Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM


Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.


Rotter Incomplete Sentences Blank (RISB)

No description

Elizabeth Parker

on 28 December 2013

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Rotter Incomplete Sentences Blank (RISB)

Rotter Incomplete Sentences Blank (RISB)
Elizabeth Turnage
Clemson University

General Description
Measure of personality adjustment
Semi-structured projective method of assessment
Stem provided
Respondent writes a sentence
"The relative freedom from prolonged unhappy/dysphoric states (emotions) of the individual, the ability to cope with frustration, the ability to initiate and maintain constructive activity, and the ability to establish and maintain satisfying interpersonal relationships."
General Description
Three forms available
High School Form
College Form
Adult Form
40 items, typically completed in 20-25 minutes
Currently in its Second Edition
Two slight changes made to the sentence stems
Stems for Item 7 and Item 40 changed to "Men..." and "Most women...," respectively.
Brief History
Revised from an experimental form used in the U.S. Army by Rotter and Willerman (1947)
Two primary objectives in its initial development
1.) An objective measure that retained the unique advantages of projective methods
2.) NOT to expose the "deep layers" or "fundamental structure" of personality, but rather to save the clinician time in obtaining information of specific diagnostic value
Administration of RISB
Simply hand Response Sheet to respondent and give no further instructions other than, perhaps, to follow the sheet's instructions.
May ask if they must complete every item or if they must complete the items in order
Good responses for these instances
Can be administered on either an individual or group basis
No special training required for administration
Other Considerations in Administration
Alternative methods of administration
e.g., individual has an educational deficit or physical disability
Flynn's (1974) finding about oral versus standard written administration
*Use caution when implementing variations of the standard administration method*
Could affect various aspects of the testing situation, the responses, and/or the scores
Reliability, Validity, and Normative Data
Description of Items
Short and unstructured
Third-person stems are not used
Due to Rotter and Rafferty's (1950) finding about such items
Male and female responses scored to different criteria
Only one line provided for respondent's sentence
Standard procedure for the scoring system
Objective Scoring System
Derive an Overall Adjustment Score
A numerical index of adjustment
Designed to meet the initial purposes of the RISB
Useful for screening purposes, for tracking changes in scores over time, for making comparisons, and for many research purposes
The scoring system has been found to be quite reliable, and the interpretation based on it has been found to be valid.
Not meant to be the only or necessarily primary method of evaluation
Scoring Examples
Male and female scoring examples
Each item scored on a 7-point scale
0 (most positive) - 6 (most conflict)
Total of all 40 items = Overall Adjustment Score
Scores could be 0-240; most are between 80-205
Example scores were primarily drawn from responses of 58 male and 53 female college students whose personality assessments ranged from extremely well adjusted to extremely maladjusted.
Scoring principles given for more dissimilar completions
Scoring Principles
Omissions and incomplete responses = not scored
Length of responses: Add 1 point for those >10 words
Conflict responses (C)
Twisted answers
C1 (mild conflict) = 4 points
Minor problems
C2 (moderate conflict) = 5 points
Broader difficulties -- feeling inferior, inadequate, problems in relationships, generalized social difficulties, etc.
C3 (severe conflict) = 6 points
Suicidal thoughts/feelings, sexual conflicts, severe family problems, fear of insanity, bizarre attitudes, strong negative attitudes towards oneself/people, etc.
Positive responses (P)
P1 (mild positive) = 2 points
Positive attitudes towards school, hobbies, people, etc.
P2 (moderate positive) = 1 point
Good social adjustment, healthy family life, optimism, etc.
P3 (Strong positive) = 0 points
Good-natured humor, real optimism, warm acceptance
Neutral Responses (N) = 3 points
Exceptions to the above categories
Interscorer reliability = .72 - .99

Internal consistency --> Split-half = .84; Cronbach's alpha = .69 *moderate values expected*

Test-retest reliability = .82 for short intervals of 1-2 weeks; .38-.70 for longer intervals of 6 months to 3 years

Authors' defense for the lower reliability coefficients -- RISB is a measure of stable traits.

Validity -- "...[has] the most consistent evidence supporting the validity of its score interpretations for use in the diagnosis and assessment of adjustment" (Goldberg, 1965; Watson, 1978).
Normative Data
Original 1950 norms for College Form: based on 85 female and 214 male freshman-year students at Ohio State University.

New norms derived through use of samples collected in 1977, 1988, and 1989 --> Increase in normative scores since 1950.
No new normative sample was reported for the second edition.

Need continued research into the changes in RISB normative scores for college students.
Rotter, Lah, & Rafferty (1992)
Rotter, Lah, & Rafferty (1992)
Rotter, Lah, & Rafferty (1992)
Rotter, Lah, & Rafferty (1992)
Rotter, Lah, & Rafferty (1992)
Rotter, Lah, & Rafferty (1992)
Rotter, Lah, & Rafferty (1992)
Rotter, Lah, & Rafferty (1992)
Rotter, Lah, & Rafferty (1992)
Rotter, Lah, & Rafferty (1992)
McLellan (1992)
Rotter, Lah, & Rafferty (1992)
McLellan (1992)
Full transcript