Reasoned Action Approach Questionnaire (Nardi-Rodríguez et al., 2022)
- Populations: Middle to Late adolescents
- Age ranges: 14-18
- Languages: Spanish
- Countries: Spain
Items
Subscales
- Intention Scale, 10 Items,
- 2 subscales
- Prescriptive items, 3 Items
- Descriptive items, 3 Items
- Attitude Scale, 12 Items,
- 2 subscales
- Instrumental items, 6 Items
- Experiential items, 6 Items
•
Intention scale items: INT 1 + INT 2 + INT 3 + INT 4
#
Subjective norm scale items:
#
Prescriptive items: SNP1 + SNP2 + SNP3
#
Descriptive items: SND1 + SND2 + SND3
• Attitude scale items:
#
Instrumental items: 2, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12
#
Experiential items: 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10
Intention
- I intend to phone or send WhatsApps to my girlfriend to know where she is, who she is with, and when are we going to see each other.
- I plan to phone or send WhatsApps to my girlfriend to know where she is, who she is with, and when are we going to see each other.
- I have the intention to phone or send WhatsApps to my girlfriend to know where she is, who she is with, and when are we going to see each other.
- I will phone or send WhatsApps to my girlfriend to know where she is, who she is with, and when are we going to see each other.
Subjective Norms
- Prescriptive
- The majority of people who are important to me think I should phone or send WhatsApps to my girlfriend to know where she is, who she is with, and when are we going to see each other.
- It is expected from me that I phone or send WhatsApps to my girlfriend to know where she is, who she is with, and when are we going to see each other
- Most people who are important to me support me phoning or sending WhatsApps to my girlfriend to know where she is, who she is with, and when are we going to see each other.
- Descriptive
- Most people like me would phone or send WhatsApps to their girlfriends to know where they are, who they are with, and when are they going to see each other.
- Most people important to me phone or send WhatsApps to their girlfriends to know where they are, who they are with, and when are they going to see each other.
- Most people like me would phone or send WhatsApps to their girlfriends to know where they are, who they are with, and when are they going to see each other
The measure also included 12 dictomous scales, with each of the following variable pairs acting as the ends of a 7 point scale. Participants were presented:
Please select the one which adjusts more to your opinion in regards to phoning or sending WhatsApp to your girlfriend to know where she is, who she is with, and when are we going to see each other.
In your opinion, phoning or sending WhatsApps to your girlfriend to know where she is, who she is with, and when are we going to see each other, is:
- Romantic / Nonromantic
- Necessary / Unnecessary
- Funny / Boring
- Tough / Tender
- Bad / Good
- Useless / Useful
- Helpful / Harmful
- Stressing / Relaxing
- Passionate / Cold
- Unpleasant / Pleasant
- Intelligent / Stupid
- Protective / Attacking
Responses
Items used a 7 point Likert-type scale, 1 (Totally agree), 2 (Strongly agree), 3 (Slightly agree), 4 (Indifferent), 5 (Slightly disagree), 6 (Strongly disagree), 7 (Totally disagree)
Dichotomous Scale items were ranked with the first word of each pair on the 1 end of the scale, the second word of each pair on the 7 end of the scale.
Scoring
“Perceived Norms: We obtained a perceived norm average. Higher scores pointed to a higher perceived social pressure.“ (Nardi-Rodríguez et al., 2022)
Citations
- Nardi-Rodríguez, A., Pastor-Mira, M. Á., López-Roig, S., Pamies-Aubalat, L., Martínez-Zaragoza, F., & Ferrer-Pérez, V. A. (2022). Predicting abusive behaviours in spanish adolescents’ relationships: Insights from the reasoned action approach. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(3), 1441. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19031441
Scoring breakdown
Measure development
- Significant design input from young people
- Cognitive interviews with young people
- Expert input
Validity
- Unknown: Face validity
- Unknown: Convergent validity
- Green: Construct validity
Reliability
- Green: Internal consistency
- Unknown: Test-retest
Ease of use
- Unknown: Readability
Definitions
Face validity: How well a measure appears to represent the construct it is supposed to be measuring.
Convergent validity: How well a measure correlates with other hypothetically-related measures.
Construct validity: The extent to which a measure reflects the construct it was designed to evaluate.
Internal consistency: The extent to which items in a scale capture aspects of the same construct.
Test-retest: The degree to which measurement scores are consistent over a short period of time (usually 2 weeks).
Readability: The ease with which a reader can understand the questionnaire items.
Key
- Green: Meets validation criteria
- Red: Does not meet validation criteria
- Unknown: Evidence not available