中国临床心理学杂志

3-5岁儿童在前提反事实推理中的表现

作者：赵晶¹ 石向实²

单位：1. 浙江教育学院浙江杭州 310012
2. 杭州师范大学教育科学学院浙江杭州 310036

分类号：R395.1

出版年,卷(期):页码：2009,17(4):405-407

摘要：

目的：考察3-5岁儿童反事实思维的发展状况。方法：采用2个前提反事实任务，对96名儿童进行测试。结果：3岁儿童的表现显著差于4岁和5岁儿童，4岁儿童显著差于5岁儿童；上行反事实显著多于下行；加法反事实显著多于减法和替代。结论：3-5岁儿童能产生各种方向和结构的反事实论断，年龄是影响儿童反事实思维发展主要因素。

Objective: To examine the reliability and validity of Chinese version of the Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire (BPAQ). Methods: A sample of 609 primary, junior and senior school students in Shanghai were selected randomly and given the test, the reliabilities and validities of Chinese version of BPAQ were examined. Results: ①Item analysis showed that most (except 7 items) of the items had satisfactory item discrimination (r>0.40); ②The result of EFA had four factors: physical aggression, anger, hostility and substitution aggression. The range of factor loading was between 0.51 and 0.75; ③The Chinese version of BPAQ had a satisfactory reliability with a 0.92 test-retest reliability and the Cronbach’ s α was 0.84; ④There was significant gender difference in physical aggression, substitution aggression and the total aggression. Conclusion: The Chinese version of BPAQ is a reliable and valid instrument for measuring aggression of adolescents.

基金项目：

作者简介：

参考文献：

[1] Buss A H，Durkee A. An inventory for assessing different kinds of hostility. Journal of Consulting Psychology，1957，
[21] ：343-349
[2] Bushman BJ，Cooper HM，Lemke KM. Meta-analysis of factor analyses: An illustration using the Buss-Durkee hostility inventory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin，1991，17：344-349
[3] Buss AH，Perry M. The aggression questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology，1992，63(3)：452-459
[4] Harris JA. Confirmatory factor analysis of the aggression questionnaire. Behav Res Ther，1995，8：991-993
[5] Bryant FB，Smith BD. Refining the architecture of aggression： A measurement model for the Buss-Perry aggression questionnaire. J Res Pers，2001，35：138-167
[6] Ramirez J，Andreu JM，Fujihara T. Cultural sex differences in aggression： A comparison between Japanese and Spanish students using two different inventories. Aggress Behav，2001，27：313-322
[7] 张东宁，王有智. IAT 测验对攻击性内隐社会认知的应用研究.心理学探新，2005，96(4)：76-79
[8] 戴春林，吴明证，杨治良.个体攻击性结构与自尊关系研究.心理科学，2006，29(1)：44-46
[9] 赵永乐，郑涌.游戏方式差异对电脑游戏者攻击性影响研究.西南师范大学学报（人文社科版），2004，30(5)：36-39
[10] 罗贵明.父母教养方式、自尊水平与大学生攻击行为的关系研究.中国临床心理学杂志，2008，16（2）：198-199
[11] Harris JA. A further evaluation of the aggression questionnaire： Issues of validity reliability. Behav Res Ther，1997，35：1047-1053
[12] 智银利，刘丽.儿童攻击性行为研究综述.教育理论与实践，2003，23(7)：43-45

服务与反馈：

【文章下载】【加入收藏】