Frequently Asked Questions
|
No, neither the instrument nor the theory is related to psychoanalysis. Several authors have mistakenly associated Loevinger’s use of the term “ego” with psychoanalytic uses of the term. The link is nonexistent, however, as Loevinger has repeatedly stated (Loevinger, 1976, 1993; see also Westen, 1998).
Yes, under certain circumstances (e.g., pre-posttest assessments following a brief intervention). Loevinger constructed Form 81 so that the two halves of the test (i.e., 1st and 2nd set of 18 items) have equivalent item validities and can be used as short forms of the measure. The psychometric properties of the short form is discussed in Loevinger (1985). Note, however, that the abbreviated forms are less reliable than use of the complete 36 item instrument. The complete form is therefore advised for use with individual clients in clinical or organizational practice. Yes, absolutely! The strength of the WUSCT lies in its empirically developed scoring manual. Even trained and experienced raters must rate each WUSCT response using the manual (Cf. Hy and Loevinger, 1998, p. 32). Hy and Loevinger (1996) observed that “persons who tried to bypass the training … were almost never correct in their ratings (p. 32).
Hy and Loevinger (1998, p. 32) suggest that a basic mastery of the scoring manual can be obtained by spending about two hours per day for 2 - 3 weeks completing the self-training exercises provided in Hy and Loevinger (1998).
Loevinger and her colleagues have typically not recommended pursuing this route. Some legitimately trained and experienced raters periodically provide rating services for a fee. However, a non-trivial understanding of the developmental levels typically requires the tacit knowledge that comes from learning to score WUSCT protocols.
No computerized scoring procedure is available to rate the responses to the item stems. Attempts to develop such a procedure have failed to yield a reliable scoring system. However, the conversion of the item ratings into a total protocol rating can be automated (e.g., Hy, 1998).
Several studies indicate that an oral administration does not seem to distort ego level scores (e.g., McCammon, 1981). If the testing situation permits, it might be good practice to ask children under the age of 12 if they would prefer the written or oral format, because one study showed that a slight advantage was noted for young respondents who indicated a preference for an oral presentation (Westenberg, van Strien, & Drewes, 2001).
Mail or telephone administration procedures are not typically advised, because the direct supervision needed to ensure uninterrupted and independent responding is lacking, and one study showed that a telephone administration yielded significantly lower ego level scores (Hansell et al., 1985).
No, these instruments are not a proxy measure of intelligence. A recent meta-analysis of 52 correlations (retrieved from 42 studies involving 5,648 participants) yielded a weighted average correlation between WUSCT scores and verbal intelligence test scores of r = .32 (see Cohn & Westenberg, 2004). In contrast, the correlation between scores on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS III) and scores on the Stanford-Binet is .88 (cf. Cohn & Westenberg, 2004, p. 767). The meta-analysis also demonstrated the incremental validity of the sentence completion method by reviewing 16 studies that examined the association between ego level and various criterion scores after statistically controlling for the effects of intelligence.
A comprehensive introduction to both instruments and their theoretical background is provided in a chapter in the Comprehensive Handbook of Psychological Assessment authored by Westenberg, Hauser, and Cohn (2004). More detailed information regarding the meaning and measurement of ego development can be found in Loevinger (1976, 1985, 1993, 1998), Hy and Loevinger (1996), and Blasi (1998). Specific information concerning ego development in children and adolescents can be found in Westenberg et al. (1998).
Yes, but it is currently in Dutch. An English version of the test and an associated scoring manual (validated using data from U.S. respondents ages 8 - 18) is currently being developed and prepared for publication. Inquiries regarding the SCT-Y and manual can be sent to Prof. P. Michiel Westenberg, Department of Psychology, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands.
back to top |