos da personalidade. Trends in Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, 34(2), 101-109. doi: 10.1590/S2237-60892012000200009

Chen, Z., Fiske, S. T., & Lee, T. L. (2009). Ambivalent sexism and power-related gender-role ideology in marriage. Sex Roles, 60(11-12), 765-778. doi: 10.1007/s11199-009-9585-9

De Lemus, S., Moya, M., & Glick, P. (2010). When contact correlates with prejudice: Adolescents’ romantic relationship experience predicts greater benevolent sexism in boys and hostile sexism in girls. Sex Roles, 63, 214-225. doi: 10.1007/s11199-010-9786-2

Etchezahar, E., & Ungaretti, J. (2014). Woman stereotypes and ambivalent sexism in a sample of adolescents from Buenos Aires. Journal of Behavior, Health & Social Issues, 6(2), 87-94.

Fiske, S. T., & North, M. S. (2014). Measures of stereotyping and prejudice: Barometers of bias. In G. Boyle & D. Saklofske (Eds.), Measures of Personality & Social Psychological Constructs (pp. 684-718). Boston, MA: Elsevier Academic Press.

Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491-512. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491

Hambleton, R. K., & Swaminathan, H. (1985). Item response theory: Principles and applications. Berlín: Springer Science & Business Media.

IBM Corporation (2012). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows (Version 21.0) [computer software]. Armonk, NY: IBM

Linacre, J. M. (2002). What do infit and outfit, mean-square and standardized mean? Rasch Measurement Transactions, 16(2), 878. Retrieved from https://www.rasch.org/rmt/index.htm

Moya, M., & Expósito, F. (2001). Nuevas formas, viejos intereses: Neosexismo en varones españoles. Psicothema, 13(4), 643-649. Retrieved from http://www.psicothema.com

Moya, M., Glick, P., Expósito, F., De Lemus, S., & Hart, J. (2007). It’s for your own good: Benevolent sexism and women’s reactions to protectively justified restrictions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(10), 1421-1434. doi: 10.1177/0146167207304790

Muñiz, J. (1997). Introducción a la teoría de respuesta a los ítems. Madrid, España: Pirámide.

Muñiz, J. (2017). Teoría Clásica de los Tests. Madrid, España: Pirámide.

Muñiz, J., Rogers, J., & Swaminathan, H. (1989). Robustez de las estimaciones de modelo de Rash en presencia de aciertos al azar y discriminación variable de los ítems. Anuario de Psicología, 43(4), 82-97. Retrieved from https://www.raco.cat/index.php/AnuarioPsicologia

Olsen, L. W. (2003). Essays on Georg Rasch and his contributions to statistics (Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

University of Copenhagen, Institute of Economics) Retrieved from http://www.rasch.org/olsen.pdf

Prieto, G., & Delgado, A. R. (2003). Análisis de un test mediante el modelo de Rasch. Psicothema, 15(1), 94-100. Retrieved from http://www.psicothema.com

Prieto-Adanes, G., & Dias-Velasco, A. (2003). Uso del modelo de Rasch para poner en la misma escala las puntuaciones de distintos tests. Actualidades en Psicología, 19(106), 5-23. doi: 10.15517/ap.v19i106.43

Rasch, G. (1980). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Rodríguez-Castro, Y., Lameiras-Fernández, M., & Carrera-Fernández, M. V. (2009). Validación de la versión reducida de las Escalas ASI y AMI en una muestra de estudiantes españoles. Psicogente, 12(22), 284-295. Retrieved from http://revistas.unisimon.edu.co/index.php/psicogente

Rodríguez, Y., & Magalhães, M. J. (2013). El sexismo moderno en estudiantes universitarios/as portugueses/as. Revista Interdisciplinar de Ciencias Sociales y Humanas, 1(2), 113-121. Retrieved from http://independent.academia.edu/revistaagir

Sakalli-Uğurlu, N., & Glick, P. (2003). Ambivalent sexism and attitudes toward women who engage in premarital sex in Turkey. The Journal of Sex Research, 40(3), 296-302. doi: 10.1080/00224490309552194

Viki, G. T., Abrams, D., & Masser, B. (2004). Evaluating stranger and acquaintance rape: The role of benevolent sexism in perpetrator blame and recommended sentence length. Law and Human Behavior, 28(3), 295-303. doi: 10.1023/b:lahu.0000029140.72880.69

Wilson, M. (2004). Constructing measures: An item response modeling approach. New York, NY: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781410611697




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.35670/1667-4545.v18.n3.22201

Enlaces refback

  • No hay ningún enlace refback.


Copyright (c) 2018 José Andrey Zamora-Araya, Vanessa Smith-Castro, Eiliana Montero-Rojas, Tania Elena Moreira-Mora

Licencia de Creative Commons
Este obra está bajo una licencia de Creative Commons Reconocimiento 4.0 Internacional.


ISSN-L: 1667-4545

Contacto: revistaevaluar@psicologia.unc.edu.ar
Entidad editora: Facultad de Psicología. Laboratorio de Evaluación Psicológica y Educativa (LEPE)

Facultad de Psicología, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Enrique Barros y Enfermera Gordillo. Ciudad Universitaria. Córdoba, Argentina. CP: 5000


Resultado de imagen para google scholar
Google Académico