Purpose

The argumentativeness measure has been used in more than a 100 studies since 1982. The measure was developed and validated within a US university/college student sample. Despite its intended use, the measure is regularly used outside of the US and outside of the university/college setting without tests of validity. There is also intense debate as to the dimensionality of the measure, with one camp defending the bi-dimensionality of the measure and another proposing uni-dimensionality. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to assess the utility of the measure outside of its intended population.

Design/methodology/approach

A total of seven samples were collected (n = 1860) from the UK, Germany, France, Turkey, the Philippines, Nicaragua and the US. In this study, Infante and Rancer’s (1982) original 20-item argumentativeness measure was used to assess argumentativeness. Confirmatory factor analyses was used to test content validity.

Findings

Fit statistics were consistently poor for the unidimensional factor structure. As there is debate as to whether the measure is uni or bi-dimensional, a bi-dimensional fit was also analysed. The measure performed slightly better in each sample using a bi-dimensional factor structure. However, fit statistics were still poor for each sample.

Research limitations/implications

Specifically, the seven samples are convenience samples. While such a sampling technique does limit the generalizability of a study’s findings, convenience samples are common when using the argumentativeness measure. These results present avenues for exploring the dimensionality of the argumentativeness measure and for revisiting cross-cultural examinations of argumentativeness.

Practical implications

Factor structure is a critical issue in validity. Whether authors specify their prediction or not, factor structure is always hypothesized as part of a study when measurements are used, and therefore, should be examined in every study as part of the scientific process. Making claims about human behaviour based upon measures with mis-specified factor structures or other validity issues can lead to the perpetuation of misinformation within the literature.

Originality/value

This is one of the few studies to empirically explore the psychometric properties of one of the most used measures in argument/conflict research. In doing so, this study enhances the understanding of decades of argumentativeness research.

中文翻译：

---

议论性测度的跨国有效性分析

目的

自1982年以来，辩论性度量已用于100多个研究中。该度量是在美国大学/大学生样本中开发和验证的。尽管有预期用途，但该措施在美国以外和大学/学院环境之外仍会定期使用，而无需进行有效性检验。关于度量的维数也引起了激烈的争论，一个阵营捍卫度量的二维性，而另一阵营则主张一维。因此，本研究的目的是评估该措施在其预期人群之外的效用。

设计/方法/方法

总共从英国，德国，法国，土耳其，菲律宾，尼加拉瓜和美国收集了七个样本（n = 1860）。在这项研究中，Infante和Rancer（1982）最初的20个项目的论证性度量用于评估论证性。验证性因素分析用于测试内容的有效性。

发现

一维因素结构的拟合统计量始终很差。由于存在关于该度量是一维还是二维的争论，因此还分析了二维拟合。使用二维因子结构，该方法在每个样本中的执行效果略好。但是，每个样本的拟合统计仍然很差。

研究局限/意义

具体地，这七个样本是便利样本。尽管这种抽样技术确实限制了研究结果的普遍性，但在使用论证性测度时，便利性样本是很常见的。这些结果为探索论证性度量的维度和重新讨论论证性的跨文化考察提供了途径。

实际影响

因素结构是有效性的关键问题。无论作者是否指定他们的预测，在使用测量方法时，总是假设因素结构是研究的一部分，因此，在每个研究中都应将其作为科学过程的一部分进行检查。基于具有错误指定的因子结构或其他有效性问题的度量来对人类行为提出主张，可能导致文献中的错误信息长期存在。

创意/价值

这是少数以经验方式探索论证/冲突研究中最常用的量度之一的心理计量特性的研究之一。这样，这项研究可以增进对数十年来争论性研究的理解。