A MEASURING TOOL FOR SIBLING TRUST

MANALI JADHAV

R.D. National College of Arts, Commerce and

W.A.Science

Author’s note:

*Department of Psychology, Roll No. 19057.

This report has been submitted as a part of journal work for M.A. Part-I, Semester II practicum

paper, “Psychological Testing and Psychometrics” for the academic year 2019-20.

The owner of the test being critically evaluated in this report is Ayesha Patel.

Abstract

As trust is an important element in developing and maintaining close interpersonal relationships

especially family members like siblings with whom there is a lifelong attachment, the purpose of

this study is to construct a measurable scale on sibling trust by combining Larzelere and Huston
(1980) and Rempel and colleagues’ (1985) conceptualisations on interpersonal trust and

administering it on a population ages 18-50 who have at least one sibling. The proposed

psychometric analysis includes Cronbach’s alpha for reliability, Confirmatory Factor Analysis

for reliability and correlation coefficient to study the construct validity of the scale.

Keywords: Emotions, Trust, Siblings, Reliability, Validity.

Introduction

Both trust and self control are necessary to prevent intrusive behaviour: evidence from

longitudinal study of married couples.

The study was designed to Study the prediction that people need trust and self control to refrain

themselves from intrusive behaviour. This study was a longitudinals study with three waves

consisting of multilevel analysis with an interaction between trust and self control. The results of

the study stated that nor trust not the self control as a single factor are useful for intrusive

behaviour but both are necessary to control from intruding on the opposite person’s privacy

(partner). The study was conducted on married couples without having a base of the duration of

the relationship, as it varied from one couple to another couple. This study is being conducted on

married couples where the partners belong to different houses and backgrounds whereas in this

article the researcher is a sibling trust, where the siblings are part of the same house and

background, therefore the results may vary from this study to that study.

The effect of interpersonal trust on minority high school students psychological well-being.
This study tries to examine the relationship between interpersonal trust and psychological well

being of the minority high school students through a questionnaire. This study has a cross-

sectional research design which verifies the meditation room theoretically but does not analyse

the relationship in the real development. Therefore there is further study needed in this topic. The

future study should include further follow up, an investigation and research on minority high

school students. This study was again conducted on school students from different backgrounds

and houses, where the bringing of everyone is different there for their behavioural pattern is

going to be different. Therefore the study cannot be a part of this article.

Gender differences, infidelity, direct trust, and jealousy amongst married Turkish individuals.

This study tries to examine the relationship between the Turkish individuals. . The results of the

study state some reactions related to trust in the partners, the change in the nature of the cultural

tendency within a married individual's life. Some of the couples also reveal themselves as

restricting partners who restrict their partners and take away their freedom and manipulate the

decisions. There are some limitations to do study, for example this study cannot be generalised to

everyone as the sample was a convenient sample selected by the researchers and the open city of

Turkey, the participants do not reflect any characteristics of rural people. . again the study was

being done on married couple who belong to different houses and background, also possible

different socio-economic status therefore this study cannot be used or be a part of the present

article as the present article is studying the sibling trust.

The Dyadic trust scale: toward understanding interpersonal trust in close relationships.
A dyadic trust scale is the tool used in this study. It was created so that it is unidimensional,

reliable, relatively free from response biases. The study was the eight item study with a good rate

of validity and high reliability. But there were some limitations to this study, one of it is this

study focuses on individuals personal growth, whereas close relationships. And again this study

is being conducted on the couples, whether married or unmarried, therefore it cannot be related

to this article. Therefore further research is needed on this topic in general.

Attachment, trust, and satisfaction in relationships: Investigating actor, partner, and mediating

effects.

This study was conducted to assess dyadic trust of the relation between romantic partners and

relationships satisfaction. The results show actor and partner effects. To maintain the satisfaction

between the relationship for long term is regarded with important life goals of mental and

physical health. It has been found that many couples are not satisfied with their relationship. The

results of this study focuses on emotionally focused therapy for couples who are interested in

increasing relationship satisfaction. There are some limitations to this study, one of which is that

the study used a homogeneous sample because of which it cannot be generalised.Secondly the

study was self-reported data which might be a result of overestimation effect. Therefore this

study cannot be used for this article.And this study also uses the relationship of couples I am not

siblings.

