Stephen Franklin EADM 738 Data Analysis Part I

August 16, 2015

The assessment being used consisted of a survey given to both college and high school aged participants. The
survey titled, Adult Dispositional (Trait) Hope Scale. When the survey was administered, it was called the Goals Scale
rather than the Hope Scale. This decision was based on some instances when giving the scale, some individuals became
so interested in the idea that hope could be measured, that they wanted to discuss this rather than taking the scale. When
the titled was changed to Goals Scale, a rather mundane topic, no such instances occurred.
The theoretical foundation for this study and the use of this Goals Scale is rooted in the work of Charles R.
Snyder and his Hope Theory (1999).Snyder posited that having a hopeful outlook on life was crucial to achieving more,
and being both physically and psychologically healthier. According to Snyders (1999) research, people who scored highly
on the Hope Scale tended to be more successful at achieving their goals in athletic and academic arenas than people with
low scores. The Adult State Hope Scale was developed in order to tap ongoing goal-directed thoughts at any given
moment in time. (Snyder, 1999, p. 210). Within his theory, Snyder identified three main subsets that contribute to having
hope. They are; goals, pathways and agency.

Goals relates to approaching life in a goal-oriented way

Pathways relates to finding different ways to achieve your goals
Agency relates to believing that you can instigate change and achieve your goals
Survey participants consisted of 31 individuals; 10 college aged students, and 21 high school students grades 11

and 12. It is important to note that overall the college-aged students displayed higher degrees of hope when compared
against the high school-aged students. This seems to be consistent with the developmental states of high school-aged
students, who are still trying to figure out their place in the world, as well as establishing plans for post high school. Of
the top 27%, 8 students, college-aged students made up 50% of this group. Of the top 4 scores in this upper group, 3
belonged to college-aged students. The average for college aged students in the top 27% was 83, for high school students
the average was 81. When compared to the lowest 27%, 8 students, college-aged students made up 25% of this group. The
average for college-aged students in the lower 27% was 50, for high-school students the average was 40.5. Which points
to college-aged students being more hopeful, even at the low end of the scale.

1 | Page

The survey used a Likert scale consisting of 12 items to measure responses and no right or wrong answer. The items were
divided into three categories; pathways, agency and distractors/barriers. The pathway items; 1, 4, 6 & 8 measure a
respondents ability to find multiple solutions to address a perceived problem or difficulty. The agency items; 2, 9, 10 &
12 measure a respondents degree of positivity towards life and the attainment of their goals. The distractor/barrier items;
3, 5, 7, & 11 measure a respondents degree of negativity towards life and the distractors or barriers to attainment of their
goals. Each survey item had 8 possible responses ranging from; definitely false, mostly false, somewhat false, slightly
false, slightly true, somewhat true, mostly true, and definitely true. Scoring for each item ranged from 1 - 8 with a total
score ranging from 12 96.
Computation of Test Characteristics
The mean score of 67 indicates that most respondents are reasonably hopeful in their approach to life, problems,
and goals. The range of scores at 49, indicates that there is fairly significant difference between the lowest score (38) and
the highest (87) on this particular survey. The median score of 71 relates to the mean and reflects the same hopeful
approach to life, problem, and goals. To put this in context of the total range of scores from 12 96, both the mean and
median indicate that the majority of participants possessed higher than average degrees of hopeful outlooks toward life
and the attainment of their goals. Analysis of the data resulted in a multi-modal result, of 48, 71, 72, and 81. Each mode
score occurred three times within the data set. The low score of 48 indicates a low degree of hope in the respondents,
mostly high school-aged students. The scores of 71 and 72 indicate a fairly high degree of hope, and the score of 81
indicating a very high degree of hope in the respondents. The use of a Likert scale survey that included 12 items and eight
possible responses per item, may account for this multi-modal result.
The standard deviation of 13.5 indicates the distribution of scores among the college and high school-aged
respondents. Using our mean of 67, this gives a range of scores from 53.5 to 80.5, or 54 to 81. This means within one
standard deviation, 54% or 17 respondents demonstrated a higher than average degree of hope. Item difficulty established
that item 3 with a difficulty of .51 proved to be the most difficult item for respondents to relate to. Item 9 with a difficulty
of .84 proved to be the easiest item for respondents to relate to. This survey used a Likert scale which measured the
attitudes of respondents. The resulting scale of difficulty is what is determined in this particular test characteristic. Item
difficulty is a priori as result of using the Likert scale.
2 | Page

