The agreement between ipsative and normative questionnaires using compositional data analysis techniques

The main instrument used in psychological measurement is the self-report questionnaire. One of its major drawbacks however is its susceptibility to response biases. A known strategy to control these biases has been the use of so-called ipsative items. Ipsative items are items that require the respondent to make between-scale comparisons within each item. The selected option determines to which scale the weight of the answer is attributed. Consequently in questionnaires only consisting of ipsative items every respondent is allotted an equal amount, i.e. the total score, that each can distribute differently over the scales. Therefore this type of response format yields data that can be considered compositional from its inception. Methodological oriented psychologists have heavily criticized this type of item format, since the resulting data is also marked by the associated unfavourable statistical properties. Nevertheless, clinicians have kept using these questionnaires to their satisfaction. This investigation therefore aims to evaluate both positions and addresses the similarities and differences between the two data collection methods. The ultimate objective is to formulate a guideline when to use which type of item format. The comparison is based on data obtained with both an ipsative and normative version of three psychological questionnaires, which were administered to 502 first-year students in psychology according to a balanced within-subjects design. Previous research only compared the direct ipsative scale scores with the derived ipsative scale scores. The use of compositional data analysis techniques also enables one to compare derived normative score ratios with direct normative score ratios. The addition of the second comparison not only offers the advantage of a better-balanced research strategy. In principle it also allows for parametric testing in the evaluation

Research and teaching: a holy or an unholy alliance?

Much of the self-image of the Western university hangs on the idea that research and teaching are intimately connected. The central axiom here is that research and teaching are mutually supportive of each other. An institution lacking such a set of relationships between research and teaching falls short of what it means to be a university. This set of beliefs raises certain questions: Is it the case that the presence of such a mutually supportive set of relationships between research and teaching is a necessary condition of the fulfilment of the idea of the university? (A conceptual question). And is it true that, in practice today, such a mutually supportive set of relationships between research and teaching characterises universities? (An empirical question). In my talk, I want to explore these matters in a critical vein. I shall suggest that: a) In practice today, such a mutually supportive set of relationships between research and teaching is in jeopardy. Far from supporting each other, very often research and teaching contend against each other. Research and teaching are becoming two separate ideologies, with their own interest structures. b) Historically, the supposed tight link between research and teaching is both of recent origin and far from universally achieved in universities. Institutional separateness between research and teaching is and has been evident, both across institutions and even across departments in the same institution. c) Conceptually, research and teaching are different activities: each is complex and neither is reducible to the other. In theory, therefore, research and teaching may be said to constitute a holy alliance but in practice, we see more of an unholy alliance. If, then, in an ideal world, a positive relationship between research and teaching is still a worthwhile goal, how might it be construed and worked for? Seeing research and teaching as two discrete and unified sets of activity is now inadequate. Much better is a construal of research and teaching as themselves complexes, as intermingling pools of activity helping to form the liquid university that is emerging today. On this view, research and teaching are fluid spaces, ever on the move, taking up new shapes, and themselves dividing and reforming, as the university reworks its own destiny in modern society. On such a perspective, working out a productive relationship between research and teaching is a complex project. This is an alliance that is neither holy nor unholy. It is an uneasy alliance, with temporary accommodations and continuous new possibilities