Two-component model of general trust: predicting behavioural trust from attitudinal trust.

The study constructed a new measure of general trust which includes both aspects such as

behavioural trust and attitudinal trust. The study was conducted on 75 men and 75 women with
each having 10 years of age difference ranging from 20 years to 59 years. And the data was

collected over the years. In this study the trust was measured through a game where the

participants had to trust your partner for winning the game. The findings of this study report that

correlation between two is because of general pro-sociality and not because of the attitudinal

trust. The study mostly focuses on behavioural trust related to games. General trust has an effect

on behavioural trust when convinced and measured but it is independent of the effect of general

pro-sociality. The study cannot be a part of this article as it focuses on behavioural trust of

gaming. I am not about the general or specific sibling trust.

The major limitations of the articles mentioned above are that most of the articles are judging or

talking about the relationship between couples whether married or unmarried, but none of this

study is talking about the trust in relation with siblings. There for most the day and resort is

needed on this topic.

Rationale

According to the literature reviewed, it is seen that most studies use scales that are already

existing or modify versions of already existing scales. The scales used are western- based and not

always suitable for non-western cultures as there is a vast difference between both cultures’

definition of trust. Also, the scales focus on the general aspect of trust, there are very few trust

scales that focus on interpersonal close relationships. As trust is an important part of

interpersonal relationships and has many positive effects, this study aims to construct a measure

on sibling trust. Trust in this study is conceptualised from the perspective of Larzelere and

Huston (1980) and Rempel, Holmes and Zanna (1985) which includes components like
benevolence and honesty from the former and dependability and faith from the latter.

Benevolence and honesty from the sibling trust point of view includes being kind, accepting and

truthful towards your sibling and dependability and faith include supporting your siblings in

times of need and then supporting you back, not being afraid to be vulnerable and having

confidence in them that they would do the right thing. Trust is viewed from a dyadic perspective

where individuals' trust towards the sibling and their perception of their siblings being trustful

will be studied in a unidimensional scale which will include statements that reflect the above

components.

Hypotheses

The scale measures trust in siblings in a psychometrically sound way. A high score would mean

the participant places a greater amount of trust in their siblings.

Method

Sample characteristics

In this study the age range of participants is from 18-50. And the total number of participants in

this study are 51, from which 13 were male participants and 38 were female participants. 27

participants were students, 11 participants were employed. And the rest of them did not want to

reveal their employment status.

Variables

Sibling Trust - Believing that there is dyadic benevolence, honesty, dependability, and faith

shared between you and your sibling.

Fig . CFA diagram pathway for Sibling Trust Scale

Procedure

In this test the participant was given the link to the scale, through social media and was asked to

open it. The subject was asked for consent to participate, then the participant was taken to the

next page and was asked to fill out the demographic details. The observations was made through

video call by the observer and instructions were provided to the participant whenever needed.

Once all the questions were answered the observer sent the PTQ’s to the participant and after that

the participant was debriefed by the observer.

Statistical analysis
Descriptive Statistics: Mean, Standard Deviation, Standard Error of Measurement are the

descriptive statistics that will be used for the overall score of the scale.

Psychometric analysis

Inferential Statistics: Cronbach’s alpha for reliability, Confirmatory Factor Analysis for

reliability and correlation coefficient to study the construct validity of the scale.

Results

Descriptive Statistics:

Mean SD Skew W(p)

195.79 26.86 -0.81 0.93(0.005)

41.12 9.39 -0.61 0.95(0.040)

Table 1.Descriptive Statistics of Total scale/ Subscale scores

The descriptive statistics for Ayesha Patel’s Sibling Trust Scale (STS) (Table 1) indicated that,a
mean of 195.79 has been obtained with a standard deviation of 26.86 and a skewness of -0.81.
The SDTS’s mean was 41.12 with standard deviation of 9.39 and a skewness of -0.61. The
univariate normality was found to be 0.93 for STS and 0.95 for SDTS with both having p < 0.05.
Histogram:

Fig 1. Histogram representing total scores for STS

The histogram (Fig 1) indicates that the data is negatively skewed and the all participants scored
more than 100 in the. Most participants have scores above the mean (x = 195.79).

