IDAQ-CF
This is the most up to date version of this scale.
Construct Summary
The scale aims to measure children’s tendency to anthropomorphize. The authors define the act of anthropomorphizing as:
“the tendency to attribute human-like characteristics, particularly internal states and capabilities, to nonhuman entities” (p. 122)
Rating = 100%
| Check? | Guideline Item |
|---|---|
| ✓ | Is the construct defined? |
| ✓ | Does the final version of the items capture the construct as it has been defined by the authors? |
| ✓ | Is the item generation process discussed (e.g., literature review, Delphi method, crowd-sourcing)? |
| ✓ | Person to items 10:1 for the initial set of items? |
| ✓ | Did they perform an EFA, PCA, Rasch, or similar test to determine the item to factor relationship? |
| ✓ | Did they describe how they determined number of factors? |
| ✓ | Did they report the full initial set of items? |
| ✓ | Did they provide loadings (EFA) or item fits (Rasch) of all items? |
| ✓ | Is there a description of the item removal process (e.g., using infit/outfit, factor loading minimum value, or cross-loading values)? |
| ✓ | Did they list the final items included in the scale? |
| ✓ | Did they include a factor structure test (e.g., second EFA, CFA, DIF, test for unidimensionality when using Rasch, or similar)? |
| ✓ | Was a measure of reliability (e.g., Cronbach’s alpha, McDonalds Omega_h or Omega_t, Tarkkonen’s Rho) reported? |
| ✓ | Was a test of validity (e.g., predictive, concurrent, convergent, discriminant) reported? |
Comments predictive validity in study 2. no CFA on child sample but did second EFA which had similar structure to first EFA. no items were removed from initial set. very little discussion on how specifically the authors went about rewording the initial set of items for this scale based on the IDAQ items.
Reviewed by Experts ✓
Downloads
PAPER
Severson, R. L., & Lemm, K. M. (2016). Kids see human too: Adapting an individual differences measure of anthropomorphism for a child sample. Journal of Cognition and Development, 17(1), 122-141.
Administration instructions and scoring information located in the main text of the article.
Final Scale Items (12 total):
“Piloting revealed that a two-part question format was more comprehensible for younger participants. Thus, the procedure included an initial question (e.g., “Does a computer think for itself?”) to which participants answered using a “thumb-up” (yes) or “thumb-down” (no) card. If a participant answered yes, he/she was then asked to rate how much (e.g., “How much does a computer think for itself?”) using a scale with increasingly tall bars to indicate “a little bit,” “a medium amount,” and “a lot.” The 4-point scale was coded as “No” (0), “Yes, a little bit” (1), “Yes, medium amount” (2), and “Yes, a lot” (3).” (p. 132)
Technology
Does a car do things on purpose? If yes, how much?
Does a TV have feelings, like happy and sad? If yes, how much?
Does a robot know what it is? If yes, how much?
Does a computer think for itself? If yes, how much?
Nature
Does the wind do things on purpose? If yes, how much?
Does a mountain have feelings, like happy and sad? If yes, how much?
Does the ocean know what it is? If yes, how much?
Does a tree think for itself? If yes, how much?
Animal
Does a turtle do things on purpose? If yes, how much?
Does a cheetah have feelings, like happy and sad? If yes, how much?
Does a lizard know what it is? If yes, how much?
Does an insect or bug think for itself? If yes, how much?