Who we are Search Resources Submit a resource Links to sites Discussion Board Contact Us Return to Home
Multiculturalism and Social Work | San Francisco State University

Differential validity of the Defense Mechanism Manual for the TAT between Asian Americans and Whites.

Author: Hibbard,-Stephen; Tang,-Paulette-C-Y; Latko,-Romney; Park,-Ju-Hui; Munn,-Sidney; Bolz,-Sabina; Somerville,-Addison
Author Background: U Windsor, Dept of Psychology, Winsdor, ON, Canada
Date 12/2000
Type Journal
Journal Title: Journal-of-Personality-Assessment.
Volume/Pages Vol 75(3): 351-372
Subject Matter Asian Americans, Research, Defense-Mechanisms; *Racial-and-Ethnic-Differences; *Test-Validity; *Thematic-Apperception Test
Abstract Thematic Apperception Test (H. A. Murray, 1943) responses of 69 Asian American (hereafter, Asian) and 83 White students (aged 18-48 yrs) were coded for defenses according to the Defense Mechanism Manual (DMM, P. Cramer, 1991b) and studied for differential validity in predicting paper-and-pencil measures of relevant constructs. Three tests for differential validity were used: (a) differences between validity coefficients, (b) interactions between predictor and ethnicity in criterion prediction, and (c) differences between groups in mean prediction errors using a common regression equation. Modest differential validity was found. It was surprising that the DMM scales were slightly stronger predictors of their criteria among Asians than among Whites and when a common predictor was used, desirable criteria were overpredicted for Asians, whereas undesirable ones were overpredicted for Whites. The results were not affected by acculturation level or English vocabulary among the Asians. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2000 APA, all rights reserved)