Carleton R Nicholas, McCreary Donald R, Norton Peter J, Asmundson Gordon J G
Anxiety and Illness Behaviours Laboratory, University of Regina, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada.
Depress Anxiety. 2006;23(5):297-303. doi: 10.1002/da.20142.
Rodebaugh et al. [2004: Psychol Assess 2:169-181] recently performed a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation scale (BFNE; Leary, 1983: Psychol Bull 9:371-375]. Their study resulted in the emergence of a two-factor solution comprising straightforwardly worded items and reverse-worded items. They concluded by recommending use of only the straightforwardly worded items in the BFNE. Our intent in this study was to evaluate this recommendation through replication and extension. Participants included 385 undergraduates from the Universities of Regina and Houston, who provided responses to a questionnaire battery including either the BFNE or a revision utilizing straightforwardly worded versions of the reverse-worded items (BFNE-II). A CFA of the BFNE, using the two-factor model proposed by Rodebaugh et al., supported their conclusion that the reverse-worded items comprise a separate, methodologically based factor. However, CFA of the BFNE-II resulted in an acceptable unitary model that conforms to the theoretical basis for the BFNE, without risking loss of sensitivity from item removal. Additional analyses suggest use of the BFNE-II rather than a shortened form.
罗德博等人[2004年:《心理评估》2:169 - 181]最近对简版负面评价恐惧量表(BFNE;利里,1983年:《心理学公报》9:371 - 375)进行了验证性因素分析(CFA)。他们的研究得出了一个两因素解决方案,该方案由措辞直接的项目和反向措辞的项目组成。他们在结论中建议在BFNE中仅使用措辞直接的项目。我们在本研究中的目的是通过重复和扩展来评估这一建议。参与者包括来自里贾纳大学和休斯顿大学的385名本科生,他们对一系列问卷做出了回应,这些问卷包括BFNE或使用反向措辞项目的措辞直接版本的修订版(BFNE-II)。使用罗德博等人提出的两因素模型对BFNE进行的CFA支持了他们的结论,即反向措辞的项目构成了一个单独的、基于方法的因素。然而,对BFNE-II的CFA得出了一个可接受的单一模型,该模型符合BFNE的理论基础,且不会因项目删除而导致敏感性丧失的风险。进一步的分析表明应使用BFNE-II而非简化形式。