Q-Q Plot:

Fig 2. Q-Q Plot for STS

The Q-Q plot for STS (Fig 2) indicates that the Q-Q plot is left skewed and has a heavy tail. The
Q-Q plot also suggests that the data has a lot of outliers too.

Norm Table:

Percentile Rank Score

10 161.3263

20 173.1604

30 181.6936

40 188.985

50 195.8

60 202.615

70 209.9064

80 218.4396

90 230.2737

Mean 195.8

SD 26.9

Table.2. Norm Table

The above norm table (table 2) gives an understanding of where an individual’s normative
standing is with respect to the group.

Item Descriptive Statistics:

Item Mean SD Skew W(p)

I1 3.46 1.25 -0.36 0.88 (0.000)

I2 3.24 1.27 -0.35 0.90 (0.000)

I3 4.24 0.98 -1.32 0.76 (0.000)

I4 4.28 0.9 -1.11 0.76 (0.000)

I5 3.56 1.18 -0.46 0.88 (0.000)

I6 3.74 1.24 -0.61 0.85 (0.000)

I7 3.82 1.19 -0.7 0.85 (0.000)

I8 3.94 1.02 -0.96 0.83 (0.000)

I9 2.94 1.35 -0.1 0.89 (0.000)

I10 3.76 1.02 -0.57 0.88 (0.000)

I11 4.02 0.94 -0.66 0.84 (0.000)

I12 2.48 1.16 0.49 0.89 (0.000)

I13 3.78 1.09 -1.01 0.84 (0.000)

I14 3.84 1.08 -0.59 0.87 (0.000)

I15 3.7 1.18 -0.69 0.85 (0.000)

I16 3.98 0.87 -0.54 0.85 (0.000)

I17 4.2 0.86 -0.81 0.81 (0.000)

I18 4.02 1.02 -0.88 0.83 (0.000)

I19 3.3 1.15 -0.2 0.91 (0.001)

I20 4.04 0.88 -0.64 0.84 (0.000)

I21 4.12 0.94 -1.32 0.78 (0.000)

I22 4.06 0.93 -0.75 0.83 (0.000)

I23 3.56 1.34 -0.45 0.86 (0.000)

I24 3.32 1.38 -0.36 0.88 (0.000)

I25 4.3 0.89 -1.19 0.75 (0.000)

I26 4.28 0.83 -1.24 0.75 (0.000)

I27 3.7 1.04 -0.51 0.89 (0.000)

I28 3.6 1.14 -0.51 0.88 (0.000)

I29 2.14 1.2 0.69 0.82 (0.000)

I30 4.36 0.9 -1.67 0.72 (0.000)

I31 3.96 1.07 -0.65 0.82 (0.000)

I32 4.28 0.93 -1.4 0.76 (0.000)

I33 4.34 0.87 -1.7 0.73 (0.000)

I34 4.32 0.82 -1.13 0.76 (0.000)

I35 3.84 1.02 -0.63 0.87 (0.000)

I36 4.24 0.8 -0.72 0.80 (0.000)

I37 4.34 0.8 -1.2 0.76 (0.000)

I38 3.88 1.17 -0.63 0.83 (0.000)

I39 3.98 0.91 -0.46 0.85 (0.000)

I40 4.34 0.75 -0.65 0.76 (0.000)

I41 4.34 0.77 -0.96 0.77 (0.000)

I42 4.2 0.88 -0.78 0.80 (0.000)

 I43 4.42 0.86 -1.95 0.68 (0.000)

I44 4.38 0.81 -1.3 0.74 (0.000)

I45 4.32 0.94 -1.32 0.72 (0.000)

I46 4.52 0.81 -2.19 0.63 (0.000)

I47 4.02 0.91 -0.54 0.84 (0.000)

I48 4.1 0.91 -0.71 0.82 (0.000)

I49 4.12 1 -1.26 0.78 (0.000)

I50 4.06 1.02 -1.21 0.80 (0.000)

Table.3. Item Descriptive Statistics:

The Items descriptive statistics table (table 3) gives us the mean, standard deviation, skewness

and normality of all 50 items of the test. No items were normally distributed.

