Methodological Dimensions in the Investigation of Personal Goals
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
ABSTRACT An ecological approach of personal goals has flourished in the last decades. Research studies gradually take goal structures and processes out of confined and controlled laboratory settings and try to analyze them in the real-life milieu of individuals. The present review critically investigates theoretical and methodological approaches on the appraisal of personal goals. Based on this analysis, implications for research on personal goals are discussed and recommendations for future studies are detailed. KEYWORDS: personal goals, methodology, assessment, development Methodological approaches in the investigation of personal goals encompass a high array of techniques (Baltes & Freund, 2003; Cantor & Blanton, 1996; Cox & Klinger, 2004; Elliot & Friedman, 2007; Emmons, 2003; Freund, 2006; Little, 2007; Riediger, 2007; Salmela-Aro & Nurmi, 2004). They have been mainly developed around the assumption that personal goals are set apart from other goal structures by their increased perceived importance or value for the individual (Austin & Vancouver, 1996). While there is high acceptance of the fact that personal goals are best captured by predominantly idiographic methods, there is less agreement about how these methods can extract information that best discriminates among individuals and more often categories of individuals (Roberts, O'Donnell, & Robins, 2004). When research is focused on exploring individual patterns of personally relevant and subjectively defined goals, a multidimensional approach is appropriate, but the multitude of meanings in formulating each goal, can make their analysis and interpretation somewhat difficult. This is one of the main reasons why mainstream psychological research has often shunned an idiographic analysis of goals, and rather focused on developing normative approaches to investigate goal structures and processes. Hence, the present article critically analyzes multidimensional approaches in the analysis of personal goals, from both a theoretical and a methodological perspective. 1. PERSONAL GOALS FROM A NORMATIVE PERSPECTIVE 1.1. Theory Normative approaches in the study of personal goals rely on developmental requirements specific for a certain age-group. Dwelling on the theoretical approach of human development advanced by Erikson (1968), a series of psychologists like Havighurst (1972), Hagestadt and Neugarten, (1985), Dreher and Oerter (1986), have continued to map age-graded societal driven goals, which individuals pursue on a normative basis. Developmental tasks refer to developmental differences in cultural norms, expectations, rules, and activity patterns. They offer: (a) information about accessible and desired age-specific goals; (b) models for reaching these goals; and (c) normative standards and time-frames for performing the necessary behaviors for achieving these goals (Nurmi, 1991). Developmental tasks are inherently linked to normative life-events, like starting college or getting a first job. They orient the individual toward the future and provide socio-cultural landmarks for an individual's life-span development. Methodological approaches which chart personal goal contents through developmental tasks are guided by the assumption that all individuals pursue a standard set of normative goals contents, and their pursuit is nuanced qualitatively and quantitatively. From a procedural perspective, participants are provided with a list of goals reflecting representative developmental tasks for their age group. They then have to select and / or appraise these tasks in terms of personal relevance, level of achievement emotional valence and so on. This approach controls the content dimension of personal goals, as individuals choose and assess them from a given pool of developmental tasks. Hence, both comparisons between individuals and indexes for statistical reliability can be computed more easily. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».