Alee Washburn, Allie Peery, Hal Svien, Cameron Alldredge, Gary M. Burlingame (Brigham Young University)
Faculty Advisor: Burlingame, Gary (Brigham Young University, Psychology)
Aims: There has been an increased interest in shame among psychological researchers lately. Furthermore, there is little agreement among the two most common measures of shame in psychology (Eterović et al. 2018). This systematic review will evaluate various psychometric characteristics of identified shame measures used in psychological research. Methods: A literature search of common databases in psychology (e.g., Ovid, Web of Science) pinpointed ~4,000 articles mentioning shame measures. These will be systematically reviewed to identify all self-report and interview-based measures of shame in psychology. Psychometric properties rated will include state versus trait shame, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability, among others.
Results: Preliminary results are still being reviewed. Newer measures of shame identified have identified factor structures related to their theoretical bases, something not necessarily seen in older measures. Shame measures are commonly separated into state and trait measures, which might not be appropriate to different research questions (Ogles, 2013). These and other considerations will be presented to identify promising measures of shame for future research. Discussion: Discussion of results will be framed in relation to current reviews of shame as a construct, particularly how it is measured (Eterović et al. 2018). It is likely that older measures of shame do not have demonstrable psychometrics (e.g., clear theoretically-linked factor structures), making them unlikely choices for use in psychological research. Further, each measure should be considered in relation to its change sensitivity and the research question. Keywords: measurement, psychometrics, shame