Table.Individual score for sibling trust

STS SDTS

Raw scores 197 43

Z Scores 0.04460
The above mentioned table shows the raw scores and the Z scores of the individual participant

in sibling trust scale and raw score for sibling dyadic scale. To check if the participant fits into

the group and to check how much above or below the mean of group scores the participant falls,

the Z scores were computed, the Z score obtained by this participant was 0.04460, and the raw

score for STS is 197, and raw score for SDTS is 43, which means that the participant falls above

the mean score of the group data.

6. Description of inter item correlation matrix:

Inter-item correlation outputs

The inter-item correlation refers to the amount of correlation each item has with one another. The mean

inter-item correlation was found to be 0.291. The range was found to be 0.90 < r < 0.98. 

The inter-item correlation probability matrix shows the items that were not significant for a particular

item. They have been represented in the table below (Table 4): 

Table 4. Inter item correlation matrix for items that are non-significant

Item no. Items nos. that are non-significant

1 10, 14, 15, 24, 29. 31, 33, 35, 39, 42,43,44,45
2 2-5, 8-14, 16, 17, 19-22, 25-33, 36-47, 49, 50.
3 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 13-16, 18, 19, 23, 24, 28, 29,

33, 34, 35, 39, 42, 48

4 2, 3, 9, 24, 29, 31, 35, 39, 42, 43
5 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 14, 24, 25, 29, 30, 31, 33, 35, 36, 39, 42
6 1-5, 9, 10, 12, 13, 19, 20, 24, 29, 31, 35, 39, 42, 43, 45
7 2, 3, 6, 10, 24, 29, 31, 35, 39
8 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 24, 29, 31, 35, 29, 42
9 1-8, 10, 13-18, 20, 22-31, 33-37, 39-46
10 1-30, 32-40
11 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 15, 24, 29-31, 35, 39, 42
12 1-11, 15-17, 21-25, 29-31, 33-48, 50
13 1-12, 22, 25, 29-31, 35, 36, 39, 42-44
14 1-12, 15, 25, 29-32, 35-44, 46, 50
15 1-14, 16, 24-32, 36, 38, 39, 41, 44, 45, 48, 50
16 1-10, 12-15, 24, 25, 29, 31, 33, 35, 39, 42, 44
17 1-7, 9, 10, 12-15, 24, 29, 31, 33, 35, 39, 42
18 2, 3, 8-10, 12-17, 29, 31, 35, 39, 42-46
19 1-18, 24, 26, 27, 29-31, 33, 35, 36, 39, 42-46
20 1-7, 9-12, 14, 15, 18, 19, 24, 29, 31, 35, 42
21 1-10, 12-15, 18, 19, 23, 24, 29, 31, 35, 42
22 1-6, 9-16, 19-21, 24, 29, 31, 35, 39
23 1-22, 29, 31, 39, 40, 42, 43, 46
24 1-22, 25-32, 37-50
25 1-24, 28, 29, 25, 29, 42, 43, 45, 46
26 1-10, 12-15, 17-19, 22-25, 29, 31, 35
27 1-7, 9, 10, 12-15, 18-21, 23-25, 29-31, 34, 35, 42
28 1-27, 29-31, 35, 39, 43, 46
29 1-28, 30-38, 41-50
30 1-24, 26-29, 33, 35, 39, 45
31 1-30, 32-50
32 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8-31, 35, 39, 42
33 1-12, 14-32, 35, 37, 38, 39, 42, 43, 47
34 1-12, 14-32, 35, 37-39, 42, 43, 47
35 1-34, 46-50
36 1-16, 19, 20, 21, 23-35, 39
37 1-7, 9-16, 18, 19, 22-24, 27-35
38 2, 3, 5-10, 12-15, 18-22, 24, 25, 28-35, 37, 39, 42
39 1-38, 43, 44, 45, 47-50
40 1-19, 23-35, 38
41 1-16, 18-25, 28, 29, 31-35, 39
42 1-29, 31-41, 45, 49, 50
43 1-29, 31-39, 41, 42
44 1-25, 27-42
45 1-25, 28-43
46 1-25, 28, 29, 31-39, 42
47 1-3, 5-10, 12-15, 17-26, 28-37, 39, 40, 42, 43
48 2, 3, 5, 6, 8-10, 12-15, 17-25, 28-36, 39,

