in the comparison of social science constructs, including statistical  terjemahan - in the comparison of social science constructs, including statistical  Bahasa Indonesia Bagaimana mengatakan

in the comparison of social science

in the comparison of social science constructs, including statistical and analytical progress in establishing validity and
personality traits, across cultures are briefly reviewed. Due to equivalence, and advancements in computational and commu
its prominence in the literature and to its centrality in the nication technologies facilitating data collection and scholarly
subsequent empirics, particular attention is given to Extraver¬ collaboration across nations and cultures (Church, 2001a;
sion (one of the Big Five) and the establishment of universality Church and Lonner, 1998a; Harkness et al., 2003; McCrae,
and measure comparability for Extraversion across nations, 2000a; McCrae and Allik, 2002; van de Vijver and Leung,
languages, and cultures. That is, Extraversion-and-culture is 1997).
reviewed in some detail as an archetype of the progress in the
personality-and-culture paradigm more generally, which is our 2.1. Concerns regarding bias, equivalence and nomological
central thesis. We then specifically report evidence of validity
personality traits' explanatory power, linking Extraversion
with nation-level reliance on word-of-mouth sources of product Three types of bias can threaten personality-and-culture
information across 11 countries and five continents. Finally, we studies and intercultural comparisons: construct bias, method
compare Extraversion's predictive power with that of Hofste¬ bias, and item bias (for recent, thorough reviews and syntheses,
de's ecological constructs (we find Extraversion to have see Church, 2001c; Harkness et al., 2003; van de Vijver and
superior explanatory power). Leung, 1997, 2001; Scholderer et al., 2005). Construct bias
occurs when constructs are not culturally universal or when the
1. Personality behaviors associated with a construct are not the same across
cultures. Method bias arises from characteristics of the
1.1. Recent resurgence instruments or methods used to measure and study a construct;
sampling, instruments, and administrations can all contribute to
After decades of competing taxonomies and disappointing method bias. Finally, item bias refers to item-level differences in
results, the 1990s saw “a dramatic upsurge” and “vitality” in the construct measurement. The absence of bias of any type is
personality scholarship (Funder, 2001, p. 198) as a result of: equivalence and the strongest equivalence is “scalar equiva
important advances in psychometrics and assessment; wide¬ lence” or “full score comparability” (van de Vijver and Leung,
spread recognition of the effects of situations, traits, and 1997, 2001; Scholderer et al., 2005). Generalization of the
situation–trait interactions on behaviors; and emerging consen¬ nomological networks or “criterion-related” validity of inter
sus that personality differences are well organized hierarchically cultural personality traits and trait measures is an important
within five broad factors (the “Five-Factor Model” or “Big condition toward establishing construct and method validity and
Five”): Extraversion (E), Neuroticism (N), Openness to equivalence (e.g., Church, 2001c; Church and Lonner, 1998b
Experience/Intellect (O), Agreeableness (A), and Conscien¬ and van Hemert et al., 2002). These methodological concerns
tiousness (C) (see Funder, 2001; McCrae, 2004). and advances that address them may be clarified with reference
to the instance of trait Extraversion
0/5000
Dari: -
Ke: -
Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1: [Salinan]
Disalin!
in the comparison of social science constructs, including statistical and analytical progress in establishing validity andpersonality traits, across cultures are briefly reviewed. Due to equivalence, and advancements in computational and commu its prominence in the literature and to its centrality in the nication technologies facilitating data collection and scholarlysubsequent empirics, particular attention is given to Extraver¬ collaboration across nations and cultures (Church, 2001a;sion (one of the Big Five) and the establishment of universality Church and Lonner, 1998a; Harkness et al., 2003; McCrae,and measure comparability for Extraversion across nations, 2000a; McCrae and Allik, 2002; van de Vijver and Leung,languages, and cultures. That is, Extraversion-and-culture is 1997).reviewed in some detail as an archetype of the progress in thepersonality-and-culture paradigm more generally, which is our 2.1. Concerns regarding bias, equivalence and nomologicalcentral thesis. We then specifically report evidence of validitypersonality traits' explanatory power, linking Extraversionwith nation-level reliance on word-of-mouth sources of product Three types of bias can threaten personality-and-cultureinformation across 11 countries and five continents. Finally, we studies and intercultural comparisons: construct bias, methodcompare Extraversion's predictive power with that of Hofste¬ bias, and item bias (for recent, thorough reviews and syntheses,de's ecological constructs (we find Extraversion to have see Church, 2001c; Harkness et al., 2003; van de Vijver andsuperior explanatory power). Leung, 