Table 4.
Descriptive comparisons of FS-16 and FS-SF 9.
| M | SD | Skewness | α | a interpretationa | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FS-16 | |||||
| EC | 3.53 | 0.94 | 0.11 | 0.85 | Good |
| OOM | 3.93 | 0.92 | −0.09 | 0.84 | Good |
| TA | 4.39 | 0.66 | −0.30 | 0.78 | Moderate |
| SR | 3.38 | 0.81 | −0.17 | 0.63 | Fair |
| Total score | 3.81 | 0.54 | −0.08 | 0.80 | Good |
| FS-SF 9 | |||||
| EC | 3.54 | 0.98 | 0.10 | 0.85 | Good |
| OOM | 4.00 | 0.98 | −0.17 | 0.84 | Good |
| TA | 4.39 | 0.69 | −0.27 | 0.73 | Moderate |
| Total score | 3.98 | 0.69 | 0.17 | 0.84 | Good |
FS, Forbearance Scale; FS-SF 9, Forbearance Scale-Short Form (9-item); EC, Emotional Calmness; OOM, Overlook Others' Misdeeds; TA, Tolerance and Acceptance; SR, Self-Restraint.
a
Qualitative interpretations of coefficient alpha sufficiency are based on the classical test theory-anchored “Reliability Matrix for Estimating Adequacy of Internal Consistency Coeffificients” where the range is Unsatisfactory, Fair, Moderate, Good, and Excellent (Ponterotto and Ruckdeschel, 2007, Table 3, p. 1003).