40, 42, 43, 46

49 2, 3, 9, 10, 12-16, 19, 23-25, 27, 29-31,

33-36, 39, 42-47

50 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12-16, 19, 23-25, 28-31,

33-36, 39-47
Similarly, the correlation matrix shows the number of items that are negatively correlated with all other

items. The negative correlations between items on the STS are represented below (Table 5):

Table 5. Inter item correlation matrix for items that are negatively correlated

Item no. Items that are negatively correlated

1 9, 12
3 12
4 12
5 12
7 9, 12
8 9, 12
9 11, 19, 21, 38, 47, 48, 49, 50
11 12
12 13, 14, 18, 19, 20, 26, 27, 28, 32, 49
29 39, 40

Factor Analysis reports:

For CFA indices, Chi Square was used to test the measurement model (Fig 3), and it was found

to be 608.86 with p < 1. For the fit indices, the Tucker Lewis Index was used which was found to

be 34.53, where the RMSEA was 0.00 and the BIC was -3987.76. For the measurement model of

the full scale, the Chi Square statistic was found to be 4713.548 with p < 0.00.

Table 6. CFA Indices for STS

Fit Indices
Variable Test p - value
Statistics (p<x) RMSEA Tucker- BIC
Lewis Index

Sibling Trust 606.86 1 0.00 34.53 3987.76

CTT Statistics

CTT Statistics:

Table.7. Difficulty, Discrimination, reliability indices.

Item
Item Discrimination

I1 0.608

I2 0.343

I3 0.456

I4 0.697

I5 0.595

I6 0.584

I7 0.724

I8 0.683

I9 -0.3

I10 0.243

I11 0.695

I12 -0.36
I13 0.529

I14 0.451

I15 0.476

I16 0.634

I17 0.687

I18 0.72

I19 0.475

I20 0.682

I21 0.699

I22 0.687

I23 0.612

I24 0.32

I25 0.563

I26 0.703

I27 0.659
I28 0.591

I29 -0.161

I30 0.558

I31 0.157

I32 0.609

I33 0.487

I34 0.585

I35 0.252

I36 0.651

I37 0.692

I38 0.707

I39 0.323

I40 0.659

I41 0.758

I42 0.366
 I43 0.494

I44 0.572

I45 0.585

I46 0.664

I47 0.692

I48 0.732

I49 0.757

I50 0.728

Table 7 indicates that the item 141 had the highest item discrimination of 0.758 and item 124 had
the lowest item discrimination of 0.32, poor item discrimination was also found for item 118.
Negative item discrimination was found for item 19 (-0.3), 112 (-0.36) and 129 (-0.161).
Cronbach’s alpha was 0.947.  

IRT Statistics:

Item Response Theory of testing is based on the relationship between individuals’ performances

on a test item and the test takers’ level of performance on an overall measure of the ability that

item was designed to measure. Item and Test information refers to how much information the

scales give about the trait. Given below is the output data of test and item information for the

sibling trust scale.

