The scale has shown substantial reliability tested by internal consistency as well as good test-retest reliability. The inventory contains 15 item at 4-point rating scale that combine measures of feelings of fear/anxiety and feelings of depression/anger (Mitchell & Hastings, 1998). SELF -EFFICACY The scores of self efficacy related to challenging behaviour can be operationalized by Difficult Behaviour Self-Efficacy Scale (Hasting, R. P., & Brown, 2002) which include scale of five items. These five items include direct questions about feelings of confidence, personal difficulties, possible positive effect, satisfaction and control of when dealing with challenging behaviour. Furthermore, the rating scale factor structure, reliability and validity
Total SSI .92 DISCUSSION One purpose of the present study was to analyze the ratings of the items (and categories) of the Student-life Stress Inventory for the total group of 336 participants. Several computations were reported. First, the internal consistencies for the nine categories of the SSI varied from .61 (Self-imposed) to .86 (Conflicts). In the 1991 study 7 (Gadzella, Fullwood, & Ginther) with 95 subjects, the internal consistencies for the categories varied from .52 (Frustrations) to .85 (Changes). In the 2001 study (Gadzella & Baloglu), the internal consistencies for the categories varied from .63 (Self-imposed) to .86 (Changes) and .86 (Physiological).
State-Trait Depression Inventory (STDI) was used to measure depression (Spielberger, 2003). A 20-item questionnaire was administered that corresponds to the depression subscale of State-Trait Personality Inventory (STPI). It employed a four-point Likert scale with 1 meaning “almost always” and 4 meaning “almost never”. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the scale in the present study is 0.93. A subscale of Ryff’s Scale of Psychological Well-Being entitled Positive Relations with Others was employed (Ryff, 1989), using a six-point Likert scale (0 = totally disagree, 5 = totally agree).
The questionnaire included both close and open-ended questions and, comprised three sections in order to assess the following variables:- a) socio-demographic information, b) knowledge of nurses on the initial assessment of critically ill patient, and c) challenges face on care of critically ill patient. Observation check list was used to asses in getting more information practically which is not possible to capture by using questionnaire. In this regard, the researcher observed how nurses give care to patients directly during their nurses activities. The checklist consisted of four columns. The first column was for serial number of activities, second column was for skilled observed by researcher, third column for performance of nurses which contain two parts Yes and No and the last column for remarks.
Review of Related Literature Anxiety is an unexplainable feeling of nervousness of what might occur in a new environment, unaccustomed situation or any unusual experience to a person. According to Minahan and Rappaport (2013), anxiety affects the physiological, cognitive and behavioral aspects of a student. In line with this, the way they interact and respond to their environment varies in different levels. There are three levels of anxiety– mild, moderate and severe. Mild anxiety is the condition where an individual feels that something is different which needs immediate response and special attention.
It was consisted of 24 items .All of the items are in the likert scale shown in appendix B.The reliability of WAQ was also calculated through Cronbachs Alpha reliability coefficient and the result showed that the reliability of this instrument was 0.83. 3.3.4 Writing a short composition The participants were asked to write a short composition on the selected topic . They started paragraph writing. To ensure the scorer reliability , apart from the researcher herself, two other teachers scored the essay. Both raters were English teachers of that school and the average of raters scores was taken to represent the students main score.
Even, occurrence of suicide is greater in person with hearing impairment compared to blind person. (Narimani et al., 2014). Diagnostic criteria for social anxiety disorder according DSM-5 A.A noticeable and constant fear about one and more social situations or circumstances, in which an individual is exposed to unfamiliar people or to possible analysis/evaluate by others. Examples comprise social interaction (having a conversation), being observed (drinking or eating) or performing in front of others (giving a speech and presentation). B.
It is a structured parent interview questionnaire that measures the child’s spontaneous responses to sound in his/her everyday context. The assessment is based upon information provided by the child’s parent in response to 10 probes. These 10 probes assess three main areas such as vocalization behavior, alerting to sounds and deriving meaning from sound. The 10 probe questions are rated on a five point rating scale (0- never to 4- always). It is scored on total number of points accrued out of 40 possible
Likert scale consisted of items with which people are likely either to agree or disagree. The items were typically presented in graphic format, which being labelled “agree” and “disagree” (Dane, 1990). In this study, respondents were given fives choices as shown below: Section B, C, D and E: 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree Table 3.1 Likert scale i) Part A The demographic factors referred to the respondent’s personal details. The total items consisting four questions are used for this section such as gender, age and course and year of
Reliability and validity data on the BART-Y yielded similar results to the original experiment(BART), suggesting that dissemination of prizes can substitute cash as a reward. (Lejuez ,2007). For the purpose of our experiment we will used also a self-report instrument which we choose the Impulsivity sensation seeking (ImpSS).The reason behind this selection is that several studies have shown that ImpSS show predictive validity with risk taking behaviors ( McDaniel &Zuckerman, 2003; O’Sullivan et al 1996; Robbins & Bryan,