The standard error of measurement (SEM) was 6.6% or 7. Based upon this measurement, I am 68% confident
that an individual with an obtained score of 67 will have his or her true scores lie between 60 and 74. This SEM is
reflected in the individual true scores, excluding the upper and lower 27% of respondents. Of the remaining 46% of
respondents scores, 16 in total, 10 had a true score that fell within this range. Three had scores that were just outside the
upper SEM with scores of 75, 75, and 76. Three had scores that were just outside the lower SEM with scores of 59, 55,
and 55. Cronbachs Alpha Coefficient, as mentioned in Streiner and Norman (1989) was used to calculate the reliability
coefficient for this scale. The result was a reliability coefficient of .93 which indicates a very high degree of reliability,
when measured on scale of reliability from 0 1.
Included as appendix A is the actual Adult Dispositional (Trait) Hope Scale renamed The Goals Scale used in this
study.
References:
Snyder, C. R., Cheavens, J., and Michael, S. T. (1999). Hoping. In C.R. Snyder (Ed.), Coping: The Psychology of What
Works. (p. 205-224). New York: Oxford University Press
Streiner, D. L., and Norman, G.R. (1989). Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use.
New York: Oxford University Press p. 64-65

3 | Page

Appendix A

4 | Page

Stephen Franklin EADM 738 Data Analysis Part 2

August 8, 2015

The Goals Survey Table 1.0

The Goals survey overall was far below the ability level of the majority of individuals, with the majority of ability levels
occurring 1 -3 STDs above the mean of the items. This indicates that overall this survey did not delve enough, and as a
result was not challenging enough for the majority of respondents.
Means:
There is a 1 logit difference between the means of respondents and item difficulty. Since the means of the respondents is
significantly higher than the mean for item difficulty, I can conclude that the Goals Survey instrument is relatively easy
for my sampled group.
Items:
The items are relatively few but well spread out in terms of item difficulty. However, more than half of the respondents
would find most of the statements relatively easy to answer. The most difficult item Q3 fell below the ability level of 6
individuals, and well below the ability level of 1 individual. Conversely the mean of items was at or above the ability level
of 11 respondents.
Respondents:
Based upon this analysis, a revised Goals Scale would feature items that are worded to delve deeper, as well as utilizing
fewer items on the actual scale itself. The results of this table reflect the multi-modal distribution of scores.
The Goals Survey Table 1.1
This table provides a summary report of respondent outcomes, with specific indications of the quality of the Goals Survey
instrument and its ability to test true knowledge, or this case, hope levels of the respondents. The summary of true scores
reliability coefficient equals .90, meaning there is a .10 chance of error in scoring. The instrument reliability coefficient is
.93, which is confirmed by Cronbachs Alpha.
The last segment of table 1.1 title Misfit Order indicates that the Goals Survey instrument is susceptible to outliers. Values
over 1.5 reflect an underfit of the measure, which means that the data from this survey is too random for predictability.
5 | Page

Values under 0.5 indicate an overfit, which means that certain aspects of the data is too perfect or follows the Guttman
pattern too closely.
The Goals Survey Table 1.2
Is similar to table 1.1 in its overall summary, however, table 1.2 analyzes each item and response possibility. Using
Winsteps software probability curves for each response option for each item are possible, and could then be analyzed for
overlap and probability
The Goals Survey Table 1. 3
This table highlights the most misfitting items on the Goals Survey. Beyond that, I am unsure how to analyze this table
further.

TABLE 1.0 The Goals Scale

ZOU444WS.TXT Aug 8 10:48 2015

INPUT: 32 Students 12 SS MEASURED: 32 Students 12 SS 8 CATS WINSTEPS 3.68.2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 101

0
122
-1

-2

Students - MAP - SS
<more>|<rare>
+
|
|
011 |
T|
041 +
172 |
|
|
051 232 272 |
021 142 S+
|
252 | Q3
081 282 |T
061 162 262 |
182 212 322 +
302 M|
202 242 |S Q11
| Q1
| Q5
031 +M Q7
071 152 312 | Q10
S| Q6
132 222 292 |S Q8
091 192 | Q4
+
| Q9
112 |T
T|
|
+
<less>|<frequ>