Output 1. Item and Test Information for Sibling Trust Scale

LT -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

I1 0.28 0.41 0.50 0.51 0.42 0.29 0.17

I2 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.08

I3 0.38 0.47 0.47 0.40 0.28 0.17 0.09

I4 0.46 0.68 0.72 0.57 0.33 0.14 0.05

I5 0.28 0.39 0.45 0.44 0.36 0.26 0.16

I6 0.25 0.34 0.38 0.37 0.30 0.21 0.14

I7 0.50 0.73 0.83 0.74 0.50 0.26 0.11

I8 0.47 0.61 0.64 0.55 0.39 0.23 0.12

I9 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.08

I10 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.10 0.09

I11 0.31 0.49 0.57 0.53 0.38 0.21 0.10

I12 0.15 0.18 0.20 0.20 0.18 0.15 0.12

I13 0.28 0.37 0.41 0.39 0.31 0.22 0.14

I14 0.23 0.28 0.30 0.29 0.24 0.18 0.12

I15 0.22 0.28 0.31 0.30 0.26 0.20 0.13

I16 0.22 0.31 0.35 0.34 0.27 0.19 0.11

I17 0.31 0.42 0.46 0.40 0.29 0.17 0.08

I18 0.45 0.57 0.59 0.51 0.36 0.21 0.10

I19 0.15 0.18 0.20 0.21 0.19 0.16 0.13

I20 0.31 0.45 0.51 0.47 0.35 0.21 0.10

I21 0.48 0.60 0.59 0.48 0.34 0.20 0.10

I22 0.29 0.44 0.51 0.47 0.34 0.20 0.10

I23 0.24 0.34 0.40 0.40 0.33 0.24 0.15

I24 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.08

I25 0.33 0.47 0.51 0.42 0.28 0.15 0.07

I26 0.46 0.64 0.62 0.50 0.32 0.15 0.06

I27 0.32 0.42 0.46 0.43 0.35 0.24 0.15

I28 0.23 0.30 0.34 0.34 0.29 0.22 0.14

I29 0.13 0.15 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.12 0.09

I30 0.41 0.48 0.47 0.38 0.26 0.16 0.08

I32 0.58 0.70 0.66 0.50 0.31 0.16 0.07

I33 0.52 0.61 0.57 0.44 0.28 0.15 0.07

I34 0.35 0.47 0.48 0.40 0.27 0.15 0.07

I35 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.07

I36 0.35 0.44 0.46 0.40 0.29 0.16 0.08

I37 0.43 0.57 0.56 0.45 0.28 0.14 0.06

I38 0.44 0.59 0.67 0.61 0.43 0.24 0.11

I39 0.11 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.11 0.08

I40 0.24 0.51 0.64 0.59 0.34 0.12 0.04

I41 0.68 0.74 0.69 0.59 0.34 0.12 0.04

I42 0.14 0.16 0.17 0.16 0.14 0.11 0.08

I43 0.40 0.47 0.45 0.36 0.25 0.15 0.08

I44 0.36 0.47 0.48 0.39 0.25 0.14 0.06

I45 0.37 0.56 0.61 0.49 0.29 0.14 0.06

I46 0.95 0.95 0.75 0.47 0.22 0.08 0.03

I47 0.34 0.51 0.59 0.55 0.40 0.22 0.10

I48 0.42 0.62 0.68 0.60 0.41 0.20 0.08

I49 0.61 0.78 0.76 0.59 0.38 0.19 0.08

I50 0.56 0.73 0.72 0.58 0.39 0.21 0.09

Test Info 16.45 21.49 22.57 19.62 13.97 8.36 4.59
SEM 0.25 0.22 0.21 0.23 0.27 0.35 0.47
Reliability 0.94 0.95 0.96 0.95 0.93 0.88 0.78
Table 8. Item Difficulty and Item Discrimination for Sibling Trust Scale 

Item difficulty is a measure of the proportion of examinees who responded to an item correctly,
and item discrimination is a measure of how well the item is able to discriminate between people
who are of high trait level from those who are of lower trait level. Thus, item difficulty refers to
a particular trait level at which the probability of a person answering correctly is 0.5. Given
below is Item difficulty and Item Discrimination table (Table 8) to understand item difficulty
level and item discrimination power of the Sibling Trust Scale.

