Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 7-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Different methodologies in the assessment of identity: Congruence between self-report and interview techniques?

Different methodologies in the assessment of identity: Congruence between self-report and... Convergent-divergent validity and reliability estimates for clinical interview and self-report measures of ego identity were obtained. Twenty-three males and 25 females completed an extended version of the Ego Identity Interview [H. D. Grotevant, W. Thorebecke, and M. C. Meyer (1982) “An Extension of Marcia's Identity Status Interview into the Interpersonal Domain,”Journal of Youth and Adolescence 11: 33–48] and the extended version of the Objective Measure of Ego Identity Status [H. D. Grotevant and G. R. Adams (1984) “Development of an Objective Measure to Assess Ego-Identity in Adolescence: Validation and Replication,”Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 13: 419–438]. While the two measures were expected to converge, little convergence was observed. The findings suggest that the two measures may be (a) assessing relatively distinct forms of ego identity, or (b) that the ego-identity construct as measured by the process (exploration) and outcome (commitment) dimensions needs further theoretical examination. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Youth and Adolescence Springer Journals

Different methodologies in the assessment of identity: Congruence between self-report and interview techniques?

Download PDF
14 pages

 
/lp/springer-journals/different-methodologies-in-the-assessment-of-identity-congruence-4qCJAV3DQH

References (13)

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright
Subject
Psychology; Child and School Psychology; Clinical Psychology; Health Psychology; Law and Psychology; History of Psychology; Psychology, general
ISSN
0047-2891
eISSN
1573-6601
DOI
10.1007/BF02139122
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Convergent-divergent validity and reliability estimates for clinical interview and self-report measures of ego identity were obtained. Twenty-three males and 25 females completed an extended version of the Ego Identity Interview [H. D. Grotevant, W. Thorebecke, and M. C. Meyer (1982) “An Extension of Marcia's Identity Status Interview into the Interpersonal Domain,”Journal of Youth and Adolescence 11: 33–48] and the extended version of the Objective Measure of Ego Identity Status [H. D. Grotevant and G. R. Adams (1984) “Development of an Objective Measure to Assess Ego-Identity in Adolescence: Validation and Replication,”Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 13: 419–438]. While the two measures were expected to converge, little convergence was observed. The findings suggest that the two measures may be (a) assessing relatively distinct forms of ego identity, or (b) that the ego-identity construct as measured by the process (exploration) and outcome (commitment) dimensions needs further theoretical examination.

Journal

Journal of Youth and Adolescence – Springer Journals

Published: Aug 20, 2005

There are no references for this article.