Holmes S W, Kertay L, Adamson L B, Holland C L, Clance P R
Department of Psychology, Georgia State University, Atlanta 30303.
J Pers Assess. 1993 Feb;60(1):48-59. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa6001_3.
Many of the discrepancies reported to date in empirical investigations of the impostor phenomenon (IP) may be due in part to (a) the use of different methods for identifying individuals suffering from this syndrome (impostors), (b) the common use of a median split procedure to classify subjects and (c) the fact that subjects in many studies were drawn from impostor-prone samples. In this study, we compared the scores of independently identified impostors and nonimpostors on two instruments designed to measure the IP: Harvey's I-P Scale and Clance's IP Scale. The results suggest that Clance's scale may be the more sensitive and reliable instrument. Cutoff score suggestions for both instruments are offered.
迄今为止,在对冒名顶替现象(IP)的实证研究中报告的许多差异,可能部分归因于以下几点:(a)使用不同方法来识别患有这种综合征的个体(冒名顶替者);(b)普遍采用中位数分割程序对受试者进行分类;(c)许多研究中的受试者来自容易出现冒名顶替现象的样本。在本研究中,我们比较了独立识别出的冒名顶替者和非冒名顶替者在两种旨在测量IP的工具上的得分:哈维的I-P量表和克兰斯的IP量表。结果表明,克兰斯的量表可能是更敏感和可靠的工具。同时还给出了两种工具的临界分数建议。