Difficulty Disc.
Item No. /
Response
Category 2 3 4 5

I1 -3.036 -0.454 -0.933 0.950 0.862

I2 -2.963 -0.691 -3.008 4.301 0.185

I3 -2.970 -3.658 -1.924 -1.108 0.550

I4 -2.356 -1.679 -0.394 NA 1.244

I5 -3.949 -0.512 -1.423 1.123 0.651

I6 -2.548 -2.874 0.315 -1.138 0.453

I7 -2.797 -1.618 -0.654 0.113 1.339

I8 -3.423 -1.590 -1.688 0.638 1.235

I9 0.653 -0.467 1.490 -4.018 -0.288

I10 -16.877 -6.120 -3.743 2.884 0.131

I11 -2.233 -1.269 0.343 NA 1.249

I12 -18.574 17.944 32.088 28.239 0.020

I13 -1.520 -3.067 -2.085 1.367 0.508

I14 -5.038 -3.122 -0.855 -0.091 0.399

I15 -4.919 0.625 -3.766 1.191 0.380

I16 -2.776 -1.432 0.751 NA 0.932

I17 -2.975 -1.584 -0.026 NA 1.149

I18 -3.150 -2.594 -1.090 0.055 1.071

I19 -3.707 -1.311 -0.165 1.888 0.471

I20 -2.559 -1.397 0.492 NA 1.228

I21 -3.164 -1.920 -2.256 0.362 1.219

I22 -2.212 -1.521 0.268 NA 1.013

I23 -2.814 -0.744 -0.552 -0.406 0.534

I24 -1.393 -1.082 -2.297 0.939 0.190

I25 -2.248 -2.328 -0.600 NA 0.794

I26 -1.975 -2.413 0.013 NA 1.421

I27 -3.718 -1.865 -0.794 1.028 0.993

I28 -1.981 -3.261 0.039 0.588 0.567

I29 13.458 25.006 -4.172 41.477 0.032

I30 -1.911 -3.961 -2.426 -0.953 0.705

I31 -0.564 -8.673 -2.945 NA 0.089

I32 -2.435 -3.542 -1.696 -0.519 0.988

I33 -2.198 -3.603 -3.346 -0.681 0.590

I34 -2.825 -2.514 -0.399 NA 0.792

I35 -18.420 -13.874 -4.732 2.130 0.083

I36 -3.570 -1.666 0.011 NA 1.228

I37 -2.529 -2.324 -0.206 NA 1.297

I38 -3.662 -1.548 -0.561 -0.233 1.151

I39 -4.905 -1.630 0.292 NA 0.333

I40 -1.673 -0.241 NA NA 1.345

I41 -3.073 -1.769 -0.156 NA 2.146

I42 -5.088 -2.050 -0.972 NA 0.363

I43 -2.008 -3.271 -3.392 -0.954 0.690

I44 -2.567 -2.610 -0.536 NA 0.919

I45 -1.611 -2.416 0.902 NA 0.797

I46 -3.127 -2.147 -0.936 NA 1.545

I47 -2.593 -1.041 0.345 NA 1.402

I48 -2.470 -1.252 0.179 NA 1.556

I49 -3.121 -1.719 -1.810 0.154 1.717

I50 -1.843 -3.075 -1.234 0.213 1.570

From the test and item information output, it is clear that the most amount of information is
coming from people of average or less average trait, as the values of latent trait 0, -1, -2 and -3
are more than +1, +2 and +3. Thus as the trait decreases the amount of information the test gives
increases. A clearer understanding of this comes from the Item Information Curve (IIC) given
below (Fig 4).

Fig 4: Item Information Curve for Items of Sibling Trust Scale

An Item Characteristic Curve (ICC) gives a clearer understanding of the Item Difficulty level
and Item Discrimination of the Sibling Trust Scale (Fig 4). More the slope the curve has higher is
its discrimination the item has. Flatter curves do not have a good discriminatory power.

Item characteristic curves

There are 50 item characteristic curves mentioned below.
Validity
Univariate Normality

Table 9. Shapiro Wilk Test

SCALE W(p)

STS 0.93 (0.005)

SDTS 0.95 (0.040)

A univariate normality of 0.93 was observed for STS, however the p value for the same was

found to be 0.005. This indicates that the data is not normally distributed. The same can be

observed in SDTS as the p value is less than 0.05.

Multivariate Normality

MVN (Royston's H Test) for STS &

SDTS

H 9.517093

p 0.006051772

Royston's H Test was conducted to check for Multivariate Normality, the H value was found to

be 9.517. However it is not statistically significant as the p value (0.0060) is less than 0.05.

Correlation: STS & SDTS

> corr.test(tot, method="spearman")

Call:corr.test(x = tot, method = "spearman")

Correlation matrix

STS SDTS

STS 1.00 0.82

SDTS 0.82 1.00

Sample Size

[1] 50

Probability values (Entries above the diagonal are adjusted for multiple tests.)

