Standardization of questionnaires of NTN and LFR on Belarusian sample

  • Alexander A. Marozau Military Academy of the Republic of Belarus, 220 Niezaliežnasci Avenue, Minsk 220057, Belarus

Abstract

The article presents the results of the standardization of the questionnaires of New Questionnaire of Tolerance for Uncertainty (NQTU, or NTN) and Personal Factors of Decisions (LFD, or LFR), intended for studying the properties of acceptance-non-acceptance of uncertainty (NTN) and personal properties that influence decision-making in the broad context of life situations (LFR). A brief overview of domestic and foreign studies of tolerance for uncertainty among leaders (managers) is given. The necessity of standardization of the research tools presented in the article is grounded. Conducting intergroup comparisons made it possible to reveal significant differences in the studied properties, due to the profile of education (the kind of professional activity), the age and gender of the subjects. The estimation of the sizes of the effects of these factors on the scores of the questionnaire scales showed that they are insignificant and the measured properties are on-specific and universal with respect to their diagnosis. The test standards obtained in the Belarusian sample will allow to
correlate the results of studies conducted on different groups of subjects in the future. In addition, the standardization of the questionnaires of NTN and LFR provides an opportunity to diagnose important personal qualities for managerial activity – decision-making and tolerance to uncertainty.

Author Biography

Alexander A. Marozau, Military Academy of the Republic of Belarus, 220 Niezaliežnasci Avenue, Minsk 220057, Belarus

alternate head of the center for professional psychological selection and support of the education process

References

  1. Karpov A. V. Processes of decision-making in the structure of management activity. Psikhol. zhurn. 2000. Vol. 21, No. 1. P. 62–77 (in Russ.).
  2. Wagener S., Gorgievski M., Rijsdijks S. Businessman or host? Individual differences between entrepreneurs and small business owners in the hospitality industry. Serv. Ind. J. 2010. Vol. 30, issue 9. P. 1513–1527. DOI: 10.1080/02642060802624324.
  3. Katsaros K. K., Nicolaidis C. S. Personal traits, emotions, and attitudes in the workplace: their effect on managers’ tolerance of ambiguity. Psychol.-Manag. J. 2012. Vol. 15, issue 1. P. 37–55. DOI: 10.1080/10887156.2012.649991.
  4. Walls M. R. Measuring and utilizing corporate risk tolerance to improve investment decision making. Eng. Econ. 2005. Vol. 50, No. 4. P. 361–376. DOI: 10.1080/00137910500348434.
  5. Yurtsever G. Tolerance of ambiguity, information, and negotiation. Psychol. Rep. 2001. Vol. 89, issue 1. P. 57–64. DOI: 10.2466/pr0.2001.89.1.57.
  6. Blinkova E. S., Lyubimova O. M. [The features of resilience in the context of uncertainty situations on the example of top managers of organizations]. NovaInfo. 2016. Vol. 4, No. 47. P. 290–299. URL: novainfo.ru (date of access: 14.09.2017) (in Russ.).
  7. Leonov I. N. Influence of tolerance towards uncertainty on the strategy of coping behavior in managers. Izv. of Saratov Univ. New Ser., Educ. Akmeol. Dev. Psychol. 2015. Vol. 4, issue 3. P. 259–262 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.18500/2304-9790-2015-4-3-259-261.
  8. Krasnov E. V. Emotional intelligence and tolerance to uncertainty as predictors of military leaders` performance. VII International conference on cognitive science : abstracts (Svetlogorsk, 20–24 June, 2016). Moscow, 2016. P. 353–355 (in Russ.).
  9. Morozov A. A. Dynamics of the personal properties influencing decision-making and cognitive style «tolerance to ambiguity» at various categories of the servicemen. Science works of Republican Institute of Higher Education. Hist. and psychol.-pedagog. sci. : collect. of sci. art. 2016. Part 2. Issue 16. P. 162–170 (in Russ.).
  10. On approval and implementation of the state classifier of Republic of Belarus OKRB 011-2009 «Specialties and qualifications». Decree of the Ministry of education of the Republic of Belarus. 2 June, 2009, No. 36. URL: pravo.newsby.org/belarus/postanov7/pst872/index.htm (date of access: 14.09.2017).
  11. Kornilova T. V. [Psychology of risk and decision-making]. Moscow : Aspect Press, 2003 (in Russ.).
  12. Kornilova T. V. Tolerance-intolerance of ambiguity new questionnaire. Psykhol. zhurn. 2010. Vol. 31, No. 1. P. 74–86 (in Russ.).
  13. Nasledov A. D. [SPSS 19: professional statistical analysis of data]. Saint Petersburg : Piter, 2011 (in Russ.).
  14. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1988.
  15. Baturin N. A., Mel’nikova N. N. Technology of test development. Part III. Bull. South Ural. State Univ. Ser. Psychol. 2010. Issue 8, No. 4. P. 4–18 (in Russ.).
Published
2019-01-17
Keywords: decision-making, tolerance to uncertainty, standardization, sample, group norms
How to Cite
Marozau, A. A. (2019). Standardization of questionnaires of NTN and LFR on Belarusian sample. Journal of the Belarusian State University. Philosophy and Psychology, 1, 107-115. Retrieved from https://journals.bsu.by/index.php/philosophy/article/view/1966
Issue
No 1 (2018): Journal of the Belarusian State University. Philosophy and Psychology
Section
Methods of Psychological Research

Copyright (c) 2019 Journal of the Belarusian State University. Philosophy and Psychology

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

The authors who are published in this journal agree to the following:

  1. The authors retain copyright on the work and provide the journal with the right of first publication of the work on condition of license Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial. 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0).
  2. The authors retain the right to enter into certain contractual agreements relating to the non-exclusive distribution of the published version of the work (e.g. post it on the institutional repository, publication in the book), with the reference to its original publication in this journal.
  3. The authors have the right to post their work on the Internet (e.g. on the institutional store or personal website) prior to and during the review process, conducted by the journal, as this may lead to a productive discussion and a large number of references to this work. (See The Effect of Open Access.)