中国临床心理学杂志

题目措辞方向对孤独感测量的影响

作者：郭庆科蔡明航王菲李玉洁

分类号：R395.1

出版年,卷(期):页码：2017,25(1):116-119

摘要：

目的：比较UCLA-3（University of California Loneliness Scale-Version 3）和DLS（Differential Loneliness Scale）两个孤独量表的信效度，及直接和反转措辞题目的心理测量学性能。为比较直接和反转效应提供依据。方法：对UCLA-3和DLS的题目进行措辞方向的反转，得到直接和反转措辞两种版本，分别施测于高中生样本。两次测试结果合并后再得到原版量表的测试数据。结果：UCLA-3和DLS中直接措辞题的信效度略高于反转措辞题，但差异不大；DLS中的直接和反转措辞题目测量的是同一特质，题目措辞方向的改变不影响其所测的内容，但UCLA-3中的题目就不具备这些特性；两种措辞效应在DLS和UCLA-3中都存在，但DLS受其影响较小。结论：DLS有更高的信效度；措辞效应尽管影响DLS，但不严重；两种措辞题目可以相加计算总分；UCLA-3受措辞效应影响大，需要改进。

Objective: To test the reliability and validity of UCLA-3 (University of California Loneliness Scale-Version 3) and DLS (Differential Loneliness Scale), and compare the psychometric properties of the straightforwardly worded (SFW) and reversed worded (RW) items between these two loneliness measures. Methods: Through item rewriting, SFW and RW version of UCLA-3 and DLS were obtained and administrated to a sample of high school students in two weeks interval. When the data files were combined, the item scores for the original version of UCLA-3 and DLS were also obtained. Results: The SFW and RW versions of UCLA-3 (DLS) showed similar reliability and validity, with SFW ones slightly better. For DLS, SFW and RW items measured the same constructs, in other words, changes of items narrative directions did not change what these items measure. For the UCLA-3 items, however, wording effect caused greater harm to the psychometrical property. Conclusion: The reliability and validity of DLS are better than UCLA-3. Wording effect from SFW and RW significantly affects the psychometrical property of UCLA-3.

基金项目：

国家社科基金项目“慈善捐助的心理诱发机制研究”（15BSH083）；教育部人文社科规划基金项目“利他行为的启动机制和内隐测量研究”（13YJA190006）；山东省“人类认知与行为发展”重点实验室建设项目

作者简介：

参考文献：

1 Harpole JK, Levinson CA, Woods CM,et al. Assessing the Straightforwardly-Worded Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale for Differential Item Functioning Across Gender and Ethnicity. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 2015, 37(2):306-317
2 Carleton RN, Collimore KC, Asmundson GJG, et al. Refining and validating the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale and the Social Phobia Scale. Depression and Anxiety, 2009, 26(2):71-81
3 Rodebaugh TL, Woods CM, Heimberg RG. The Reverse of Social Anxiety Is Not Always the Opposite:The ReverseScored Items of the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale Do Not Belong. Behavior Therapy, 2007, 32(2):192-206
4 Duke D, Krishnan M, Faith M, Storch EA. The psychometric properties of the Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation scale. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 2006, 20(6):807-817
5 Schneier FR, Rodebaugh TL, Blanco C, et al. Fear and avoidance of eye contact in social anxiety disorder. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 2011, 52(1):81-87
6 Carleton NR, Collimore KC, McCabe RE, et al. Addressing revisions to the brief fear of negative evaluation scale:measuring fear of negative evaluation across anxiety and mood disorders. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 2011, 25:822-828
7 Shevlin M, Murphy S, Murphy J. The latent structure of loneliness:testing competing factor models of the UCLA Loneliness Scale in a large adolescent sample. Assessment, 2015, 22(2):208
8 Liu L, Lowe PA. Examination of the Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale-Version 2 and the Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale-Straightforward Items Factor Structure in a Sample of US College Students. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 2016, 31(2):122-138
9 李晓巍,邹泓,刘艳. 孤独感量表在中学生群体中的初步修订. 中国临床心理学杂志,2014,22(4):731-733
10 范兴华,方晓义,张尚晏,等. 家庭气氛对农村留守儿童孤独感的影响:外向性与自尊的中介. 中国临床心理学杂志,2014,22(4):680-683
11 李建良, 俞国良. 自杀的人际关系理论:研究与临床应用. 中国临床心理学杂志, 2014, 22(1):126-131
12 Russell DW. UCLA Loneliness Scale(Version3):Reliability, validity, factor structure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 1996, 66(1):20-40
13 Schmidt, Nancy, Sermat, Vello. Measuring loneliness in different relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1983, 44(5):1038-1047
14 邓丽芳, 郑日昌. 城市中老年人心理健康量表的编制. 应用心理学, 2005, 11(1):45-51
15 王朝, 肖晶, 王争艳, 等. 成人对父母的依恋经历调查问卷的编制. 中国心理卫生杂志, 2012, 26(8):626-630
16 Tomas JM, Oliver A. Rosenberg's self-esteem scale:Two factors or method effects. Structural Equation Modeling:A Multidisciplinary Journal, 1999, 6(1):84-98
17 戴晓阳, 曹亦薇. 心理评定量表的编制和修订中存在的一些问题. 中国临床心理学杂志, 2009, 17(5):562-565
18 Dodeen H. The effects of positively and negatively worded items on the factor structure of the UCLA loneliness scale. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 2015, 33(3):259-267
19 Boduszek D, Hyland P, Dinghra K, Mallet J. The factor structure and composite reliability of the Rosenberg SelfEsteem Scale among ex-prisoners. Personality and Individual Differences, 2013, 55(8):877-887
20 Chen YH, Gianna RG, Dedrick RF. Detecting Effects of Positively and Negatively Worded Items on a Self-Concept Scale for Third and Sixth Grade Elementary Students. Online Submission, 2007, 31(11):14-16
21 Rodebaugh TL, Heimberg RG, Brown PJ, et al. More reasons to be straightforward:Findings and norms for two scales relevant to social anxiety. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 2011, 25(5):623-630
22 Wong N, Rindfleisch A, Burroughs JE. Do reverse-worded items confound measures in cross-cultural consumer research? The case of the Material Values Scale. Journal of Consumer Research, 2003, 30(1):72-91
23 Williams P, Aaker JL. Can Mixed Emotions Peacefully Coexist? Journal of Consumer Research, 2002, 28(4):636-649

服务与反馈：

【文章下载】【加入收藏】