Q2

Q12

6 | Page

TABLE 1.1 The Goals Scale

ZOU312WS.TXT Aug 15 10:26 2015
INPUT: 32 Students 12 SS MEASURED: 32 Students 12 SS 8 CATS WINSTEPS 3.68.2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------SUMMARY OF 32 MEASURED Students
------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
RAW
MODEL
INFIT
OUTFIT
|
|
SCORE
COUNT
MEASURE
ERROR
MNSQ
ZSTD
MNSQ
ZSTD |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| MEAN
66.5
12.0
.85
.32
1.10
.0
1.01
-.1 |
| S.D.
13.5
.0
1.22
.07
.83
1.4
.61
1.2 |
| MAX.
87.0
12.0
3.41
.49
4.73
4.3
3.15
3.0 |
| MIN.
38.0
12.0
-1.31
.25
.28
-2.0
.29
-2.0 |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| REAL RMSE
.38 ADJ.SD
1.15 SEPARATION 3.01 Studen RELIABILITY .90 |
|MODEL RMSE
.33 ADJ.SD
1.17 SEPARATION 3.60 Studen RELIABILITY .93 |
| S.E. OF Student MEAN = .22
|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------Student RAW SCORE-TO-MEASURE CORRELATION = .98
CRONBACH ALPHA (KR-20) Student RAW SCORE RELIABILITY = .93
SUMMARY OF 12 MEASURED SS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
RAW
MODEL
INFIT
OUTFIT
|
|
SCORE
COUNT
MEASURE
ERROR
MNSQ
ZSTD
MNSQ
ZSTD |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| MEAN
177.4
32.0
.00
.19
.99
-.3
1.01
-.2 |
| S.D.
21.3
.0
.70
.02
.59
2.0
.58
1.9 |
| MAX.
209.0
32.0
1.53
.22
2.70
4.8
2.74
4.9 |
| MIN.
127.0
32.0
-1.19
.17
.44
-2.6
.41
-2.8 |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| REAL RMSE
.20 ADJ.SD
.67 SEPARATION 3.32 S
RELIABILITY .92 |
|MODEL RMSE
.19 ADJ.SD
.67 SEPARATION 3.60 S
RELIABILITY .93 |
| S.E. OF S MEAN = .21
|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------UMEAN=.000 USCALE=1.000
S RAW SCORE-TO-MEASURE CORRELATION = -1.00
384 DATA POINTS. LOG-LIKELIHOOD CHI-SQUARE: 991.54 with 335 d.f. p=.0000TABLE 10.1 The Goals Scale
ZOU312WS.TXT Aug 15 10:26 2015
INPUT: 32 Students 12 SS MEASURED: 32 Students 12 SS 8 CATS WINSTEPS 3.68.2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Student: REAL SEP.: 3.01 REL.: .90 ... S: REAL SEP.: 3.32 REL.: .92
S STATISTICS:

MISFIT ORDER

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|ENTRY
TOTAL
MODEL|
INFIT | OUTFIT |PT-MEASURE |EXACT MATCH|
|
|NUMBER SCORE COUNT MEASURE S.E. |MNSQ ZSTD|MNSQ ZSTD|CORR. EXP.| OBS% EXP%| S
|
|------------------------------------+----------+----------+-----------+-----------+------|
|
12
127
32
1.53
.17|2.70
4.8|2.74
4.9|A .45
.81| 21.9 36.1| Q3
|
|
7
177
32
.07
.18|1.40
1.5|1.34
1.3|B .64
.75| 37.5 40.9| Q7
|
|
8
174
32
.16
.18|1.14
.6| .99
.1|C .78
.76| 46.9 40.4| Q5
|
|
4
192
32
-.45
.19| .89
-.3|1.06
.3|D .79
.71| 40.6 43.9| Q6
|
|
9
167
32
.38
.17|1.05
.3|1.05
.3|E .88
.77| 40.6 38.7| Q1
|
|
1
209
32
-1.19
.22|1.00
.1| .99
.1|F .70
.66| 37.5 52.1| Q9
|
|
11
157
32
.68
.17| .94
-.2| .94
-.2|f .75
.79| 34.4 36.9| Q11 |
|
2
200
32
-.77
.21| .64 -1.3| .83
-.6|e .78
.69| 62.5 49.5| Q4
|
|
3
195
32
-.57
.20| .74
-.9| .74 -1.0|d .77
.71| 53.1 46.2| Q8
|
|
10
162
32
.53
.17| .50 -2.4| .50 -2.3|c .90
.78| 53.1 38.5| Q2
|
|
5
186
32
-.23
.19| .44 -2.6| .49 -2.3|b .81
.73| 59.4 43.3| Q12 |
|
6
183
32
-.13
.18| .45 -2.6| .41 -2.8|a .84
.74| 65.6 42.0| Q10 |
|------------------------------------+----------+----------+-----------+-----------+------|
| MEAN
177.4
32.0
.00
.19| .99
-.3|1.01
-.2|
| 46.1 42.4|
|
| S.D.
21.3
.0
.70
.02| .59
2.0| .58
1.9|
| 12.4
4.7|
|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7 | Page

