2012
DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2011.11.016
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An examination of the factorial dimensionality of the Marlowe Crowne Social Desirability Scale

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
30
2

Year Published

2012
2012
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 55 publications
(32 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
0
30
2
Order By: Relevance
“…In a reliability generalizability study of the instrument incorporating 123 internal consistency assessments, Beretvas, Meyers, and Leite (2002) calculated a mean internal consistency coefficient of .73. Although there is some debate whether the Crowne-Marlowe items are best represented by a single-or a two-factor structure, Ventimiglia and MacDonald (2012) found the one-factor model (used in this study) to be a reasonable fit to the data (GFI = .91, RMSEA = .035).…”
Section: Crowne-marlowe Scale Of Social Desirability Thementioning
confidence: 64%
“…In a reliability generalizability study of the instrument incorporating 123 internal consistency assessments, Beretvas, Meyers, and Leite (2002) calculated a mean internal consistency coefficient of .73. Although there is some debate whether the Crowne-Marlowe items are best represented by a single-or a two-factor structure, Ventimiglia and MacDonald (2012) found the one-factor model (used in this study) to be a reasonable fit to the data (GFI = .91, RMSEA = .035).…”
Section: Crowne-marlowe Scale Of Social Desirability Thementioning
confidence: 64%
“…Crowne and Marlowe (1960) reported an internal consistency reliability coefficient of .88 and test-retest reliability of .89 with a sample of 39 undergraduates. More recently, Ventimiglia and MacDonald (2012) found the SDS demonstrated satisfactory internal consistency reliability with a Cronbach's alpha of .79 for a sample of 555 undergraduates.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Whereas Seol (2007) found evidence for a single dimension, Ventimiglia and MacDonald (2012) reported moderate fit for either a one-factor or two-factor (impression management and self-deception) model, while Holden and Fekken (1989) supported a five-factor (considerateness, endurance, patience, integrity, and adherence to social norms) model for the structure underlying the MCSDS items. Different theoretical models and factor analytic methods in these studies preclude any strong conclusions about the structure of the MCSDS.…”
Section: Construct/factor Analyticmentioning
confidence: 89%