Copyright Malvin Porter, Jr. 2010 - acumen - The University of ...
Copyright Malvin Porter, Jr. 2010 - acumen - The University of ...
Copyright Malvin Porter, Jr. 2010 - acumen - The University of ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
individual data points. Even though internal consistencies can take on any value less than or<br />
equal to 1, where the positive values are more meaningful, higher values <strong>of</strong> .70 or more are more<br />
desirable (Lomax, 2001).<br />
While there were low internal consistencies for each Action and Justification subscale<br />
within each <strong>of</strong> the four stories, within story correlations revealed mixed patterns <strong>of</strong> significance<br />
indicating methodological problems with combining both story character role and story form <strong>of</strong><br />
victimization for story analysis. One explanation might be that multiple story variables within a<br />
single story confused children as the tried to imagine multiple roles and forms <strong>of</strong> victimization.<br />
Future studies should use stories that clearly delineate single variables in order to eliminate<br />
confounding variables.<br />
Another explanation for low internal consistencies within stories might be the way in<br />
which the measure was administered. Children were only given the option <strong>of</strong> the online format<br />
and completing the measure in a group setting among their peers. <strong>The</strong>y did not have the option <strong>of</strong><br />
using paper and pencil or to participate in an individual setting. Children might have lost<br />
concentration and responded by keying the same values such as all 1’s or 5’s, or with a repeated<br />
sequence <strong>of</strong> values in order to quickly complete the task. Upon close examination <strong>of</strong> the response<br />
data, only two <strong>of</strong> original 165 participants either failed to complete the survey and were<br />
eliminated from the data set. Another possibility might have been that children were confused<br />
about how to interpret rated items or by the directions such as what was meant by the terms<br />
good, bad, best or worst. Even though the researcher addressed all questions that were asked by<br />
children and maintained close proximity in order to answer individual questions, the possibility<br />
exists that children might have been reluctant to raise questions in the group for fear <strong>of</strong> calling<br />
attention to themselves among their peers. For future studies, the peer effect can be controlled for<br />
140