Note. SR = self-report; FR = friend report; AR = acquaintance report.

Note. SR = self-report; FR = friend report; AR = acquaintance report.

method specificity coefficients of the CTUM model varied greatly even within the same method. This indicates that method effects might be trait specific. The consistency coefficients were generally high for anger. For fear, however, the consistency coefficient was very low for the self-report and comparably high for the peer reports. This might indicate that the peer raters have more in common than shared with the self-report. Sadness revealed a quite different pattern of a very low consistency coefficient for the friend rating and medium consistencies for the self- and acquaintance reports. In general, the parameter estimates and the coefficients of consistency and specificity were rather heterogeneous for the CTUM and the CTCU models and are, therefore, difficult to interpret.

The loading parameters and the coefficients of consistency and method specificity are more homogeneous for the CTC(M-l) model. The consistency coefficients show that between 8% and 32% of the variance of the (error-free) ratings of friends and acquaintances can be explained by the self-ratings and that between 68% and 92% are due to method effects. Moreover, the correlation of the two method factors (r = .40) indicates that the friends and acquaintances share a common view of the target that is not shared by the target. This application shows that the parameters of the CTC(M-l) model have an easier interpretation than the parameters of the two other models in the case of structurally different raters.

Was this article helpful?

0 0

Post a comment