Free Comparison Of Assessment Tool Constructs Research Paper Sample

Introduction

There are different assessment tools which play one basic role in psychology. This special role is basically to identify, analyze, and address the issues, circumstances or problems that a psychological client may be having. Assessment is not only critical to diagnosing clients, but is also important in spotting the root courses of problems in one’s life, planning and developing measures to curb these problems (Flowers, 1990, p. 207). Despite being an important tool, it should never be used as a means to an end for example in offering label to clients. However, it should be used identify statements and strategies to assist individuals, couples or families register significant progress in their counseling sessions. This comprehensive analytical paper will illustrate the difference between two different assessment tools, the Marital satisfaction tool (which is my selected tool) and the dyadic adjustment scale that are used for couples.

The Marital Satisfaction Inventory

This assessment tool was developed with the target group being professionals such as therapists and counselors working with couples who are on a mission to adapt conjoint therapy. Having been developed quite a long time ago, it has been revised one time to encompass all types’ relationships. This means that, unlike the old Marital Satisfaction assessment tool, the new one can be used by not only couples who have been married for six months, but also with a variety of couples including same sex couples.

Dyadic Adjustment Scale

The dyadic adjustment scale, unlike the Miller marriage scale, is a 32 item scale used to evaluate and analyze the extent to which couples or people living together in a dyadic relationship adjust and conform to each other. Just like the Miller marriage scale, couples respond to the 32 items and their answers used to determine their outcome. However, unlike the Miller Marriage scale, in the Dyadic Adjustment scale, the couples are expected to record the extent to which they are in terms or have disagreements with their partners and as well estimate the extent to which they share activities with their partners (Van Braket et al., 2006, p. 200). This scale appears to be more advanced, and it yields the total adjustment scores in four subscales which are the Dyadic Cohesion, Dyadic Satisfaction, Dyadic Consensus and Affectional Expression.

Dyadic Adjustment Scale Vs Marital Satisfaction Inventory-Revised

The MSI-R is used by professionals for several functions such as building a good rapport, measuring therapy progress and results as well as goal setting and diagnosis. Having been revised, the new MSI has a reduced number of items, and it is now re-standardized to allow the use of larger samples. Moreover, new scales have been added apart from some of the old scales being paraphrased to allow appropriate use of the scale with non-traditional couples. The two new scales include the aggression scale and the inconsistency scale. Upon revision, the remaining 150 items which are based on true or false provide 13 subscales. Dissatisfaction is proven when a couple records a high score.
The Dyadic Adjustment Scale has been long known for the it’s good internal consistency and stable scores for the total measures as well as the two to four sub scales. The only major reliability issues that this scale has been discredited to are the lower reliability indices on the two of the four subscales (Affectional Expression and Dyadic Expression). This is however attributed to the low composition of the two subscales (4-5 items). The validity of this scale indicates that Dyadic Adjustment Scale conforms to other procedures of dyadic or marital satisfaction (Chatterji, 2003). Moreover, it has been proven beyond doubt that D.A.S mutually relates positively to measures such as self esteem and marital satisfaction. Its diverse applicability to different couples including couples of the same sex is a major outstanding virtue making it assume a pragmatic nature (American Educational Research Association, 1999). Moreover, its ability to be administered either in written or computerized form as well as its open analytical method allowing analysis of scores either individually or in comparison with other scores makes it more preferred than the Miller Marriage scale.

