Bernstein Amit, Zvolensky Michael J, Sandin Bonifacio, Chorot Paloma, Stickle Timothy R
Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, California, USA.
Depress Anxiety. 2008;25(10):E81-91. doi: 10.1002/da.20330.
Two inter-related studies evaluated the measurement model and construct validity of body vigilance, as indexed by the body vigilance scale [BVS; Schmidt et al., 1997: J Consulting Clin Psychol 65:214-220]. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) and convergent, discriminant, and incremental tests of validity of body vigilance were conducted among separate nonclinical samples from the United States (US) (study 1) and Spain (study 2). In both the US and Spanish samples, poor fit for the four-item unidimensional measurement model of body vigilance was observed; good fit, however, was found for a unidimensional, three-item measurement model. Subsequent analyses demonstrated both theoretically predicted as well as a number of unexpected associations between body vigilance and a variety of theoretically relevant external criterion variables. Results are discussed in terms of their clinical implications for advancing assessment of body vigilance and theoretical implications for better understanding the nomological nature of the construct.
两项相互关联的研究评估了身体警觉性的测量模型和结构效度，以身体警觉性量表[BVS；施密特等人，1997年：《咨询与临床心理学杂志》65：214 - 220]为指标。在美国（研究1）和西班牙（研究2）的不同非临床样本中进行了验证性因素分析（CFA）以及身体警觉性效度的收敛、区分和增量检验。在美国和西班牙的样本中，均观察到身体警觉性的四项单维测量模型拟合不佳；然而，对于一个单维的三项测量模型，发现拟合良好。随后的分析表明，身体警觉性与各种理论上相关的外部标准变量之间既有理论上预测的关联，也有一些意外的关联。从推进身体警觉性评估的临床意义以及更好地理解该结构的法则性质的理论意义方面对结果进行了讨论。
