UNITS OF ANALYSIS AND THE PSYCHOMETRICS OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SCALES

被引:12
|
作者
RICHARDS, JM
GOTTFREDSON, DC
GOTTFREDSON, GD
机构
[1] UNIV MARYLAND,INST CRIMINOL & CRIMINAL JUSTICE,COLLEGE PK,MD 20742
[2] JOHNS HOPKINS UNIV,CTR SOCIAL ORG SCH,BALTIMORE,MD 21218
[3] UNIV ALABAMA,SCH PUBL HLTH,BIRMINGHAM,AL 35294
[4] UNIV ALABAMA,DEPT BIOMATH & BIOSTAT,BIRMINGHAM,AL 35294
关键词
D O I
10.1177/0013916591234002
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
The ecological fallacy involves interpreting results based on ecological entities, such as environmental settings, as applying to individuals. A less familiar error, the individual differences fallacy, involves interpreting results based on individuals as applying to settings. Although this second error has been quite common, little is known about the empirical consequences of using different units of analysis. This study examined the psychometrics of environmental scales when the units were individuals, observed settings, and “artificial” or random settings. Results confirm that settings rather than individuals are the appropriate units of analysis. However, methodological changes will be required beyond use of settings as units. In this study, standard reliability estimates based on settings were equivocal and only a special environmental index, the split-sample correlation, appeared adequate. Thus techniques specific to the problems of environmental research are needed. © 1991, Sage Publications, Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:423 / 437
页数:15
相关论文
共 50 条