Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Relating Theory – Clinical and Forensic Applications pp 37–51Cite as

Palgrave Macmillan

The Psychometric Viability of the Person’s Relating to Others Questionnaire (PROQ)

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 615 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter offers a comprehensive psychometric appraisal of the third version of the Person’s Relating to Others Questionnaire (PROQ3; Birtchnell et al., Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 20, 36–48, 2013). It addresses the issue of reliability estimation and discusses the weaknesses of over-reliance on alpha as an index. Construct validity is explored using factor analytic and multidimensional scaling procedures to verify the underlying model informing the measure. Finally, a concurrent validation analysis places relating to others in joint personality space. It is concluded that the PROQ3 is a viable and psychometrically robust research tool that conforms well to Birtchnell’s octagon model.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Armor, D. J. (1974). Theta reliability and factor scaling. In H. L. Costner (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 17–50). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bezembinder, T., & Jeurissen, R. (2003). The circumplex: A slightly stronger than ordinal approach. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 47, 323–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birtchnell, J. (1990). Interpersonal theory: Criticism, modification and elaboration. Human Relations, 43, 1183–1201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birtchnell, J. (1993/1996). How humans relate: A new interpersonal theory. Westport, CT: Praeger; paperback, Hove, UK: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birtchnell, J. (1994). The interpersonal octagon: An alternative to the interpersonal circle. Human Relations, 47, 511–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birtchnell, J. (1997). Personality set within an octagonal model of relating. In R. Plutchik & H. R. Conte (Eds.), Circumplex models of personality and emotions (pp. 155–182). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Birtchnell, J. (2001). Relating therapy with individuals, couples and families. Journal of Family Therapy, 23, 63–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birtchnell, J. (2014). The interpersonal circle and the interpersonal octagon: A confluence of ideas. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 21(1), 62–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Birtchnell, J., & Bourgherini, G. (1999). A new interpersonal theory and the treatment of dependent personality disorder. In J. Derksen, C. Maffei, & H. Groen (Eds.), Treatment of personality disorders (pp. 269–288). New York: Plenum.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Birtchnell, J., & Evans, C. (2004). The person’s relating to others questionnaire (PROQ2). Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 125–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birtchnell, J., Falkowski, J., & Steffert, B. (1992). The negative relating of depressed patients: A new approach. Journal of Affective Disorders, 24, 165–176.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Birtchnell, J., Hammond, S., Horn, E., De Jong, C., & Kalaitzaki, A. (2013). A cross-national comparison of a shorter version of the person’s relating to others questionnaire. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 20(1), 36–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Birtchnell, J., & Shine, J. (2000). Personality disorders and the interpersonal octagon. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 73, 433–448.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Birtchnell, J., Shuker, R., Newberry, M., & Duggan, C. (2009). An assessment of change in negative relating in two male forensic therapy samples using the person’s relating to others questionnaire (PROQ). Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology, 20(3), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blackburn, R., & Renwick, S. J. (1996). Rating scales for measuring the interpersonal circle in forensic psychiatric patients. Psychological Assessment, 8, 76–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borg, I., & Lingoes, J. C. (1980). A model and algorithm for multidimensional scaling with external constraints on the distances. Psychometrika, 45(1), 25–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caruso, J. C. (2000). Reliability generalization of the NEO personality scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60, 236–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curtin, S., & Hammond, S. M. (2012). Placing dental clinicians within the normative base regarding vicarious response. European Journal of Dental Education, 16(1), 6–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, J. S. (1985). An index of fit for factor scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 45, 725–728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, D. P., Gater, R., Sartorius, N., Ustun, T. B., Piccinelli, M., Gureje, O., et al. (1997). The validity of two versions of the GHQ in the WHO study of mental illness in general health care. Psychological Medicine, 27, 191–197.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., et al. (2006). The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(1), 84–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gurtman, M. B. (1992). Construct validity of interpersonal personality measures: The interpersonal circumplex as a nomological net. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 105–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guttman, L. (1945). A basis for analyzing test–retest reliability. Psychometrika, 10(4), 255–282.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Harman, H. H. (1976). Modern factor analysis (3rd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofsess, C. D., & Tracey, T. J. G. (2005). The interpersonal circumplex as a model of interpersonal capabilities. Journal of Personality Assessment, 84(2), 137–147.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kalaitzaki, A. E., Birtchnell, J., Hammond, S., & De Jong, C. (2015). The shortened person’s relating to others questionnaire (PROQ3): Comparison of the internet-administered format with the standard-written one across four national samples. Psychological Assessment, 27(2), 513–523.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kalaitzaki, A. E., Birtchnell, J., & Kritsotakis, E. (2010). The associations between negative relating and aggression in the dating relationships of students from Greece. Partner Abuse: New Directions in Research, Intervention, and Policy, 1(4), 420–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knapp, T. R. (1978). Canonical correlation analysis: A general parametric significance-testing system. Psychological Bulletin, 85(2), 410–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1989). The structure of interpersonal traits: Wiggins’ circumplex and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 586–595.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mooi, B., Comijs, H. C., De Fruyt, F., De Ritter, D., Hoekstra, H. A., & Beekman, A. T. (2011). A NEO-PI-R short form for older adults. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 20(3), 135–144.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nunnally, J. C. (1968). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rammstedt, B., & John, O. P. (2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item short version of the big five inventory in English and German. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 203–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Revelle, W., & Zinbarg, R. E. (2009). Coefficients alpha, beta, omega and the glb: Comments on Sijtsma. Psychometrika, 74(1), 145–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rouse, S. V. (2007). Using reliability generalization methods to explore measurement error: An illustration using the MMPI–2 PSY–5 scales. Journal of Personality Assessment, 88, 264–275.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez-Meca, J., Lopez-Lopez, J. A., & Lopez-Pina, J. A. (2013). Some recommended statistical practices when reliability generalization studies are conducted. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 66, 402–425.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sijtsma, K. (2009a). On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach’s alpha. Psychometrika, 74(1), 107–120.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sijtsma, K. (2009b). Reliability beyond theory and into practice. Psychometrika, 74(1), 169–173.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vacha-Haase, T. (1998). Reliability generalization: Exploring variance in measurement error affecting score reliability across studies. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58, 6–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University College , Cork, Ireland

    Sean Hammond

Authors
  1. Sean Hammond
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Psychiatry, University of Kings College London, London, United Kingdom

    John Birtchnell

  2. Department of Psychology, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, United Kingdom

    Michelle Newberry

  3. TEI of Crete, Heraklion, Greece

    Argyroula Kalaitzaki

Copyright information

© 2016 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hammond, S. (2016). The Psychometric Viability of the Person’s Relating to Others Questionnaire (PROQ). In: Birtchnell, J., Newberry, M., Kalaitzaki, A. (eds) Relating Theory – Clinical and Forensic Applications. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-50459-3_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation