Lifton P D
Dept. of Psychological Sciences, Pierce Hall, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA.
J Pers Assess. 1983 Oct;47(5):514-23. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa4705_12.
Two studies examined the validity of 2 CPI autonomy scales developed by Kurtines (1973, 1978), In the first study, a criterion rating of autonomy based upon observer descriptions of adults (n = 314) was determined from the California Q-set. This 10-item criterion was validated in a second study with college sophomores (n = 142) Using the criterion with a combined sample. of subjects, individuals high or low on autonomy were identified. Personality profiles of each group were determined from their responses to the CPI. Personality dimensions associated with ascendancy, self-assurance, interpersonal adequacy, and achievement orientation differentiated the two criterion groups. Correlation and multiple regression analyses indicated that Kurtines' first (1973) autonomy scale by comparison .predicted these personality dimensions Substantially better than his second (1978) scale, It was concluded, however, that neither scale adequately measured the global personality construct Of autonomy because (a) each scale assessed autonomous rule compliance to the exclusion of autonomous rule defiance, and (b)each scale measured only socially desirable aspects of autonomy.
两项研究检验了库尔蒂内斯（1973年、1978年）编制的两个CPI自主性量表的效度。在第一项研究中，基于对成年人（n = 314）的观察者描述，从加利福尼亚Q分类法中确定了一个自主性的标准评分。在第二项研究中，用这个标准对大学二年级学生（n = 142）进行验证。使用这个标准对合并样本的受试者进行分析，确定了自主性高或低的个体。根据他们对CPI的回答确定了每组的人格特征。与支配性、自信、人际适应性和成就取向相关的人格维度区分了两个标准组。相关分析和多元回归分析表明，相比之下，库尔蒂内斯的第一个（1973年）自主性量表在预测这些人格维度方面比他的第二个（1978年）量表要好得多。然而，得出的结论是，这两个量表都没有充分测量自主性这一整体人格结构，因为（a）每个量表都评估了自主性规则遵守情况，而排除了自主性规则违抗情况，并且（b）每个量表只测量了自主性在社会上可取的方面。
