Suppr超能文献

实质还是风格?对NEO-PI-R效度量表的一项调查。

Substance or style? An investigation of the NEO-PI-R validity scales.

作者信息

Morey Leslie C, Quigley Brian D, Sanislow Charles A, Skodol Andrew E, McGlashan Thomas H, Shea M Tracie, Stout Robert L, Zanarini Mary C, Gunderson John G

机构信息

Department of Psychology, Texas A&M University, College Station 77843-4235, USA.

出版信息

J Pers Assess. 2002 Dec;79(3):583-99. doi: 10.1207/S15327752JPA7903_11.

Abstract

The Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992b) has been criticized for the absence of validity scales designed to detect response distortion. Recently, validity scales were developed from the items of the NEO-PI-R (Schinka, Kinder, & Kremer, 1997) and several studies have used a variety of methods to test their use. However, it is controversial whether these scales are measuring something that is substantive (such as psychopathology or its absence) or stylistic (which might be effortful distortion or less conscious processes such as lack of insight). In this study, we used a multimethod-multitrait approach to examine the validity of these scales in a clinical sample of 668 participants diagnosed with personality disorders or major depression. Using various indicators of both stylistic and substantive variance, confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) suggested that these validity scales measure something that may be conceptually distinct from, yet highly related to, substantive variance in responding.

摘要

修订版大五人格量表(NEO-PI-R;科斯塔和麦克雷,1992b)因缺乏旨在检测反应偏差的效度量表而受到批评。最近,效度量表是根据NEO-PI-R的项目编制的(欣卡、金德和克雷默,1997),多项研究采用了多种方法来测试其用途。然而,这些量表测量的是实质性的东西(如精神病理学或其不存在)还是风格性的东西(可能是刻意歪曲或缺乏洞察力等不太有意识的过程),这存在争议。在本研究中,我们采用多方法多特质方法,在一个由668名被诊断患有精神人格障碍或重度抑郁症的参与者组成的临床样本中,检验这些量表的效度。使用风格性和实质性差异的各种指标,验证性因素分析(CFA)表明,这些效度量表测量的东西在概念上可能与反应中的实质性差异不同,但又高度相关。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验