TABLE 1.2 The Goals Scale

INPUT: 32 Students

12 SS

ZOU312WS.TXT Aug 15 10:26 2015

MEASURED: 32 Students

12 SS

8 CATS

WINSTEPS 3.68.2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TABLE 1.2 The Goals Scale

ZOU312WS.TXT Aug 15 10:26 2015
INPUT: 32 Students 12 SS MEASURED: 32 Students 12 SS 8 CATS WINSTEPS 3.68.2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------S CATEGORY/OPTION/DISTRACTOR FREQUENCIES:

MISFIT ORDER

--------------------------------------------------------------------|ENTRY
DATA SCORE |
DATA
| AVERAGE S.E. OUTF PTMEA|
|
|NUMBER CODE VALUE | COUNT
% | MEASURE MEAN MNSQ CORR.| S
|
|--------------------+------------+--------------------------+------|
|
12 A 1
1 |
2
6 |
1.62
.60 8.1
.16 |Q3
|
|
2
2 |
6 19 |
.07* .39 2.2 -.31 |
|
|
3
3 |
6 19 |
.30* .60 3.1 -.22 |
|
|
4
4 |
6 19 |
.49* .46 2.1 -.14 |
|
|
5
5 |
4 13 |
1.08* .14
.6
.07 |
|
|
6
6 |
5 16 |
1.21* .42 3.5
.13 |
|
|
7
7 |
3
9 |
2.86
.35
.5
.53 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7 B 2
2 |
2
6 |
-.02
.77 3.1 -.18 |Q7
|
|
3
3 |
1
3 |
-1.31*
.0 -.32 |
|
|
4
4 |
3
9 |
-.29* .21
.3 -.30 |
|
|
5
5 |
9 28 |
.45
.32 1.1 -.21 |
|
|
6
6 |
7 22 |
.94
.41 1.5
.04 |
|
|
7
7 |
9 28 |
1.78
.32 1.1
.48 |
|
|
8
8 |
1
3 |
2.96
.8
.31 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8 C 1
1 |
1
3 |
-.66
1.2 -.22 |Q5
|
|
2
2 |
2
6 |
-.53
.26 1.3 -.29 |
|
|
3
3 |
2
6 |
-.95* .36
.2 -.38 |
|
|
4
4 |
4 13 |
.04
.36 1.1 -.25 |
|
|
5
5 |
4 13 |
.10
.45
.8 -.24 |
|
|
6
6 |
7 22 |
.98
.25
.6
.06 |
|
|
7
7 |
11 34 |
1.94
.27
.9
.64 |
|
|
8
8 |
1
3 |
2.22
1.1
.20 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 D 3
3 |
2
6 |
-.15 1.16 3.7 -.21 |Q6
|
|
4
4 |
4 13 |
-.67* .04
.2 -.47 |
|
|
5
5 |
6 19 |
-.12
.26
.5 -.38 |
|
|
6
6 |
3
9 |
.72
.64 1.0 -.04 |
|
|
7
7 |
14 44 |
1.46
.18
.7
.44 |
|
|
8
8 |
3
9 |
2.80
.34
.8
.51 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 E 1
1 |
2
6 |
-.98
.33
.9 -.39 |Q1
|
|
2
2 |
3
9 |
-.51
.16 1.2 -.36 |
|
|
3
3 |
3
9 |
-.51* .15
.4 -.36 |
|
|
4
4 |
2
6 |
-.36
.43
.3 -.26 |
|
|
5
5 |
4 13 |
.46
.27
.3 -.12 |
|
|
6
6 |
7 22 |
1.37
.20
.3
.22 |
|
|
7
7 |
8 25 |
1.74
.28 1.2
.42 |
|
|
8
8 |
3
9 |
2.57
.42 1.0
.45 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 F 4
4 |
1
3 |
-.66
.8 -.22 |Q9
|
|
5
5 |
5 16 |
-.49
.12
.4 -.48 |
|
|
6
6 |
9 28 |
.33
.33 1.1 -.27 |
|
|
7
7 |
10 31 |
1.46
.27
.6
.33 |
|
|
8
8 |
7 22 |
1.84
.46 1.2
.43 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11 f 2
2 |
3
9 |
-.75
.30
.7 -.42 |Q11
|
|
3
3 |
4 13 |
-.43
.13
.2 -.40 |
|
|
4
4 |
6 19 |
.43
.39 1.3 -.17 |
|
|
5
5 |
3
9 |
.89
.84 2.2
.01 |
|

