EOM-EIS

AcronymDefinition
EOM-EISExtended Objective Measure of Ego Identity Status
Copyright 1988-2018 AcronymFinder.com, All rights reserved.
References in periodicals archive ?
Means and standard deviations for the EOM-EIS subscales and the DSI subscales are presented in Table 1.
First, there is a lack of information reported by Grotevant and Adams (1984) about the ethnic or racial makeup of the norming sample for the EOM-EIS. Second, the participants in the present study and those in the samples used to psychometrically support the DSI largely consisted of Caucasian/ Anglo Americans.
TABLE 1 Means and Standard Deviations for the Extended Version of the Objective Measure of Ego Identity Status (EOM-EIS) and the Differentiation of Self Inventory Scale/Subscale M SD EOM-EIS Identity Achievement 66.82 10.07 Moratorium 47.49 11.02 Diffusion 43.09 10.49 Foreclosure 35.12 11.91 Differentiation of Self Inventory Overall Differentiation 161.91 22.78 Emotional Reactivity 37.22 10.49 I Position 46.03 8.18 Emotional Cutoff 54.14 10.26 Fusion With Others 24.51 6.93 TABLE 2 Intercorrelations Among the Extended Version of the Objective Measure of Ego Identity Status (EOM-EIS) and the Differentiation of Self Inventory Subscales Scale 1 2 3 4 EOM-EIS 1.
These results, consistent with theory, indicated the construct validity of the EOM-EIS for at least one racial-ethnic minority group, Hispanics-Latinos.
Thus, the BRIAS racial identity subscales (Pre-Encounter, Encounter, Immersion/Emersion, and Internalization) were the independent variables in the prediction of each of the EOM-EIS scales (Achievement, Moratorium, Foreclosure, and Diffusion).
EOM-EIS df [R.sup.2] F Achievement 1,91 0.08 7.87(**) Moratorium 1,90 0.09 9.17(**) Diffusion 1,93 0.07 7.43(**) BRIAS Subscale(a) B SE B [Beta] t Internalization .53 .19 .28 2.80(**) Pre-Encounter .35 .12 .30 3.03(**) Pre-Encounter .27 .10 .27 2.73(**) Note.
However, we believe that there are certain disadvantages and limitations associated with the EOM-EIS instruments.
Berzonsky correlated identity status scores from the EOM-EIS with the Identity Style Inve ntory scales and found compatibility between the identity status and identity style constructs.
Explained variance obtained using the EOM-EIS was subtracted from that obtained using the EIPQ.
An achieved identity status was not yet accomplished by the respondents, as measured by the EOM-EIS. TABLE 5 MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, AND t TESTS DEPICTING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GENDER AND IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT OVER TIME Time 1 Time 2 x SD x SD t Diffusion Males 56.11 7.36 50.44 7.41 4.99(*) Females 56.36 6.80 50.60 7.93 5.88(*) Foreclosure Males 59.98 6.52 42.05 6.58 13.75(*) Females 57.51 7.69 42.97 6.37 12.03(*) Moratorium Males 54.80 7.65 57.61 8.93 -2.40(*) Females 53.07 6.74 58.11 6.67 -5.23(*) Achievement Males 50.59 7.31 48.32 7.73 1.67 Females 51.23 7.35 51.26 8.38 -.03 * p |is less than~ .05
In contrast, this work utilized the EOM-EIS with longitudinal data.