STS SDTS

STS 0 0

SDTS 0 0
To see confidence intervals of the correlations, print with the short=FALSE option.A high

correlation of 0.82 was observed between STS and SDTS, however the probability for the same

was 0. This implies that there is no correlation between the two scales.

Discussion

Individual test administration

This test was designed to measure the trust between siblings using psychometrics. The

hypothesis of the study states that a high score on this scale would show greater amount of trust

between the siblings. The individual participants in the study was a 23-year-old female, currently

studying. The participant felt that the questions were repetitive. As the observations were made

through video call it was observed that while answering few questions the participant felt

emotional. Individual raw score of the participant is 197 And the Z score is 0.04460 on the

sibling trust scale, and scored 43 in Sibling dyadic trust scale. Which is supposed to be average

or middle level score, which means the participant does not completely trust or distrust her

sibling. The individual participant score is higher than the mean score of the group scores.

Group administration

As the descriptive statistics in this test states that the group mean of sibling trust scale is 195.79

which is obtained with the standard deviation of 26.86 and the skewness was found to be -0.81.

In Sibling dyadic trust scale the group mean was found to be 41.12 which standard deviation

9.39 and skewness -0.61. The univariate normality was found for this test, Which showed that

the value was less than 0.05, therefore this can be considered as significant. Most of the

participants in this study have scored more than 100, also most of the participants have scored

above 195.79. The inter-item correlation matrix for this study states that there are some inter-
item correlation which saw that some items were not significant which are being shown in the

results table number 4. The fact analysis data of this study shows that statistically high

significance as the P value is less than 0.00. Most of the participants in the study reported that

the questions were repetitive and they bored while answering the test. Some of the participants

also found the test simple, interesting and relatable.

Limitations

A univariate normality test was conducted for the study which observed that the P value was

0.005, which indicates that the data is not normally distributed. Same observations were made

for sibling dyadic trust scale where the P value was found to be less than 0.05. A multivariate

normality test was also conducted, which showed the H value 9.517, with the p value 0.0060,

which is less than 0.05. Lastly there was no correlation found between the two scales which were

used to measure sibling trust.

Conclusion

The sibling trust scale was developed to measure the trust between siblings through a

psychometric scale. The hypothesis of the study stated that a high score on this scale would show

the participants greater amount of trust in their siblings. Initially the test showed some

significance but later there were some limitations found in the study as mentioned in the

discussion. Therefore there is further study needed on this topic, to have a better understanding

and avoid the limitations which occurred in the study.

Reference
Buyukcan-Tetik, A., Finkenauer, C., Kuppens, S., & Vohs, K. D. (2013). Both trust and self-

control are necessary to prevent intrusive behaviors: Evidence from a longitudinal study of

married couples. Journal of family psychology, 27(4), 671.

Ma, C., Chen, M., & Guo, N. (2019, October). The Effect of Interpersonal Trust on Minority

High School Students' Psychological Well-being The Mediating Roles of Forgiveness and Self-

esteem. In 2nd International Conference on Contemporary Education, Social Sciences and

Ecological Studies (CESSES 2019). Atlantis Press.

Kemer, G., Bulgan, G., & Yıldız, E. Ç. (2016). Gender differences, infidelity, dyadic trust, and

jealousy among married Turkish individuals.CurrentPsychology,35(3),335-343

Larzelere, R. E., & Huston, T. L. (1980). The dyadic trust scale: Toward understanding

interpersonal trust in close relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 595-604. Li, T., &

Fung, H. H. (2013). Age differences in trust: An investigation across 38 countries.

Fitzpatrick, J., & LAFONTAINE, M. F. (2017). Attachment, trust, and satisfaction in

relationships: Investigating actor, partner, and mediating effects. Personal Relationships, 24(3),

640-662.

Yamagishi, T., Akutsu, S., Cho, K., Inoue, Y., Li, Y., & Matsumoto, Y. (2015). Two-component

model of general trust: Predicting behavioral trust from attitudinal trust. Social Cognition, 33(5),

436-458.