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Definitely False
Mostly False
Somewhat False
Slightly False
Slightly True
Somewhat True
Mostly True

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Mostly False
Somewhat False
Slightly False
Slightly True
Somewhat True
Mostly True
Definitely True

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Definitely False
Mostly False
Somewhat False
Slightly False
Slightly True
Somewhat True
Mostly True
Definitely True

3
4
5
6
7
8

Somewhat False
Slightly False
Slightly True
Somewhat True
Mostly True
Definitely True

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Definitely False
Mostly False
Somewhat False
Slightly False
Slightly True
Somewhat True
Mostly True
Definitely True

4
5
6
7
8

Slightly False
Slightly True
Somewhat True
Mostly True
Definitely True

2
3
4
5

Mostly False
Somewhat False
Slightly False
Slightly True

8 | Page

|
6
6 |
12 38 |
1.44
.26 1.2
.37 |
|
|
7
7 |
4 13 |
2.20
.44
.9
.42 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 e 4
4 |
3
9 |
-.46
.27 1.0 -.35 |Q4
|
|
5
5 |
6 19 |
-.63* .16
.1 -.58 |
|
|
6
6 |
7 22 |
.76
.49 1.6 -.04 |
|
|
7
7 |
12 38 |
1.54
.18
.4
.44 |
|
|
8
8 |
4 13 |
2.16
.27 1.0
.40 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 d 4
4 |
4 13 |
-.71
.23
.5 -.49 |Q8
|
|
5
5 |
8 25 |
.00
.25
.8 -.41 |
|
|
6
6 |
3
9 |
1.01
.70 1.4
.04 |
|
|
7
7 |
15 47 |
1.40
.22 1.0
.42 |
|
|
8
8 |
2
6 |
3.08
.33
.6
.47 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 c 2
2 |
2
6 |
-.66
.00
.8 -.32 |Q2
|
|
3
3 |
5 16 |
-.59
.30
.8 -.51 |
|
|
4
4 |
5 16 |
-.14
.20
.2 -.35 |
|
|
5
5 |
5 16 |
.91
.23
.4
.02 |
|
|
6
6 |
8 25 |
1.42
.16
.3
.27 |
|
|
7
7 |
6 19 |
2.16
.32
.8
.52 |
|
|
8
8 |
1
3 |
3.41
.7
.38 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 b 3
3 |
1
3 |
-1.31
.1 -.32 |Q12
|
|
4
4 |
2
6 |
-.66
.06
.1 -.32 |
|
|
5
5 |
11 34 |
.05
.23
.7 -.48 |
|
|
6
6 |
6 19 |
.98
.33
.7
.05 |
|
|
7
7 |
12 38 |
1.96
.23
.6
.71 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 a 3
3 |
3
9 |
-.90
.21
.4 -.46 |Q10
|
|
4
4 |
3
9 |
-.68
.06
.0 -.41 |
|
|
5
5 |
7 22 |
.21
.26
.6 -.28 |
|
|
6
6 |
6 19 |
.96
.19
.2
.04 |
|
|
7
7 |
13 41 |
1.91
.24
.8
.72 |
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------* Average measure does not ascend with category score

6 Somewhat True
7 Mostly True
4
5
6
7
8

Slightly False
Slightly True
Somewhat True
Mostly True
Definitely True

4
5
6
7
8

Slightly False
Slightly True
Somewhat True
Mostly True
Definitely True

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Mostly False
Somewhat False
Slightly False
Slightly True
Somewhat True
Mostly True
Definitely True

3
4
5
6
7

Somewhat False
Slightly False
Slightly True
Somewhat True
Mostly True

3
4
5
6
7

Somewhat False
Slightly False
Slightly True
Somewhat True
Mostly True

TABLE 1.3 The Goals Scale

ZOU312WS.TXT Aug 15 10:26 2015
INPUT: 32 Students 12 SS MEASURED: 32 Students 12 SS 8 CATS WINSTEPS 3.68.2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------MOST MISFITTING RESPONSE STRINGS
S
OUTMNSQ |Student
|
1112222
|1366594587
high---------12 Q3
2.74 A|.311..6.4.
7 Q7
1.34 B|.....2....
8 Q5
.99 C|.........1
4 Q6
1.06 D|....3.....
9 Q1
1.05 E|........1.
1 Q9
.99 F|.......8..
2 Q4
.83 e|6.........
|------low|1361112222
|
6594587

9 | Page