ipl-logo

Leadership Effectiveness Scale Analysis

876 Words4 Pages

The Leadership Effectiveness Scale that Day and Sin (a) developed measures the effectiveness that leadership exhibits in differing roles and processes and the way the leaders develop (1). In particular, this instrument was designed with an aim of measuring the effectiveness that leaders exhibited after receiving some form of leadership development intervention (Day and Sin (b) 550). According to Day and Sin (b), there was a need among researchers to have an instrument capable of supporting their research and testing their hypotheses. With the Leadership Effectiveness Scale consisting of five questions on a 5-point Likert scale, this permitted the selection of the best response that the participants considered to represent the perceptions that …show more content…

If unable to find reliability and validity for your scale, describe the demonstration that the scale is reliable and valid.
Since it was conceived in 1949, numerous studies over the years have used the 16PF in the process confirming its test validity and its reliability. In their study, Cattell and Mead closely examined the reliability of the 16PF and the usage of the test-retest method in testing reliability (145-146). They went further to discuss the validity of 16PF, focusing on construct validity (146-148). Hereby, they gave a detailed discussion seeking to justify the reasons behind the reliability and validity of the 16PF.
Considering its relative newness, the reliability and validity of the Leadership Effective Scale can be directly attributed to its developers who considered the scale reliable because of its internal consistency as well as its coefficient alpha ratings ranging from 0.81 to 0.88 (1). Notably, I have in the past established the split-half method as a means of testing the reliability of an instrument. Nevertheless, the test that would be considered most appropriate is to be used in testing …show more content…

In this case, the construct validity test utilizes the measures of what has been considered to constitute a normal, adult personality achieved through personality testing instruments whose examples include the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and California Psychological Inventory (Cattel and Mead 147). Frankfort -Nachmias and Nachmias cited Campbell and Fiske in discussing their suggestion that when using different methods in measuring the same property (in this case, personality), all the results ought to be similar (153). Such a concept is referred to as convergent-discriminant. It is the concept that has facilitated the validation of the 16PF scales to be achieved consistently (Cattell and Mead

Open Document