Proposing a Psychometric Measure of the LID Model: Item Generation and Content Validity

• In Event: Interactive Roundtable Discussion Session 4b

Short Description

Considering the popularity of the Leadership Identity Development (LID) model (Komives et al., 2005, 2006) in leadership education and college student leadership development, the value of a psychometric measure of LID extends beyond reliable assessment to a scale that allows for developmental feedback and processing with respondents. The purpose of this roundtable session is to propose a three-phased scale for the measure of leadership identity development and gather leadership scholars and practitioners interested in the measurement and developmental utility of the LID model to discuss content validity of the generated items.

Detailed Abstract

Komives et al. (2005) conducted a grounded theory study of leadership identity development (LID) and produced an associated model (2006), both of which heavily cited in the fields of leadership education and college student development. Despite the extensive draw to the LID model and theory (Komives et al., 2005, 2006), no psychometric measure has been fully developed.

The value of a psychometric measure of LID extends beyond reliable assessment to a scale that allows for developmental feedback and processing with respondents. Indications of “amount” or “level” of leadership identity development may or may not be useful for practitioners. Notably, Day et al. (2014) highlight positive reaction to feedback as critical to the leadership development process, arguing that a positive reaction to feedback leads to wanting more feedback, but a negative reaction can do harm.

At the 2020 ILA Conference, a roundtable session gathered leadership scholars and practitioners interested in the measurement of the LID model to discuss item language, scoring, and interpretation considerations important to item generation and content validity (Hinkin, 1998). Feedback from the 2020 roundtable session ([Author], & [Author], 2020) was integrated with literature on the LID theory and model to inform item generation. The purpose of this roundtable is to propose a three-phased scale for measuring LID and gather scholars and practitioners to discuss content validity of the items.

Komives et al.’s (2005) grounded theory study utilized a series of three in-depth interviews with 13 students from a mid-Atlantic research university. Below is the six-stage leadership identity developmental process that emerged:
1. Awareness (i.e., Views leadership as external to self)
2. Exploration/Engagement (i.e., Intentional group involvement)
3. Leader Identified (i.e., Leaders have a leadership position)
4. Leadership Differentiated (i.e., Anyone in the group can do leadership; Leadership is a process)
5. Generativity (i.e., Develops others and organizations)
6. Integration/Synthesis (i.e., Leadership recognized as a daily process)

Leadership identities move from being aware of leaders to integrating “leader” into self-identity. Komives et al. (2005, 2006) explained that the development of leadership identity in college students involves a dynamic and iterative process whereby students’ changing views of self and engagement in groups initiates movement from dependent to interdependent views of self with others, consequently forming a broadened view of leadership which generates the leadership identity – as demarcated by six developmental stages. This identity development process is socially constructed and, therefore, shaped by adults, peers, meaningful involvement, and reflective learning (Priest et al., 2018).

Previous attempts to assess and measure LID largely resulted in mixed support for the six-stage LID model presented by Komives et al. (2006) (Komives, 2011; Owen, 2012; Rocco et al., 2019; Wagner, 2011). The current scale development effort extends previous work by utilizing both deductive and inductive approaches to item development.

Following established psychometric scale development guidelines (Crawford & Kelder, 2019; Hinkin, 1998), item grouping and language was largely deduced from, grounded in, and inspired by the LID theory, its associated model, and previous scale development efforts. Item infrastructure, however, was determined inductively from the 2020 roundtable session, which asked participants to (a) ideate ideal scoring interpretations that would offer developmental utility while precisely measuring LID and (b) construct hypothetical item language to best reflect the desired scoring. Basic qualitative thematic analysis (Creswell & Poth, 2018) of roundtable discussions revealed the importance of (a) giving respondents the opportunity to see a starting point and growth in their LID, (b) triangulating different forms of data to establish points on a developmental trajectory, (c) indicating results as points on a trajectory as opposed to a score that indicates presence/absence/level of leadership identity stages, and (d) offering developmental utility to the respondent both during and after completing the scale.

Taken together, the LID theory and associated model as well as the roundtable results informed item language, grouping, and infrastructure. The infrastructure of the proposed LID scale is in three phases. Phase A questions are designed to distinguish position vs. process-oriented leadership identity, as the progression from LID Stage Three (Leader Identified) to Stage Four (Leadership Differentiated) highlights a key transition in the LID model (Komives et al., 2006; Komives, 2011). Phase B questions are designed to distinguish between stage nuances. Respondents who indicate a more position-oriented leadership identity in Phase A will receive questions in Phase B that serve to distinguish between awareness (Stage 1), exploration (Stage 2), and leader identified (Stage 3) nuances in their growth trajectory. Respondents who indicate a more process-based leadership identity in Phase A will receive questions in Phase B that serve to distinguish between leadership differentiated (Stage 4), generativity (Stage 5), and integration/synthesis (Stage 6) nuances in their growth trajectory. Phase C of the proposed scale uses visual images to triangulate LID stage nuance and offers developmental utility to the respondent through open-ended reflection.

Roundtable participants will be offered a brief explanation of the LID model and the proposed scale will be introduced and detailed (origins of item language, proposed scoring and interpretation for each phase, rationale behind phase infrastructure). Participants will offer insight to the questions below regarding content validity of the generated items, following recommended processes by Hinkin (1998), Schriesheim et al. (1993), and Crawford and Kelder (2019):
1. To what degree does each Phase A item represent its intended position vs. process-oriented leadership identity?
2. To what degree does each Phase B item represent its intended stage?
3. To what degree does the scoring and interpretation for each phase represent its desired intention?
4. How should scale results be represented to maximize developmental utility?

The desired outcome is to use roundtable feedback as an assessment of content validity for the proposed LID scale. Discussing item/construct representation, scoring, and interpretation are imperative to the content validity process in psychometric scale development (Hinkin, 1998). Adjustments to scale items, phase infrastructure, and scoring/interpretation will prepare the proposed scale for empirical evaluation phases, including factor structure testing for item reduction, measurement model testing, and convergent/discriminant/criterion validity analyses (Crawford & Kelder, 2019; Hinkin, 1998; Schriesheim et al., 1993; Schreisheim et al., 2009).

Participants

• Lindsay Hastings, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
  Presenter

• Hannah Sunderman, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
  Presenter