Development and Psychometric Evaluation of an Integrative Thinking Mode Scale Utilizing the Rasch Measurement Model

Abstract

Objectives There is need for a validated simple instrument to quantify the mode of integrative thinking to aid integrative practice of being, and the purpose of the present study was to develop a scale (questionnaire) to measure the mode of integrative thinking in individuals utilizing the Rasch measurement model as a tool of psychometric analysis. Method Based on an literature review and feedback from five experts in psychology, a questionnaire consisting of 53 items and containing 8 factors was first created and then a survey completed by 538 college students (gender: 296 males, and 242 females; grade: 217 freshmen, 121 sophomores, 116 juniors, and 84 seniors; age: 18–26 years with the mean age being 20.15 years, standard deviation = 0.6) was submitted to Rasch model analysis. Results A final scale with 48 items containing 8 factors (including a factor about response effectiveness with 4 items) was provided that is internally consistent and reliable measures of the mode of integrative thinking for participants after amendments. The items of the final scale have good fit for Rasch model, and the scale has high PSI providing statistical evidence of reliability. The scale could benefit from the items dealing with high levels of the mode of integrative thinking. Conclusion The scale appears to be a valuable tool for the assessment of the mode of integrative thinking and may be an attractive option for researchers, clinicians, and managers seeking to measure the levels of the mode of integrative thinking in individuals. In addition to its valid theoretical structure and sound psychometric properties, the scale has advantages over other ways to evaluate the mode of integrative thinking of being, as it is conducted objectively providing evidence of content validity.

Appendix: Items for the ITMS

• 1. Sometimes I put off what to be done until next day.

• 2. I don’t like making things detailed, so as not to make things complicated.

• 3. Things opposing each other can be unified together.

• 4. I don’t spend time to think of new ways if there being reluctant one available.

• 5. A good method is integrated by absorbing the advantages of other ones.

• 6. The key to choose partners is to see if they can give a help.

• 7. I like thinking of the function of things.

• 8. It depends on the usefulness for things to be got together.

• 9. The most important is the abilities as roles while looking for team members.

• 10. I believe that everything is potentially useful.

• 11. I like taking people or things contacted with as useful resources.

• 12. The critical to succeed in work is to mobilize all aspects of resources,

• 13. I like caring about the information related to the things to do.

• 14. Many things seemingly unrelated imply usefulness actually.

• 15. I occasionally think of some bad things.

• 16. I’m used to thinking of the opposites of a thing.

• 17. I like thinking about solutions to a problem from the opposite.

• 18. Meeting a new thing, I like thinking of what it’s like to be on the back.

• 19. I often talk about a thing from the opposites.

• 20. I’m used to associating with my advantages while analyzing my weaknesses.

• 21. Finding a person’s advantages, I can’t help to think of their disadvantages.

• 22. Ideas as “I am not rich, but very kind” often emerge in my mind.

• 23. I often think of the beneficial aspects of failed events.

• 24. Handling difficult problems, the first thing is to find out the crux of them.

• 25. Finding others superficially debating a point of view, I would be worried.

• 26. Presenting a view, I’m used trying to find out what evidence to support it.

• 27. Hearing others stating opinions, I’m used to trying to find out the point of view.

• 28. Refuting opinions of others, you must give convincing reasons.

• 29. I often find out implicit rules through the analysis of observed count of events.

• 30. I like using statistics methods to find out the relationship between things.

• 31. I like processing objects quantitatively in order to enhance the objectivity of evaluation.

• 32. For the comparison of things, I often try to use quantitative methods.

• 33. Sometimes I really want to swear at people.

• 34. Facing complex situation, I would be easy to sort out my own ideas.

• 35. My attention is easily affected by the surrounding atmosphere.

• 36. I like firstly analyzing the focus of questions, then answering them.

• 37. My idea about a controversial topic is easily influenced by the person recently talked with.

• 38. I often find the underlying laws or useful information in messy materials.

• 39. I often summarize an opinion for everyone to accept from the dispute ones.

• 40. I’m good at designing the process of study or work according to a target.

• 41. I’m easy to take the opinions of others into my thoughts.

• 42. I think that it’s against the success of a task when decomposing a whole goal.

• 43. I have never told a lie.

• 44. In solving a problem, I realize what method I am utilizing.

• 45. I would try to change my way of doing things in order to adapt to different conditions and task requirements.

• 46. I would change the original method and strategy in the process of doing things, if necessary.

• 47. Before I do something, I’m used to setting some clear goals.

• 48. I’m used to conceiving a variety of methods that I know when, where and why use them to do things.

• 49. I would ask myself whether there are better ways of doing things after a finish.

• 50. I like to associate a thing with another entirely different one.

• 51. I get often excited at finding the meaning between different things.

• 52. I’m used to thinking of all the factors to seek the best solution to a problem.

• 53. I like to ask myself whether to achieve desired goals or not while doing anything.