|TITLE:||A Comprehensive and Conclusive Examination Examination Analyzing the Psychometrics, Administration, and Uses of the Leadership Practices Inventory|
|RESEARCHER:||Matt Fornito and Wesley Camp
Psychological Statistical Analysis Class
University of Georgia
Unpublished Class Project: April 2010
This paper sought to analyze the spectrum of different and distinct research regarding the Leadership Practices Inventory’s claims of reliability and validity, and to understand the purpose and nature of the test and its practical application.
The authors conclude that “the application of this measure is both practical and efficient” (p. 6). They go on to report that one “benefit of the LPI is its universality of language that does not instill cultural influences. This idea is supported by Tsend (2000) who states, “there are no statements that directly reflect American culture values that could potentially confuse respondents from other nations” (p. 6). They conclude:
We believe the LPI is a strong measure based on its reliability and validity. Its psychometric properties compounded with its global traits suggest it is a measure we can utilize to compare groups across countries on an unbiased scale. We suggest that the LPI needs to produce research that analyzes actual test-retest measures over time to see if the LPI actually influences development. The test-retest measures have stood resiliently high (Posner & Kouzes, 1988) with 0.94 reliability. However, little research has indicated whether the LPI can go beyond predicting strong leaders in relation to their ability to influence others and influence company growth. The LPI is a sound measure, but we must continue to research to strengthen the LPI as a standardized leadership measure” (p. 12).