Empirical validation of the Adapted Warner status characteristic index

stmm. 2020 (3): 110-123

DOI https://doi.org/10.15407/sociology2020.03.110

YELIENA KOVALSKA,

Candidate of Science in Sociology, Assistant at the Department of Methodology and Methods of Sociological Research, Faculty of Sociology, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv (4d, Hlushkova Avenue, Kyiv, 03022)

e.sokolovskaja@gmail.com

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1981-2255

The paper presents the results of empirical validation and verification of the reliability of the Adapted Warner status characteristic index (Warner’s AISC). Earlier, the adaptation of Warner’s ISС was carried out, and the level of theoretical (obvious and substantial) validity was checked. As a part of checking the level of empirical validity of Warner’s AISC, the level of validity by criteria and construct validity was measured. Two face-to-face surveys (2017–2018) were used as the empirical basis for the study.

The validity by criteria was tested through holding a methodical experiment, that comparing two groups which differed significantly in terms of social status. Respondents in two different administrative districts of Kyiv were selected as such groups. The level of prestige of the district of residence differs significantly in terms of prestige. There were found that the mean value of Warner’s AISC in these groups differed significantly, which indicates a high level of validity by criterion.

The relationships between the different indicators of the social status of respondents have been analyzed to test the level of validity of construct. Thus, the relationship between Adapted Warner’s Status characteristic index indicators and the results of the questions aimed at directly measuring the self-assessment of their position in society was analyze: 1) integral self-assessment of social status using a seven-point scale; 2) a subjective assessment of the financial situation, within the framework of which the respondent is asked to assess his own financial condition. The mean values of Warner’s AISC in the deferent groups by the level of self-esteem differ significantly. The results obtained speak in favor of the construct validity of Warner’s AISC.

With regard to the reliability of the index, it has been concluded that it would be useful to measure the retest reliability of the instrument. Because of the causality characteristics of the composite index we can’t use assessment of usability.

The validation results of the Adapted Warner status characteristic index indicate a high level of empirical validity of the instrument.

Keywords: Warner index, social stratification, validation

References

Golovaha, Ye., Panina, N., Gorbachyk, A. (1998). Measurement of social well-being: the IISS test. [In Russian]. Sociology: methodology, methods, mathematical modeling (4M), 10, 45–71. [= Головаха 1998]

Dembitskyi, S. (2017). Integrated measuring instruments in sociology. [In Russian]. Sociological Journal, 3, 102–124. [= Дембицкий 2017]

Dembitskyi, S. (2019). Constructing sociological tests: Methodology and its use in practice. [In Ukrainian]. Kyiv: Institute of Sociology, NAS of Ukraine. [= Дембіцький 2019]

Kovalska, Ye. (2019). Adaptation of the Warner status characteristic index. [In Ukrainian]. Sociology: theory, methods, marketing, 3. 124–142. [= Ковальська 2019]

Manuilskaya, K. (2014). Methodical analysis of questions about income. communicative failures as indicators of quality. [In Russian]. Public Opinion Monitoring: Economic and Social Change, 4 (122), 41–59. [= Мануильская 2014] https://doi.org/10.14515/monitoring.2014.4.04

Paniotto, V. (1986). Quality of sociological information: (Evaluation methods and support procedures). [In Russian]. Kyiv: Naukova Dumka. [= Паниотто 1986]

Campbell, D.T., Fiske, D.W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological bulletin, 56 (2), 81–105. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046016

Edwards, J.R., Bagozzi, R.P. (2000). On the nature and direction of relationships between constructs and measures. Psychological Methods, 5 (2), 155–174. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989x.5.2.155

Received 10.07.2020