Chelsea Crittle
Psychology Department
College Students Assertiveness Inventory for Black Women
Chelsea Crittle
Spelman College
CSAI-BW
2
Abstract
Assertiveness has been defined as the ability to communicate one’s own thoughts and opinions in
a way that is direct, non-aggressive, honest, and clear. The purpose of the College Student
Assertiveness Inventory for Black Women (CSAI-BW) is to measure levels of assertive behavior
in African American female college students. The test was administered to 21 undergraduate
students enrolled in a Theory of Psychometric Instruments course at a predominantly black
liberal arts college. The original test contained 17 items, but was ultimately reduced to a more
concise 13 items. The participants answered the items using a 5-point Likert scale on paper with
a pen or pencil. The test was shown to be both a reliable and valid measure of assertive behavior
in black female college students.
Keywords: assertiveness, black, college, students, reliable, valid
CSAI-BW
3
Introduction
The right amount of assertiveness is necessary for the success of young adults. College
students, in particular, have a heightened responsibility to be assertive in different context.
According to research by Scrutchfield (2003), college students are transitioning from out of their
parents’ home and have to learn to be more self-sufficient. According to the self-efficacy theory,
(Bandura, 1977) a person’s comfort level with assertive behaviors plays a large role in whether
or not they decide to be assertive. When young adults are comfortable with assertive behavior,
they will be more likely to assert themselves in certain situations, especially if they will be able
to get what they need (Costello & English, 2001).
Along with the high school to college transition, young adults deal with expected
psychosocial development. Chickering (1969) notes that the development of identity is a major
task that all college students must face at some point in time. College age individuals are in the
process of learning competence intellectually, physically, and socially. They also face the task of
learning to become self-sufficient and becoming confident in their abilities (Chickering, 1969).
Assertiveness, defined by Joiner, Lovett, and Hagie (1982) is the direct and appropriate
communication of a person's needs, wants, and opinions, without punishing, threatening, putting
down others, and doing this without fear during the process. Other researchers define
assertiveness as: being able to competently communicate thoughts and feelings in a manner that
respects the rights of others (Wolpe & Lazarus, 1966). Assertive individuals develop confidence
and satisfaction in their ability to communicate with others (Masters, Burish, Hollon & Rimm,
1987).
Overall, the most common characteristic across all definitions of assertiveness is focus on
effective communication. For the purpose of the current study, the term assertiveness is defined
CSAI-BW
4
as the measure of how often one communicates one’s own thoughts and opinions in a way that is
direct, non-aggressive, honest, and clear.
Factors Contributing to Assertiveness
Researchers suggest that assertive communication is construed differently based on
gender roles (Amantullah & Morris, 2010). Behaviors such as reasoning assertively, is viewed in
alignment with female gender roles in some contexts, yet viewed negatively in other contexts.
Because of this, women often alter their assertive behavior to manage social impressions. The
research by Amantullah & Morris (2010) also showed that in self-advocacy context women
anticipate negative backlash, resulting in lower levels of assertiveness. Other studies suggest that
when women advocate for others, they display a higher rate of assertiveness (Scrutchfield ,
2003).
Since gender and culture is a major factor in determining a person’s level of
assertiveness, a number of researchers have analyzed male and female assertiveness levels across
nationalities. A study by Costa, Terracciano, and McCrae (2001), determined that males were
more assertive than females in their cross-cultural analysis of adults and college students from 26
different countries. Males were more comfortable with assertive behaviors than females in terms
of their overall assertiveness and their verbal assertiveness. Costa et al. (2001) also found that
men scored higher in assertiveness than women, regardless of their cultural ties. Contrarily,
Florian and Zernitsky-Shurka (1987) found no gender differences in assertiveness with Israeli
students. Because of the inconsistencies in results when measuring assertiveness across gender
and culture, there is a need for a more effective measure of assertiveness in Black female college
students.
CSAI-BW
5
Research has also shown that the type of college/university a person chooses to attend is
associated with levels of assertiveness. A study by Scrutchfield (2003) found that students from
the 2-year junior college were more comfortable with overall assertiveness and verbal
assertiveness than students at either the 4-year regional university or the 4-year Research
University.
