This study evaluates the construct validity of the Least Preferred Co-worker (LPC) Scale by testing the predictions made by the motivational hierarchy hypothesis. The respondents were one hundred fifty-nine supervisors and managers. The LPC determined leadership style as either relationship-oriented or task-oriented. Situational control was measured by the Leader-Member Relations scale, Task Structure scale, and Position Power scale. Consideration behavior, measured by the adapted LBDQ, reflected a need for interpersonal success. Initiation of structure behaviors, measured by the adapted LBDQ, reflected a need for task success. Two hypotheses were tested: (1) High LPC leaders in high control situations engage in more task-oriented behaviors than high LPC leaders in low control situations. Low LPC leaders' task-oriented behaviors are consistent across situational control. (2) Low LPC leaders in high control situations engage in more consideration behaviors than low LPC leaders in low control situations. High LPC leaders' consideration behaviors are consistent across situational control. The results of this study supplements previous research (Green, Nebeker & Boni, 1976; Michaelson, 1973) supportive of the motivational hierarchy inteipretation of the LPC. Hypothesis 1 was not supported. However, a significant interaction effect supported Hypothesis 2. Criticisms concerning the construct validity of the LPC, the motivational hierarchy inteipretation of the LPC, and the Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness are discussed. Several recommendations for future research are suggested.

Thesis (MScPhysio (Physiotherapy))--University of Stellenbosch, 2010. / Information on the normal gross motor skills in a healthy population is important since normative data provides a benchmark for health professionals to evaluate deviations from the norm. The Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) was developed to assist with the motor assessment of young infants from birth through to independent walking. The validation of the Canadian cohort for the AIMS needs to be done with regards to infants in South Africa (Cape Town), before it can be utilised by health professionals working in Paediatric Health Care. To determine if the Canadian norms for the AIMS are valid for infants aged 4 - 18 months within the Cape Metropole, South Africa. A prospective descriptive study was conducted to validate the AIMS. A total of 67 infants from one private and one public institution participated in the study. Infants were assessed at 4, 8, 12 and 18 months of age with the AIMS. Results were analysed using ANOVA and t-tests to determine the relationship between age, ethnicity, gender and clinics.The AIMS gross motor scores of this sample of infants were not significantly different from the Canadian norms, bar at 4 months. Female infants performed significantly (p<0.05) better than males at four months. It was not possible to convert the 18 month old infants‟ raw scores into percentile rankings and therefore it could not be compared to the Canadian norms. The results yielded from this study indicate that the AIMS is a valid assessment tool for healthy infants from 8 - 12 months of age within the Cape Metropole, South Africa, however, care should be taken when infants‟ scores at 4 months are compared to the scores of the normative sample. The AIMS can therefore be used by health care professionals at the Baby Well clinics in the Cape Metropole to assess gross motor development in infants for this age group and can consequently refer infants who may display delays in motor development to appropriate paediatric specialists. The results from this pilot study also make provision for future in-depth research on the AIMS with a larger cohort and with more ethnic diversity.

The purpose of this study was to propose and evaluate a procedure for revising an existing self-administered survey that is in need of item revision and/or scale reduction while maximizing validity and reliability. The procedure was demonstrated using the Client Evaluation of Self and Treatment (CEST; Joe, Broome, Rowan-Szal, & Simpson, 2002), a self-administered survey used in drug and alcohol treatment agencies. The procedure included confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses of a large dataset of completed CEST surveys, a readability analysis, and cognitive interviewing of two different groups of respondents to determine what problems they might have with CEST items. The cognitive interviewing revealed a number of issues that led to confusion among respondents, including items with two distinct concepts embedded, items containing absolutes and vague qualifiers, misinterpreted items, and terms and phrases respondents had difficulty understanding. The CEST was also judged to be long and potentially burdensome to respondents. Based on the results of this evaluation, a new survey—the Brief Assessment of Self in Context (BASIC)—also intended for use by substance abuse treatment providers, was constructed. First, factor analyses of the CEST and advice from an expert panel were used to determine which scales to retain. Next, quantitative analyses and cognitive interviewing helped determine which CEST items to retain and which to revise. Readability, sound item writing principles, and response format and scale requirements were also used to determine which items to include in the initial draft of the BASIC and guided item construction when needed. After the panel of experts provided feedback on the first revision, a final draft was prepared. Another round of cognitive interviewing was followed by administration of the final draft of the survey to a representative sample. The results indicated that the BASIC’s items are clear, unambiguous, and easy to interact with and understand, and that the instrument is an improvement over the CEST. In brief, the procedure demonstrated in this study produced a psychometrically sound instrument composed of items that are easy for respondents to access. / text

No description available.