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
|
| Publisher |
|
| Subject Matter |
Asian Americans, Research, Defense-Mechanisms; *Racial-and-Ethnic-Differences; *Test-Validity; *Thematic-Apperception Test
|
| Population |
|
| Pedagogies |
|
| 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)
|
| Website: |
|
| email: |
|
|
