Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
A Comparison of Four Measures of Self-Control Skills
|uhm_ma_3042_uh.pdf||Version for UH users||2.98 MB||Adobe PDF||View/Open|
|uhm_ma_3042_r.pdf||Version for non-UH users. Copying/Printing is not permitted||2.98 MB||Adobe PDF||View/Open|
|Title:||A Comparison of Four Measures of Self-Control Skills|
|Authors:||Mezo, Peter Geza|
|Contributors:||Heiby, Elaine M (advisor)|
|Date Issued:||Dec 2002|
|Publisher:||University of Hawaii at Manoa|
|Abstract:||In the present investigation, self-control skills (SC) were defined as a multidimensional construct that results from the interdependent operation of the constituent processes of self-monitoring (SM), self-evaluating (SE), and self-reinforcing (SR; Kanfer, 1970). According to this definition, SC are the outcome of adaptive and effective SM, SE, and SR during periods in which environmentally controlled reinforcement is delayed or absent. This characterization of SC is associated with various treatment or training strategies that have been designed to improve SC, and many of these interventions have demonstrated effectiveness in areas of clinical concern, including disturbances in affect (depression and anxiety) and habit (problem drinking, tobacco smoking, overeating; February & Clum, 1998; Walters, 2000). Thus, accurate assessment of SC is needed to facilitate and inform current and future treatment decisions. There are currently at least four adult self-report questionnaires that have been developed to assess SC: the Self-Control Questionnaire (SCQ; Rehm, Kornblith, O'Hara, Lamparski, Romano, & Volkin, 1981), the Frequency of Self-Reinforcement Questionnaire (FSRQ; Heiby, 1982), the Cognitive Self-Management Test (CSM; Rude, 1986), and the Lifestyle Approaches Inventory (LSA; Williams, Moore, Pettibone, & Thomas, 1992). The purpose of this investigation is to compare the psychometric characteristics of each of these questionnaires, and to draw conclusions regarding their clinical applicability. Initially, a literature review was presented that summarized the available published evidence for the reliability and validity of these SC instruments. Following the literature review, two studies further investigated the reliability and validity of the four SC instruments. Study 1 compared each instrument in terms of a procedure designed to evaluate content validity, or the degree to which elements of an instrument are relevant to and representative of the SC construct (Haynes, Richard, & Kubany, 1995), as based on the three-component SC model (Kanfer, 1970). Then, Study 2 assessed the reliability and validity of the four measures in a sample of ethnically diverse undergraduate students. Finally, the data from the literature review, Study 1, and Study 2, were discussed in terms of how they inform the selection of instruments for specific assessment purposes, and what future research investigations appear most pressing|
|Description:||vi, 143 leaves|
|Rights:||All UHM dissertations and theses are protected by copyright. They may be viewed from this source for any purpose, but reproduction or distribution in any format is prohibited without written permission from the copyright owner.|
|Appears in Collections:||
M.A. - Psychology|
Please email firstname.lastname@example.org if you need this content in ADA-compliant format.
Items in ScholarSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.