The measurement of values: Effects of different assessment procedures
- 1 December 1973
- journal article
- Published by Taylor & Francis in Australian Journal of Psychology
- Vol. 25 (3) , 221-231
- https://doi.org/10.1080/00049537308255849
Abstract
In a study involving 382 Ss in introductory psychology, rating and pair‐comparison procedures for assessing the importance of terminal and instrumental values were compared with the standard ranking procedure developed by Rokeach. Effects of order of presentation of the value sets (terminal/instrumental versus instrumental/terminal) were also investigated. Results indicated that assessment procedure per se had little effect on the average value systems that were obtained. Nor were there replicable order effects across procedures. Some sex differences in the importance assigned to particular values were, however, replicated. Advantages and disadvantages of ranking, rating, and pair‐comparison procedures for assessing the importance of values were discussed.Keywords
This publication has 15 references indexed in Scilit:
- Value change among university studentsAustralian Journal of Psychology, 1973
- Subjective Assimilation among Ukrainian Migrants: Value Similarity and Parent-Child DifferencesJournal of Sociology, 1973
- Value similarity and value systems in state and independent secondary schoolsAustralian Journal of Psychology, 1972
- Value similarity and school adjustmentAustralian Journal of Psychology, 1972
- Value Systems and Education: The Flinders Programme of Value ResearchAustralian Journal of Education, 1972
- Test-retest reliability of individual values and value systemsAustralian Psychologist, 1971
- Similarity of value systems as a determinant of educational choice at university levelAustralian Journal of Psychology, 1971
- Semantic Differential Ratings and the Rank-Ordering of ValuesEducational and Psychological Measurement, 1969
- Comparison of Rank-Order and Paired-Comparison Methods for Measuring Value SystemsPerceptual and Motor Skills, 1968
- Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix.Psychological Bulletin, 1959