1997, 2001; Scholderer et al., 2005). Construct biasoccurs when constructs are not culturally universal or when the1. Personality behaviors associated with a construct are not the same acrosscultures. Method bias arises from characteristics of the1.1. Recent resurgence instruments or methods used to measure and study a construct;sampling, instruments, and administrations can all contribute toAfter decades of competing taxonomies and disappointing method bias. Finally, item bias refers to item-level differences inresults, the 1990s saw “a dramatic upsurge” and “vitality” in the construct measurement. The absence of bias of any type ispersonality scholarship (Funder, 2001, p. 198) as a result of: equivalence and the strongest equivalence is “scalar equiva important advances in psychometrics and assessment; wide¬ lence” or “full score comparability” (van de Vijver and Leung,spread recognition of the effects of situations, traits, and 1997, 2001; Scholderer et al., 2005). Generalization of thesituation–trait interactions on behaviors; and emerging consen¬ nomological networks or “criterion-related” validity of inter sus that personality differences are well organized hierarchically cultural personality traits and trait measures is an importantwithin five broad factors (the “Five-Factor Model” or “Big condition toward establishing construct and method validity andFive”): Extraversion (E), Neuroticism (N), Openness to equivalence (e.g., Church, 2001c; Church and Lonner, 1998bExperience/Intellect (O), Agreeableness (A), and Conscien¬ and van Hemert et al., 2002). These methodological concernstiousness (C) (see Funder, 2001; McCrae, 2004). and advances that address them may be clarified with referenceto the instance of trait Extraversion
Sedang diterjemahkan, harap tunggu..
Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 2:[Salinan]
Disalin!
dalam perbandingan konstruksi ilmu sosial, termasuk kemajuan statistik dan analitis dalam membangun validitas dan
ciri kepribadian, lintas budaya secara singkat Ulasan. Karena kesetaraan, dan kemajuan dalam komputasi dan ko
menonjol dalam literatur dan sentralitas dalam teknologi nikasi memfasilitasi pengumpulan data dan ilmiah
empiris berikutnya, perhatian khusus diberikan kepada Extraver¬ kolaborasi di seluruh bangsa dan budaya (Gereja, 2001a;
sion ( salah satu Big Five) dan pembentukan Gereja universalitas dan Lonner, 1998a; Harkness et al, 2003;. McCrae,
dan mengukur perbandingan untuk Extraversion di seluruh negara, 2000a; McCrae dan Allik, 2002; van de Vijver dan Leung,
bahasa, dan budaya. Artinya, Extraversion-dan-budaya 1997).
Ulasan dalam beberapa detail sebagai pola dasar dari kemajuan dalam
paradigma kepribadian-dan-budaya secara lebih umum, yang kita 2.1. Kekhawatiran tentang Bias, kesetaraan dan nomological
tesis sentral. Kami kemudian secara khusus melaporkan bukti validitas
kekuatan penjelas ciri kepribadian ', menghubungkan Extraversion
dengan ketergantungan bangsa-level pada word-of-mouth sumber produk Tiga jenis bias dapat mengancam kepribadian-dan-budaya
informasi di 11 negara dan lima benua. Akhirnya, kami studi dan perbandingan antarbudaya: membangun Bias, metode
membandingkan kekuatan prediksi Extraversion dengan yang dari Hofste¬ Bias, dan barang Bias (untuk terakhir, ulasan menyeluruh dan sintesis,
konstruksi ekologis de (kami menemukan Extraversion memiliki melihat Gereja, 2001c; Harkness et al, 2003;. van de Vijver dan
. kekuatan penjelas superior) Leung, 1997, 2001;. Scholderer et al, 2005). Membangun Bias
terjadi ketika konstruksi tidak universal budaya atau ketika
1. Perilaku kepribadian yang terkait dengan membangun sebuah bukanlah sama di seluruh
budaya. Metode Bias muncul dari karakteristik
1.1. Instrumen baru-baru ini kebangkitan atau metode yang digunakan untuk mengukur dan mempelajari membangun sebuah;
sampling, instrumen, dan administrasi semua bisa berkontribusi untuk
Setelah puluhan tahun taksonomi bersaing dan metode mengecewakan Bias. Akhirnya, barang Bias mengacu pada perbedaan tingkat item di
hasil, tahun 1990-an melihat "sebuah kebangkitan dramatis" dan "vitalitas" dalam pengukuran konstruk. Tidak adanya bias jenis adalah
kepribadian beasiswa (Penyandang Dana, 2001, hal 198.) Sebagai akibat dari: kesetaraan dan kesetaraan terkuat adalah "skalar equiva
kemajuan penting dalam psikometri dan penilaian; wide¬ lence "atau" penuh skor komparabilitas "(van de Vijver dan Leung,
menyebarkan pengakuan efek situasi, sifat, dan 1997, 2001; Scholderer et al., 2005). Generalisasi dari
interaksi situasi-sifat pada perilaku; dan muncul consen¬ jaringan nomological atau "kriteria terkait" validitas antar
sus bahwa perbedaan kepribadian terorganisasi secara hirarki budaya ciri-ciri kepribadian dan langkah-langkah trait merupakan penting
dalam lima faktor yang luas ( "Lima-Factor Model" atau "kondisi Big menuju pembentukan membangun dan metode validitas dan
Five "): Extraversion (E), Neuroticism (N), Keterbukaan terhadap kesetaraan (misalnya, Gereja, 2001c; Gereja dan Lonner, 1998b
Pengalaman / Akal (O), Agreeableness (A), dan Conscien¬ dan van Hemert et al., 2002). Ini metodologis kekhawatiran
tiousness (C) (lihat Penyandang Dana, 2001; McCrae, 2004). dan uang muka yang membahas mereka dapat diklarifikasi dengan mengacu
ke contoh Extraversion sifat
Sedang diterjemahkan, harap tunggu..
 
