Psychometric evaluation of two instruments to assess connection to nature / Evaluación psicométrica de dos instrumentos que miden la conexión con la naturaleza

Abstract

Spanish

The biophilia hypothesis states that human beings have an innate tendency to connect with nature. The current study aimed to examine the psychometric properties of the full and short versions of both the Environmental Identity Scale (EID) and the Nature Relatedness Scale (NR). Participants were 209 Singaporean undergraduate students (67.9% females) from a medium-sized university in Singapore. Exploratory factor analyses revealed a unidimensional structure for the Full EID and the Short EID. Acceptable internal consistency coefficients of .96 and .92 were found for the two instruments, respectively. Exploratory factor analyses revealed a three-factor structure for the Full NR: (a) NR-Self; (b) NR-Experience; and (c) NR-Perspective. However, two items were removed, and there are differences in the items that load on each factor. In addition, the NR-Perspective is unreliable, with an internal consistency coefficient of .62. Exploratory factor analyses revealed a unidimensional structure for the Short NR. An acceptable internal consistency coefficient of .82 was found. Taken together, the current study provided support for the use of the Full and Short EID and the Short NR as psychometrically valid instruments among Singapore undergraduate students.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bartlett

M. S.

(1954). A note on the multiplying factors for various χ 2 approximations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 16, 296–298.

Benfield

J. A.

Rainbolt

G. N.

Bell

P. A.

Donovan

G. H.

(2015). Classrooms with nature views: Evidence of differing student perceptions and behaviors. Environment and Behavior, 47, 140–157.

Capaldi

C. A.

Dopko

R. L.

Zelenski

J. M.

(2014). The relationship between nature connectedness and happiness: A meta-analysis. Cognitive Science, 5, 1–15.

Clayton

(2003). Environmental identity: A conceptual and an operational definition. In Clayton

Opotow

(Eds.), Identity and the natural environment (pp. 45–65). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Costello

A. B.

Osborne

J. W.

(2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10(7), 1–9.

Diener

Emmons

R. A.

Larsen

R. J.

Griffin

(1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75.

Fabrigar

L. R.

Wegener

D. T.

MacCallum

R. C.

Strahan

E. J.

(1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4, 272–299.

Ford

J. K.

MacCallum

R. C.

Tait

(1986). The application of exploratory factor analysis in applied psychology: A critical review and analysis. Personnel Psychology, 39, 291–314.

Frumkin

(2001). Beyond toxicity: Human health and the natural environment. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 20, 234–240.

10.

Hair

J. F.

Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

Anderson

R. E.

(2009). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

11.

Henson

R. K.

Roberts

J. K.

(2006). Use of exploratory factor analysis in published research common errors and some comment on improved practice. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 393–416.

12.

Hinkin

T. R.

(1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. Journal of Management, 21, 967–988.

13.

Horn

J. L.

(1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30, 179–185.

14.

Izquierdo

Olea

Abad

F. J.

(2014). Exploratory factor analysis in validation studies: Uses and recommendations. Psicothema, 26, 395–400.

15.

Kaiser

H. F.

(1970). A second generation little jiffy. Psychometrika, 35, 401–415.

16.

Kals

Schumacher

Montada

(1999). Emotional affinity toward nature as a motivational basis to protect nature. Environment and Behavior, 31, 178–202.

17.

Kellert

S. R.

Wilson

E. O.

(Eds.). (1995). The biophilia hypothesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.

18.

Matsunaga

(2010). How to factor-analyze your data right: Do’s, don’ts, and how-to’s. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3, 97–110.

19.

Nisbet

E. K.

Zelenski

J. M.

(2013). The NR-6: A new brief measure of nature relatedness. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1–11.

20.

Nisbet

E. K.

Zelenski

J. M.

Murphy

S. A.

(2009). The Nature Relatedness Scale: Linking individuals’ connection with nature to environmental concern and behavior. Environment and Behavior, 41, 715–740.

21.

Nunnally

J. C.

(1978). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

22.

Olivos

Aragonés

J.-I.

(2011). Psychometric properties of the Environmental Identity Scale (EID). Psyecology, 2, 65–74.

23.

Paulhus

D. L.

(1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In Robinson

J. P.

Shaver

P. R.

Wrightsman

L. S.

(Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 17–59). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

24.

Russell

D. W.

(2002). In search of underlying dimensions: The use (and abuse) of factor analysis in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1629–1646.

25.

Sheeran

Webb

T. L.

(2016). The intention–Behavior gap. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10, 503–518.

26.

Tam

K.-P.

(2013). Concepts and measures related to connection to nature: Similarities and differences. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34, 64–78.

27.

Watson

Clark

L. A.

Tellegen

(1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.

28.

Wilson

E. O.

(1984). Biophilia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.