The Irrational Beliefs Inventory (IBI) was built to measure self-defeating beliefs as conceptualized in Rational-Emotive Behavior Therapy. The IBI has five factors: worrying, rigidity, problem avoidance, need for approval, and emotional irresponsibility. A three-phase cross-cultural study was conducted to translate and adapt the IBI from English to Icelandic, and a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) approach was used for a test of factorial validity and cross-cultural invariance. In Phase 1, the IBI was translated from English to Icelandic, using a forward-translation and back-translation. Two forward-translators and two back-translators were recruited. In Phase 2, qualitative interview methods were used in both the U.S. and Iceland to gain insights into the meaning of the items on the IBI. In the U.S., 21 university students provided insights in a group discussion, and four students were individually interviewed in depth about individual items on the IBI. In Iceland, four university students were interviewed in depth about the meaning of individual items. Three Icelandic psychology professionals were recruited to evaluate the appropriateness of the IBI for the Icelandic culture. In Phase 3, a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted to check factorial validity and cross-cultural invariance of the IBI. The total sample size in Phase 3 was N=1547, all college students, with n=827 in the U.S. and n=720 in Iceland. Overall, the CFA did not support the fit of the IBI's original five-factor model, although the fit was slightly better in the Icelandic version. Fit indices conflicted; the chi-square and comparative fit index (CFI) showed poor fit, while the RMSEA and SRMR showed acceptable fit. Correlated error was found between 85 item pairs in the U.S. model, and between 68 item pairs in the Icelandic model. Modifications were attempted to the original model by including the correlated errors, and a multigroup CFA was conducted. Adding the correlated errors slightly improved the fit of both models, but only 11 out of the IBI's 50 items were found to have equivalent item factor loadings and intercepts between the countries. Results from the psychometric analysis and qualitative interviews indicated that the IBI needs to be rewritten if the measure is to be used for research in Iceland. The results were discussed in light of a recent analysis of REBT-based measurement instruments, and implications for cross-cultural research on highly abstract constructs such as irrationality were discussed.

Thesis (M.Com. (Industrial Psychology))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2009.

Thesis (M.Com. (Industrial Psychology))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2009.

As a result of growing attention in cross-cultural research, existing measurement instruments developed in one language are being translated and adapted for use in other languages and cultural contexts. The benefits of having the same instrument across cultures can only be realized if the process of translation and adaptation of the measurement instruments produces measurement operations that function similarly across national and cultural boundaries. Producing invariant measurement instruments that assess educational and psychological constructs provide a way of testing the cross-cultural generality of theories that include these constructs. The major purposes of the study were to translate and adapt the Teaching Perspectives Inventory (Pratt, 1992, 1990) from English to Bahasa Malaysia and compare the psychometric properties of the two versions. The TPI is an instrument developed by Pratt (1992) to ascertain the different conceptions that teachers in higher education have about teaching. The TPI has 45 items, which are divided into five subscales or perspectives referred to as Transmission, Apprenticeship, Developmental, Nurturing, and Social Reform. The first phase of this study translated and adapted the TPI from English into the Malay language of Malaysia or Bahasa Malaysia (BM) using multiple approaches as recommended by the International Test Commission. The approaches used to translate the TPI included forward and back translations, an expert panel review, a pilot study, and cognitive interviews. In the translation process, three initial translators, two back translators, and six expert panel members, including the researcher, came up with a pre-final version of the Malay TPI. During the translation process, two items were found to contain expressions that had no exact equivalent forms in Malay: "virtuoso performers" and "higher ideals." Overall, translating the TPI was a challenging task due to the relatively large number of items in the instrument (45) as well as the complexity and very abstract nature of the constructs. Many of the words and expressions that were brief and concise in the English version became longer and more verbose when translated in Malay. As a result, the translated TPI version appeared longer than the original version. Pilot testing with 25 native speakers of Malay who were faculty members from a number of public universities in Malaysia revealed nine items that needed modification. Cognitive interviewing with five participants from the pilot group revealed one item requiring a change by adding a borrowed word "novis" in brackets next to the Malay expressions, which refers to the original word novice. Due to the confusion with the words referring to `people' in many of the items, additional instructions were added at the beginning of the survey to ensure that the participants responded according to the original intention of the items, which focuses on learners in the faculty's specific classroom context instead of people in the society in general. Following changes to the TPI, this instrument was administered in phase two to a Malaysian sample of 561 faculty. In the second phase, the study assessed the psychometric properties of the original English version of the TPI with 605 faculty in the U. S. and the translated TPI version of the TPI with the Malaysian sample. The overall internal consistency reliability of both the English (α=.88) and the Malay TPI (α=.93) appeared to be adequate. At the subscale level, the internal consistency reliabilities of all the scales were on the lower side considering the large number of items (9) for each subscale (range = .67 to .83 for the U. S. and .59 to .81 for Malaysia). It was found that three out of the five subscales of the U. S. and Malay TPI had similar alpha reliabilities (Apprenticeship, Nurturing, Social Reform). To assess the cross-cultural factorial validity and measurement invariance of the TPI, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was carried out for both the original and the Malay TPI. The sample size for the U. S. group was 605 and the Malay group was 561. The fit for both the U. S. and the Malay correlated five-factor models was less than adequate with the Malay model showing a much worse fit. Correlated errors were found between 64 item pairs in the U. S. model and 389 item pairs in the Malay model. The correlations between the five perspectives in the Malay sample were much higher than those in the U. S. sample suggesting that the perspectives had limited discriminant validity. For example, the correlations between the Nurturing and Developmental perspectives and Nurturing and Social Reform perspectives were 1.0. The inadequate fit of the five-factor correlated model in the Malaysian sample and the minimally acceptable fit in the U. S. sample led to the decision to carry out analyses and compare the groups one subscale at a time. Model modifications for each subscale of both samples were carried out to improve the fit by adding one or more parameters (i.e., correlated errors) for each subscale model to obtain acceptable baseline models. The results of the invariance testing for each subscale did not support the existence of measurement invariance. Overall, the results indicate that the Malay version of the TPI is not ready for use and additional translation and adaptation work is recommended. Future efforts could incorporate improvements in the translation process in the form of recruiting a larger number of certified translators who have in-depth knowledge of teaching in higher education as well as a deep knowledge of the philosophy and purposes behind the TPI. Additional cognitive interviews before and after pretesting and pilot testing of the pre-final version are recommended. Finally, adding a large sample of bilingual educators who would complete both the Malay and English versions of the TPI would provide important psychometric data on the equivalence of the TPI items.