Methods of Acquiring Key Measuring Constructs

Validity in this context means how accurately an end strategy, conclusion or concept corresponds and is applicable to what is being tested. Some of the factors that impact the measurement of validity include self efficacy, anxiety and understanding ability. Considering these crucial factors, one of the renowned methods of measuring the validity involves using a coefficient. In this method, a higher coefficient indicates a higher validity. Construct validity is always accompanied by accumulated evidence of the same. This could mean that strategies such as content analysis, correlation coefficients, and ANOVA analysis could be used (Flowers, 1990, p. 370). Moreover, additional strategies such as pretest and post intervention studies as well as multi trait methods build up evidence, reliability, and credibility.
The Miller Marriage Satisfaction Rating Scale, on the other hand, was made to measure satisfaction in marriage. It has items that facets of family or marriage through 4-pointrating scale;, unlike DAS that only measured married couple MMRS has the potential to measure even dating couple. The yield on this scale is however not that reliable with dating couples. However, operating the scale is easy since it does not require manual, no description and no standardization. MMRS is found to 92% reliable leaving a room for 8% that make the item unlikely reliable. The validity of the tool is not stated clearly by the authors describing it (Busby, 1995). Despite the fact, that its reliability and validity is wanting, Miller Marriage Satisfaction Scale will be very useful for future research to a couple (Dixon, 1985). The item is therefore not performance proved for public use; this is because its validity and reliability have not been proven.
Marital Satisfactory Inventory-Revised is a tool made for working couples, counselors, and therapist; its validity is well established, unlike the first two tools. The MSI-R is more reliable because the developers made it be self-administering tool (Dixon, 1985). Its time of operation rather wants as compared to the first two tools because it takes ten more minutes than the DAS and Miller Marriage Satisfaction Rating Scale (Chisolm, 2005). However, the MSI-R has an advantage that it has been improved and it technique incorporated in the computer. Computerizing it has enable production computer oriented test that can be more reliable and valid than manual test.

Critical Evaluation

DAS is known to provide reliable and valid results as per the authors writing about however it has several limitations when critically evaluated. The first clinical limitation is that it addresses all marriage issues with a single item that might not provide a reliable result (Busby, 1995). Moreover, it is tied to theoretical logic of therapist which might not be valid in a real marriage practical scenario. The DAS also does not address various issues like drug abuse, co-parenting and money management this are core issues in a marriage which should not be left out while testing (Chisolm, 2005). The MSI-R also limits its capability to measure because it use is limited to clinical purposes only thus it cannot be used widely in other therapeutic fields (Fowers, 1990). The best recommended test item is the Miller Marriage Satisfaction Rating Scale; this is because its result is reliable and properly documented. However, more literature should be provided to enable critical evaluation of the test item.

Conclusion

According to the provided standards of the test items DAS, its property proves supreme over MRI in terms of time and test reliability. In addition, all the argued measuring tools provide a solid platform for marriage couples to test their position. The difference that arises in the performance of the test items is due to the tool efficacy, reliability and validity. From the argument, Miller Marriage Satisfaction Rating Scale proved to be the best item of measurement. However, the DAS and MRI-R also have some advantages that The Miller Marriage Satisfaction Rating Scale lacks. It is also important for test item to include other core issues like drug abuse, alcoholism and co-parenting.

Reference

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Busby, D. M., Christensen, C., Crane, D. R., & Larson, J. H. (1995). A revision of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale for use with distressed and nondistressed couples: Construct hierarchy and multidimensional scales. Journal of Marital and family Therapy, 21(3), 289-308.
Chatterji, M. (2003). Designing and using tools for educational assessment. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Chisolm, T. H., Abrams, H. B., McArdle, R., Wilson, R. H., & Doyle, P. J. (2005). The WHO-DAS II: psychometric properties in the measurement of functional health status in adults with acquired hearing loss. Trends in Amplification, 9(3), 111-126.
Daniel, M. H. (1997). Intelligence testing: Status and trends. American Psychologist, 52(10), 1038.
Dixon, D. N. (1985). [Review of the Marital Satisfaction Inventory]. In J. V. Mitchell, Jr. (Ed.), The ninth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 894-895). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.
Fowers, B. J. (1990). An interactional approach to standardized marital assessment: A literature review. Family Relations, 39, 368-377.
Van Brakel, W. H., Anderson, A. M., Mutatkar, R. K., Bakirtzief, Z., Nicholls, P. G., Raju, M. S, & Das-Pattanayak, R. K. (2006). The Participation Scale: measuring a key concept in public health. Disability & Rehabilitation, 28(4), 193-203.