Psychological research is prized on the
validity and reliability of objective and subjective assessments. These methods
aim to operationally define complicated constructs and pave the way for future
research (Billington,
Landon, Krageloh, & Shepherd, 2010)
Objective and Subjective Assessment
Objective assessment is devoid of personal and emotional prejudices due to the observable materials (e.g income
and education level) studied by researchers.
In contrast, subjective measurements rely on the perceptions, judgements
and unobservable phenomena (e.g thoughts, feelings, beliefs, attitudes and
preferences) of individuals. Even though both approaches cannot be merged, I
have understood that the unique qualities of each can assess varying dynamics
of the socio-economic and individual measures of QOL, authentic happiness and
SWB.
WHOQOL
WHOQOL
The World Health Organization Quality of
Life (WHOQOL) scale is a subjective assessment that attempts to balance the
rigidity of biomedical approaches and self-perceptions of patients and clients.
Initially I wondered how this would apply cross-culturally; however, Rex
Billington provided very efficient examples of how this barrier is overcome
with multiple (accurately) translated versions. I can see how
this could be a problem if the 4 domains (i.e physical health, psychological,
social relations and environment) and the facets of each could easily be lost during an English to Hindi translation. The domains are also understood
differently in these cultures due to the individualistic (New Zealand) and
collectivist (Indian) social structures. It would be interesting to note the influence of societal structures on people's responses.
The latter aspects of the lecture comprised
of other assessments (i.e Panas and Ryff) that varied in terms of their
validity and reliability but highlighted the importance of these two components
nonetheless. These examples illustrated the relevance of precise definitions
for the general population by avoiding psychological jargon that might hinder
the subjective responses of test-takers.
Classroom Activity: WHOQOL-BREF
The applicability of the WHOQOL to clinical
settings sparked a further interest in its qualities which became evident after
we personally conducted the WHOQOL BREF. Having reflected on the
domain-specific questions, it became clear how this 26 item tool could
operationally define one’s QOL. The questions were easy to answer (due to the
likert scale responses) and portrayed each domain accordingly. The 10 minute
response time allowed for quick reflection of each statement. The challenge was maintaining a pre-test two week perspective of the applicable items. It was
difficult when past experiences almost hindered each subjective
response, therefore a great deal of concentration was needed to overcome this barrier
and answer effectively.
2nd attempt at WHOQOL-BREF with
a 50 minute response time
I volunteered to take the assessment a
second time to assist an AUT student who was analysing the effect of varying
response times and the quality of responses that resulted. I was part of the 50
minute group. Surprisingly, my responses had varied since I’d last taken the
test due to the lengthened time in which to answer each item. This allowed us
to thoroughly examine each statement and analyse the underlying variables
formed the final response. It was also easier to limit my thoughts within the
two week span because of the understanding that there was lots of time to
spare. I was able to reflect on the test multiple times and still have half an
hour left. Therefore, during the focus group it was necessary to suggest a
shorter response time because 50 minutes was too long. A 20-30 minute span may have been more appropriate to achieve the outcome the researcher was hoping for.
Billington,
R., Landon, J., Krageloh, U. C., & Shepherd, D. (2010). The New Zealand World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHOQOL) Group. New Zealand Medical Association, 125(1315), Retrieved from:
No comments:
Post a Comment