Overview of Existing Measures of Assertiveness
Rathus (1973) developed the Rathus Assertiveness Schedule (RAS) to measure
behavioral change in assertion training. RAS included a 30-Item Schedule for Assessing
Assertive Behavior, interview questions, and a 17 item scale that rated the subjects on assertive
behavior. Results found that assertiveness covaries negatively with impressions of participants’
niceness. Researchers noted that the long length of the test might need to be reconsidered in
future studies. Another lengthy instrument used to measure assertiveness is the GuilfordZimmerman Temperament Survey. The survey possesses a scale that measures assertiveness, but
it also contains 270 items that assess traits not dealing with assertiveness (Guilford &
Zimmerman, 1956).
Because of the lack of precise instruments measuring assertiveness in the everyday life of
black women, the College Students Assertive Inventory for Black Women (CSAI-BW) is
proposed. This test is different from previous literature because it encompasses African
American women, making it more gender and culturally specific than any of the current test that
measure assertiveness. The CSAI-BW is also meant to provide a reliable and valid measure for
assertiveness in college students. It is hypothesized that the CSAI-BW is an appropriate measure
of assertiveness in black college women.
CSAI-BW
6
Method
Sample and Setting
The CSAI-BW was conveniently administered to twenty one female students who
attended all women’s, historically black college in the southeastern region. All of the participants
were junior and senior psychology majors who were enrolled in the same Theory of
Psychometric Instruments course. To avoid the inclusion of non-traditional students, student age
was restricted between 18-23.
Measures and Materials
Assertiveness: Students were administered the test and were allowed to take it inside or outside
of the classroom, with no time limit. Participants were asked to indicate their own levels of
assertiveness using a 5-point Likert scale. The questions were meant to determine how often the
participant behaved non assertively, where 1=never, 2=rarely, 3=sometimes, 4=often, and
5=most of the time. Scores on the CSAI-BW ranged from 0-65. From that range, 0-26 indicated
low assertiveness, 27-39 indicated moderate assertiveness, and 40-65 indicated high
assertiveness.
The materials used in this study were the paper form of the CSAI-BW and a writing
utensil. The test was initially composed of 17 items. Three out of the 17 items were reworded,
due to double barreled question, and finally administered.
Other formats that could have been used to measure the different items are multiplechoice item and graphic rating scale. These items are similar because they provide the test taker
with multiple options for each item. The graphic rating scale differs because the responder is able
to mark anywhere along a line and later the response is converted to numerical form (Hogan,
CSAI-BW
7
2007). The multiple choice test allows participants to select a pre-chosen response to a specific
test item question.
Extraversion: Participants were also given a short test on extroversion that was created by
another student in the Psychometrics Instruments course. Total scores from this test were
correlated with total scores from CSAI-BW in order to determine discriminant validity.
Individuals with an extroverted personality type were described as gregariousness, warmth,
assertiveness, activity, excitement seeking, and happiness, which reflect one’s tendency toward
being sociable (Costa & McCrae, 1992).
Data Analyses
SPSS statistical software was used to screen, clean, and analyze all data before examining
the psychometric properties of the CSAI-BW. The accuracy of the data was checked by
performing frequency distributions and measures of central tendencies. After the data analysis
preparation, bivariate analyses were performed to establish reliability and validity of the CSAIBW. The total score and Pearson correlation was also conducted in order to determine that each
item had a substantial relationship with each other.
Results
Item Analysis
The initial version of the CSAI-BW included 17 items. After a primary analysis of the
items, several were found to be too similar and therefore removed. The test was ultimately
reduced to 13 items. Table 1 displays results from a Pearson’s correlation to reveal inter item
correlations. Several items had to be dropped from the test based on inter item correlations. Test
item 1 “people take advantage of me”, and item 11 “I feel uneasy” were all removed from the
CSAI-BW
8
official test. Item 1 was negatively correlated with several other items and yielded and extremely
low. Removal of Item 1 will improve the correlation of the items as a whole.
Table 1. Inter-Item Correlation Matrix for CSAI-BW Test Items
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
13
Avg r
1. People take advantage 1.000
2. Making phone calls
-.182 1.000
3. Avoid confrontation
.043 .192 1.000
4. Do what others want
.419 .270 .259 1.000
5. Stand up for myself
.470 -.115 .208 .477 1.000
6. Hard time saying no
.578 .112 .393 .655 .508 1.000
7. Nervous speaking
-.059 .653 .052 .539 .183 .491 1.000
8. Everyone else decide
.021 .023 .374 .429 .409 .164 .103 1.000
9. Keep my opinion to
.269 -.227 .196 .411 .428 .484 .018 .630 1.000
myself
10. I remain silent
-.037 .454 .416 .549 .055 .526 .485 .339 .350 1.000
11. I feel uneasy
-.234 .463 .285 .069 -.394 .186 .314 .030 .067 .585 1.000
12. Easily led
-.024 .237 .040 .277 .293 .131 .236 .404 .258 .370 .220
13. Strong opinions
.403 .322 .416 .278 .303 .617 .432 .091 .087 .178 .124 1.000
*Item 1 and 11 will be removed from the CSAI-BW because of their low inter item correlations
Table 2 reports items mean for each test question. There were no extreme outliers for the
means scores of the items. Therefore, no additional items will be removed from the test.
.389
476
.521
.771
.532
.821
.646
.488
.486
.703
.351
.425
.634
CSAI-BW
Table 2. Item Difficulty for CSAI-BW Test Items
Item
1. People take advantage of me
2. I dislike making phone calls
3. I avoid confrontation
4. I often do what others want
5. I feel guilty when i stand up for myself
6. I have a hard time saying no
7. I get nervous speaking around people
8. I let everyone else decide what to do
9. I keep my opinion to myself
10. I remain silent
11. I feel uneasy when starting conversations
12. I am easily led by people
13. Strong opinions make me uncomfortable
9
Mean
3.15
2.20
3.40
2.40
2.00
2.90
2.75
2.90
2.45
2.55
2.15
1.80
2.10
Assessing Reliability
Test-retest reliability is a method of establishing reliability in which a coefficient is
gained by administering the same test to the same group of participants on two different
occasions. The second administration of the test can take place anywhere from a day to a few
months apart. This method would not be appropriate for the CSAI-BW because test retest
reliability assesses changes in personal conditions, but not the test being that it has the exact
same content. The test would also be scored by the same person, so it would not address any type
of inter-scorer variation.
Inter-rater reliability is another form of reliability that determines unsystematic variation
of scores because of the test scorer. This form of reliability could be obtained by allowing two
separate people to score CSAI-BW. The correlation between these two scores would be
calculated in order to determine a relationship. Again, this method of establishing reliability
would not be appropriate because the Likert scale does not require any subjective scoring.
CSAI-BW
10
Alternate form reliability is a method that requires two forms of a test. The tests remain
consistent in content, number of items, and time limits. The same test takers are administered
both tests. Pearson correlation is calculated to determine the coefficient between the scores
obtained between both of the test. CSAI-BW would benefit from an alternate form of the test in
order to establish reliability.
Split-half reliability is very similar to the alternate form of reliability method. In this
method a single test is administered, but is scored in halves. After, the two half test scores are
correlated. A sub-division of this form of reliability is odd even reliability. Because harder
questions are at the end of the survey, it is not always beneficial to do the standard split half
form. Odd even reliability only ensures that all types of half of the items are encompassed.
Spearman Brown established when a correction is applied to the previously mentioned
correlation in order to account for the full length of the test.
In order to establish test retest reliability for the CSAI-BW, internal consistency was
computed using split-half reliability and coefficient alpha. Split-half reliability was established
by computing a total score for the first 7 items and correlating that score with the total score from
the last 6 items. Results revealed a reliability coefficient of .65. Odd-even was calculated by
adding odd numbered test items together to form a total score and by adding even numbered test
items to form a total score. As expected, results yielded a reliability coefficient of .78.
After applying the Spearman Brown correction to the obtained coefficient from the splithalf reliability analysis, there was an increase from .65 to .79. An increase in test items will
increase the reliability of the test to an acceptable number. When the correction was applied to
the odd-even reliability coefficient, there was also an increase from .78 to .88.
CSAI-BW
11
The Kuder-Richardson formula is often used to asses test reliability, however, it is only
effective with dichotomously scored items, making it inappropriate for CSAI-BW. Cronbach’s
alpha is a more general form of this formula. Cronbach’s alpha was computed in order to assess
overall reliability. Coefficient alpha assesses the extent to which the items are measuring the
same construct in the test. The analysis determined that the CSAI-BW had a coefficient of .82.
Assessing Test Validity
Validity is known as the extent to which a construct measures what it intends to measure.
Content validity focuses on the correlation between the content of the test and an already
established knowledge of behavior. The primary application of content validity is limited to
educational achievement test and employment test (Hogan, 2007). The current construct
measures assertiveness in black female college students. Therefore, content validity would not be
appropriate for CSAI-BW.
Criterion-related validity deals with the relationship between a person’s actual
performance on a test and observable behavior. Two often used methods for establishing
criterion-related validity are predictive and concurrent. Predictive validity attempts to predict
status on future criterion; while concurrent aims to address the correlation between test
performance and the present behavior of the test taker. Criterion-related validity would be
beneficial to CSAI-BW because the same construct would be measured, but in different methods.
Convergent and discriminant are also useful in assessing validity. Convergent validity is
known as the extent to which test scores highly correlates with some criterion thought to measure
the same construct. In contrast, discriminant validity is the extent to which the test has a low
correlation with constructs that it does not have a relationship with. These two concepts are
CSAI-BW
12
widely used when dealing with personality measurement tests. Thus, convergent and
discriminant validity would be appropriate for CSAI-BW.
Convergent and discriminant validity were examined in order to assess the validity of
CSAI-BW. Scores from CSAI-BW were correlated with scores from an African American
Female College student Introversion/Extraversion Inventory that was designed by a student in
Theory of Psychometric Instruments. Although introversion/extraversion and assertiveness are
not the same construct, research shows significant correlation between extraversion and
assertiveness (Ramaniah & Deniston, 1993). As expected, a simple Pearson’s correlation of total
scores yielded a high validity coefficient of .82 (p > .05). Discriminant validity was also
established for the CSAI-BW. Scores from CSAI-BW was correlated with scores from a test
measuring body image designed by student in Theory of Psychometric Instruments. As expected,
a simple Pearson’s correlation of total scores yielded a validity coefficient of -.111 (p <.05).
Discussion
Implications
The College Student Assertiveness Inventory for Black Women is a precise instrument
used for measuring assertiveness in college students. Because there is no other test that
effectively measures assertiveness in Black female college students, this test bridges the gap in
literature. Results from this analysis provided evidence of the reliability and validity of the
CSAI-BW. The CSAI-BW possesses item homogeneity. Once odd-even reliability was
computed and corrected for by Spearman Brown, the correlations were as expected for a reliable
test. The high reliability suggests that the items on the test were substantially associated with
each other.
CSAI-BW
13
Similarly, computed total scores from CSAI-BW were highly correlated with total scores
from African American Female College student Introversion/Extraversion Inventory.
Extraversion was thought to have a significant association with the construct of assertiveness.
Generally, the ideal correlation for establishing convergent validity is a .80. The CSAI-BW was
shown to be accurate by computing a correlation of .82, because higher validity equates to
greater validity in the test.
Limitations
CSAI-BW would have benefited from a more thorough item tryout process. An informal
tryout of the items would have helped to eliminate redundant, confusing words, ambiguous
items, and other factors that might have slowed the development process. Although participants
were able to provide feedback on test items, they were not administered a new form of the better
developed test. A formal tryout would have also been beneficial for this instrument.
The ideal sample size for this study would be at least 100 participants gathered through
random sampling, at a local college. It would also be more beneficial if participants were both
male and female, encompassed multiple races, and represented all classifications. It would have
also been ideal to have a larger group of participants for test administration. The participants
were gained though a convenient sample in one course at only one school. The course was
limited to upper class students who were majoring in psychology. The school was not ideal
because it was an all-female, predominantly black, liberal arts institution in the south eastern
region.
Although overall reliability and validity was established, there are many ways in which
further test could improve. Some of the students neglected to answer a few questions on the test,
which might have affected both reliability and validity. Also, some students did not clearly
CSAI-BW
14
indicate the answer to the item, leaving it up to scorer interpretation. Lastly, one student did not
return her completed test. In the future, it would be ideal to administer the test in class during a
limited time period.
Conclusion
Overall, the items chosen for the CSAI-BW reflected common nonassertive behaviors as
identified by Rathus and Rupper (1973). Although the test was administered to African
American female college students, the questions were probably more general than they should
have been. The test items were not limited to experiences/behavior of African American female
college students. Further literature should measure assertive behavior that is unique to the black
female experience. Many of the current test measures assertiveness in foreign cultures or white
Americans, a new test should measure assertiveness for black female college students.
CSAI-BW
15
References
Author, A. A., Author, B. B., & Author, C. C. (Year). Title of article. Title of Periodical, volume
Number (issue number), pages.
Amanatullah, T. E., & Morris, W. M. (2010) Negotiating gender roles: Gender differences in
assertive negotiating are mediated by women's fear of backlash and attenuated when
negotiating on behalf of others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(2),
256-267.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
Costa, P. T., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits
across cultures: Robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 81, 322-331.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEOPI-R) and Five
Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources,
13, 200-215.
Chickering, A. W. (1969). Education and identity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Costello, J. J., & English, R. W. (2001). The psychological development of college students with
and without learning disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability,
15(1), 16-27.
Guilford, J.P., & Zimmerman, W.S. (1956) The Guilford-Zimmerman temperament Survey.
Sheridan Psychological Services,19,156-170.
Rathus, S.A., & Rupper, C. (1973) Assertion training in the secondary school and the college.
Journal of Adolescences, 7, 123-140.
Scrutchfield, K. (2003). College student's comfort with assertive behaviors: analysis of students
with and without disabilities in three different postsecondary institutions. Journal of
Postsecondary Education and Disability, 1, 3-56.
Joiner, J. G., Lovett, P. S., & Hague, L. K. (1982). Evaluation of assertiveness of disabled
persons in the rehabilitation process. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 26(1), 55-58.
Wolpe, J., & Lazarus, A. A. Behavior therapy techniques. Oxford: Pergamon, 1966
Master,J.,Burish,T.,Hollon,S.&Rimm,D.(1987).Behavior therapy. Journal of psychology, 3, 95103.
CSAI-BW
16
Florian, V., & Zernitsky-Shurka, E. (1987). The effect of culture and gender on self-reported
assertive behavior. International Journal of Psychology, 22, 83-95.
Ramanaiah, N. V., & Deniston, W. M. (1993). NEO personality inventory profiles of assertive
and nonassertive persons. Psychological Reports, 73 (1), 336-338.
Rathus, S. (1973). A 30-Item Schedule for Assessing Assertive Behavior. Behavior Therapy, 4,
398-406
Hogan, T. P. (2007). Psychological testing: a practical introduction. Journal of Psychology, 2
268-300.
CSAI-BW
17
Appendix A
CSAI-BW (original)
College Students Assertiveness Inventory for Black Women
Construct: Assertiveness
Assertiveness can be defined as the ability to communicate one’s own thoughts and opinions in a
way that is direst, non-aggressive, honest, and clear.
Please examine the following statements. Using the provided scale below, indicate which
statement best applies to you by writing the number in the blank below.
5 (Most of the time)
4 (often)
3 (sometimes)
2 (rarely)
1 (never)
1. _______I state my opinion, even if others disagree with me
2. _______I feel like people take advantage of me
3. _______I dislike making phone calls to businesses, institutions, because I might sound
stupid
4. _______If I’m not satisfied with a service (nails, hair, food) I will speak up and say
something
5. _______I avoid confrontation at all cost
6. _______I often do what others want, even if I don’t want to
7. _______I feel guilty when I stand up for my rights or express my feelings
8. _______I have a hard time saying “no” to people’s request, even when I want to
9. _______I get nervous speaking around people in positions of authority
10. _______I try to take charge of things when I’m with people
11. _______I try to influence other people’s actions
12. _______When I’m with friends I let everyone else decide what to do for the night
13. _______I keep my opinions to myself for fear of upsetting or starting an argument with
others
Section 2
Using the provided scale below, indicate the extent to which you agree with each statement by
writing the number on the blank line.
5 (Stongly agree)
4 (Agree)
3(Neither agree/nor disagree) 2 Disagree 1 (Stongly Disagree
CSAI-BW
14. ______It is better to remain silent and avoid an argument than to speak your mind
15. ______I cannot comfortably start a conversation with people
16. ______I am easily led by people
17. ______People with strong opinions make me uncomfortable
18