104,800 research outputs found
Acceptance of Modern Myths about Sexual Aggression Scale (AMMSA; Gerger, H., Kley, H., Bohner, G. & Siebler, F., 2007) - German version
No full textBei der AMMSA handelt es sich um eine Selbstbeurteilungsskala mit 30 Items zur Erfassung von Vergewaltigungsmythenakzeptanz. "Vergewaltigungsmythen sind deskriptive oder präskriptive Überzeugungen über Vergewaltigung (d. h. über Ursachen, Kontext, Folgen, Täter, Opfer und deren Interaktion), die dazu dienen, sexuelle Gewalt von Männern gegen Frauen zu leugnen, zu verharmlosen oder zu rechtfertigen" (Bohner, 1998, S. 14). Es existieren verschiedene Kurzversionen sowie Sprachversionen (englisch, spanisch) der Skala, welche eine ökonomische und kulturübergreifende Erhebung ermöglichen. Reliabilität: Cronbachs Alpha lag bei Alpha = .90-.95. Die Retestreliabilität betrug zwischen rtt = .67 (mehr als 3 Wochen) und rtt = .88 (6-10 Wochen). Validität: Explorative Faktorenanalysen sowie Kongruenzkoeffizienten unterstützen eine einfaktorielle Interpretation. Die AMMSA ist hoch korreliert mit anderen Maßen zur Erfassung von Vergewaltigungsmythenakzeptanz (Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale: r = .79-.88) sowie der selbstberichteten Neigung von Männern, sexuell zu belästigen (Likelihood to Sexually Harass, r = .60). Korrelationen der AMMSA mit Skalen zur Erfassung sozial erwünschten Antwortverhaltens liegen nahe Null. Weiterhin konnte gezeigt werden, dass sich aus AMMSA-Werten Urteile über Schuld und Verantwortung in spezifischen Fällen sexueller Gewalt vorhersagen lassen.The AMMSA is a self-assessment scale with 30 items to measure rape myth acceptance. "Rape myths are descriptive or prescriptive beliefs about rape (i.e. about causes, context, consequences, perpetrators, victims and their interaction) that serve to deny, trivialize or justify sexual violence by men against women". (Bohner, 1998, p. 14). There are various short versions as well as language versions (English, Spanish) of the scale, which enable an economic and cross-cultural survey. Reliability: Cronbach's alpha was alpha = .90-.95. Retestreliability was between rtt = .67 (more than 3 weeks) and rtt = .88 (6-10 weeks). Validity: Explorative factor analyses and congruence coefficients support a simple interpretation. AMMSA is highly correlated with other measures of rape myth acceptance (Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale: r = .79-.88) and men's self-reported tendency to sexually harass (likelihood to Sexually Harass, r = .60). AMMSA correlations with scales for recording socially desirable response behaviour are close to zero. It was also shown that AMMSA values can be used to predict judgments about guilt and responsibility in specific cases of sexual violence.reviewedpublishedVersio
Acceptance of Modern Myths about Sexual Aggression Scale (AMMSA; Gerger, H., Kley, H., Bohner, G. & Siebler, F., 2007) - German version
No full textBei der AMMSA handelt es sich um eine Selbstbeurteilungsskala mit 30 Items zur Erfassung von Vergewaltigungsmythenakzeptanz. "Vergewaltigungsmythen sind deskriptive oder präskriptive Überzeugungen über Vergewaltigung (d. h. über Ursachen, Kontext, Folgen, Täter, Opfer und deren Interaktion), die dazu dienen, sexuelle Gewalt von Männern gegen Frauen zu leugnen, zu verharmlosen oder zu rechtfertigen" (Bohner, 1998, S. 14). Es existieren verschiedene Kurzversionen sowie Sprachversionen (englisch, spanisch) der Skala, welche eine ökonomische und kulturübergreifende Erhebung ermöglichen. Reliabilität: Cronbachs Alpha lag bei Alpha = .90-.95. Die Retestreliabilität betrug zwischen rtt = .67 (mehr als 3 Wochen) und rtt = .88 (6-10 Wochen). Validität: Explorative Faktorenanalysen sowie Kongruenzkoeffizienten unterstützen eine einfaktorielle Interpretation. Die AMMSA ist hoch korreliert mit anderen Maßen zur Erfassung von Vergewaltigungsmythenakzeptanz (Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale: r = .79-.88) sowie der selbstberichteten Neigung von Männern, sexuell zu belästigen (Likelihood to Sexually Harass, r = .60). Korrelationen der AMMSA mit Skalen zur Erfassung sozial erwünschten Antwortverhaltens liegen nahe Null. Weiterhin konnte gezeigt werden, dass sich aus AMMSA-Werten Urteile über Schuld und Verantwortung in spezifischen Fällen sexueller Gewalt vorhersagen lassen.The AMMSA is a self-assessment scale with 30 items to measure rape myth acceptance. "Rape myths are descriptive or prescriptive beliefs about rape (i.e. about causes, context, consequences, perpetrators, victims and their interaction) that serve to deny, trivialize or justify sexual violence by men against women". (Bohner, 1998, p. 14). There are various short versions as well as language versions (English, Spanish) of the scale, which enable an economic and cross-cultural survey. Reliability: Cronbach's alpha was alpha = .90-.95. Retestreliability was between rtt = .67 (more than 3 weeks) and rtt = .88 (6-10 weeks). Validity: Explorative factor analyses and congruence coefficients support a simple interpretation. AMMSA is highly correlated with other measures of rape myth acceptance (Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale: r = .79-.88) and men's self-reported tendency to sexually harass (likelihood to Sexually Harass, r = .60). AMMSA correlations with scales for recording socially desirable response behaviour are close to zero. It was also shown that AMMSA values can be used to predict judgments about guilt and responsibility in specific cases of sexual violence.reviewedpublishedVersio
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Get PDFThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
Get PDFWe provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis
Skala zur Messung der Akzeptanz moderner Mythen über sexuelle Aggression (AMMSA)
Get PDFGerger H, Kley H, Bohner G, Siebler F. Skala zur Messung der Akzeptanz moderner Mythen über sexuelle Aggression (AMMSA). Bielefeld University; 2013.Scales of rape myth acceptance (RMA) often yield low means and skewed distributions. This is proposed to be because of a change in rape-related beliefs toward more subtle content. Incorporating insights from racism and sexism research, a 30-item self-report scale measuring the acceptance of modern myths about sexual aggression (AMMSA) is presented. Across four studies (total N=1,279), the reliability and validity of parallel German and English versions of the AMMSA scale were examined. The results show that both language versions are highly reliable; compared with a traditional RMA scale, means of AMMSA scores are higher and their distributions more closely approximate normality. Cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses provide evidence for the AMMSA scale's concurrent and predictive construct validity
The acceptance of modern myths about sexual aggression scale: Development and validation in German and English
No full textGerger H, Kley H, Bohner G, Siebler F. The acceptance of modern myths about sexual aggression scale: Development and validation in German and English. Aggressive Behavior. 2007;33(5):422-440.Scales of rape myth acceptance (RMA) often yield low means and skewed distributions. This is proposed to be because of a change in rape-related beliefs toward more subtle content. Incorporating insights from racism and sexism research, a 30-item self-report scale measuring the acceptance of modern myths about sexual aggression (AMMSA) is presented. Across four studies (total N = 1,279), the reliability and validity of parallel German and English versions of the AMMSA scale were examined. The results show that both language versions are highly reliable; compared with a traditional RMA scale, means of AMMSA scores are higher and their distributions more closely approximate normality. Cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses provide evidence for the AMMSA scale's concurrent and predictive construct validity
Acceptance of Modern Myths About Sexual Aggression (AMMSA) scale
Get PDFGerger H, Kley H, Bohner G, Siebler F. Acceptance of Modern Myths About Sexual Aggression (AMMSA) scale. Bielefeld University; 2013.Scales of rape myth acceptance (RMA) often yield low means and skewed distributions. This is proposed to be because of a change in rape-related beliefs toward more subtle content. Incorporating insights from racism and sexism research, a 30-item self-report scale measuring the acceptance of modern myths about sexual aggression (AMMSA) is presented. Across four studies (total N=1,279), the reliability and validity of parallel German and English versions of the AMMSA scale were examined. The results show that both language versions are highly reliable; compared with a traditional RMA scale, means of AMMSA scores are higher and their distributions more closely approximate normality. Cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses provide evidence for the AMMSA scale's concurrent and predictive construct validity
Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts
Get PDFWe conducted a full-scale evaluative citation analysis study of scholars in the XML research field to explore just how different from each other author rankings resulting from different citation counting methods actually are, and to demonstrate the capability of emerging data and tools on the Web in supporting more realistic citation counting methods. Our results contest some common arguments for the continued
use of first-author citation counts in the evaluation of scholars, such as high correlations between author rankings by first-author citation counts and other citation
counting methods, and high costs of using more realistic citation counting methods that are not well-supported by the ISI databases. It is argued that increasingly available digital full text research papers make it possible for citation analysis studies to go beyond what the ISI databases have directly supported and to employ more
sophisticated methods
- …
