A COMPENDIUM OF SCALES for use in the SCHOLARSHIP OF TEACHING AND LEARNING

psychometrically sound tool. However, the quality of the outlet in which a scale appears does
potentially say something about its psychometric quality. 2 Second, in addition to the original
publication that contains the scale, look to see if subsequent work has somehow improved the
original scale. For example, the Teacher Behaviors Checklist (TBC; Buskist, Sikorski, Buckley, &
Saville, 2002) has been subjected to subsequent psychometrically-focused research (e.g.,
Keeley, Smith, & Buskist, 2006). The result? A scale that is better, psychometrically-speaking,
than it otherwise would be 3 . Finally, do cited reference searches on the publication that
contained the original scale and any subsequent research that amended and improved the
original scale. If such cited reference searches reveal few or no citations to these sources, it is
an indication, albeit an imperfect one, that perhaps the scale is not well-accepted in the
scientific community.
With my personality and I/O worldview, I am noticing many scales that seem like they are
measuring the same construct 4 . For example, a recent publication examined work ethic and
GRIT as predictors of job satisfaction, turnover intention, and job stress (Meriac, Woehr, &
Banister, 2015). Work ethic was defined as “a set of beliefs and attitudes reflecting the
fundamental value of work” (p. 316). GRIT is the “perseverance and passion for long-term
goals” and entails “working strenuously toward challenges, maintaining effort and
interest….despite failure, adversity, and plateaus in progress (Duckworth, Peterson, Matthews,
& Kelly, 2007, pp. 1087-1088). At first read, work ethic and GRIT may sound like closely related
constructs, and in fact, they were correlated (r = .44; Meriac et al., 2015). Do we really need
both of these measures? Indeed, Meriac and his colleagues suggested that in fact they do
differentially predict job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and stress. Furthermore, Meriac and
his colleagues found that there is incremental validity in using both of these measures. Indeed,
at least within the context of I/O psychology, it does appear that there is value in having both of
these measures. Researchers need to consider which one is appropriate to answer a given
research question, or if fact it is worth using both of them. Ultimately there is no correct or
incorrect choice; rather, it is imperative that some justification for the choice of a scale or scales
is needed, particularly when there are seemingly overlapping possible scales to choose from.
Indeed, with so many scales available, look for those that have demonstrated incremental
validity in prior research. In my opinion (and my opinion only), incremental validity seems to
receive short shrift relative to other forms of validity in establishing the psychometric
properties of a scale. The cynical part of me does wonder how many new scales actually predict
outcomes above and beyond existing scales. The more-erudite part of me believes that new
scales are indeed adding to what’s already available, and if such evidence has not been offered,
it is incumbent on the scientific community to offer evidence such is the case.
In Chapter 14, Richmond (2015) describes the issue of relying on self-report data and not actual
behavior, something inherent with any research area that relies on scales. In personality and
I/O, there is great concern about common method bias. Common method bias occurs when the
same general methodology (e.g., reliance exclusively on self-report data) is used to answer a
research question. The trend in personality and I/O is to avoid common method bias to the
23