Bahasa lainnya
Dukungan alat penerjemahan: Afrikans, Albania, Amhara, Arab, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahasa Indonesia, Basque, Belanda, Belarussia, Bengali, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Burma, Cebuano, Ceko, Chichewa, China, Cina Tradisional, Denmark, Deteksi bahasa, Esperanto, Estonia, Farsi, Finlandia, Frisia, Gaelig, Gaelik Skotlandia, Galisia, Georgia, Gujarati, Hausa, Hawaii, Hindi, Hmong, Ibrani, Igbo, Inggris, Islan, Italia, Jawa, Jepang, Jerman, Kannada, Katala, Kazak, Khmer, Kinyarwanda, Kirghiz, Klingon, Korea, Korsika, Kreol Haiti, Kroat, Kurdi, Laos, Latin, Latvia, Lituania, Luksemburg, Magyar, Makedonia, Malagasi, Malayalam, Malta, Maori, Marathi, Melayu, Mongol, Nepal, Norsk, Odia (Oriya), Pashto, Polandia, Portugis, Prancis, Punjabi, Rumania, Rusia, Samoa, Serb, Sesotho, Shona, Sindhi, Sinhala, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somali, Spanyol, Sunda, Swahili, Swensk, Tagalog, Tajik, Tamil, Tatar, Telugu, Thai, Turki, Turkmen, Ukraina, Urdu, Uyghur, Uzbek, Vietnam, Wales, Xhosa, Yiddi, Yoruba, Yunani, Zulu, Bahasa terjemahan.

Copyright ©2024 I Love Translation. All reserved.

E-mail: