Some measurements of achievement orientation

Some measures of children's values

“…In fact only one cluster was found. This covered Questions 5 and 7, the latter of which has so far been excluded from the analysis, because it seems to measure a fourth dimension akin to &dquo;occupational primacy&dquo; (Kahl, 1965). Furthermore, the level of clustering shown by the computer was very low.…”

“…These three dimensions of values might be assumed to bear on such important aspects of the process of socialization as achievement at school, occupational and educational aspirations, and the learning of the political culture, in which the investigators were interested, and the same values might be predicted to influence reported behaviour relating to and views about the mass media. Therefore, an instrument was devised based on the questions given to adults by Rosen and several others (Kahl, 1965). …”

The influence of family tradition and psychological traits on entrepreneurial intention

“…The scales for personality traits included a total of 40 items from a number of instruments. Risk-taking propensity measure consisted of ten items (Jackson, 2007), innovativeness of eight items (Mueller and Thomas, 2001), tolerance of ambiguity of four items (Acedo and Jones, 2007), locus of control of ten items (Mueller and Thomas, 2001) and need for achievement of eight items (Kahl, 1965). All trait items are measured using a five-point Likert scale ranging between "1" (strongly disagree) and "5" (strongly agree).…”

“…Cromie and Johns (1983, p.318) suggested that measures of achievement values based on conscious beliefs are preferable to projective tests which are mainly used to measure achievement motivation as introduced by McClelland (1961). Therefore, 8 items from Kahl's (1965) achievement values were adapted. According to him, achievement orientation is multidimensional and consists of four key components: desire for occupational accomplishment, independence of family (individualism), activism or mastery over the environment and trust in people.…”

Modernization as Changes in Cultural Complexity: New Cross-Cultural Measurements

“…Societies that are industrialized would lie higher on the continuum than preindustrialized societies. Coughenour and Stephenson (1972) reviewed the literature on individual measures of modernity, and Armer and Schnaiberg (1972) examined four different scales constructed and used by Smith and Inkeles (1966), Kahl (1968), and Armer (1970). They found that the scales tested in Third World countries were cross-national rather than crosscultural in nature, there were prima facie differences in their content, and no information was available on their reliability and validity.…”