Vassar Matt, Hale William
College of Osteopathic Medicine, Center for Health Sciences, Oklahoma State University, 1111 W. 17th St., Tulsa, OK 74107, USA.
J Interpers Violence. 2009 Jan;24(1):20-37. doi: 10.1177/0886260508314931. Epub 2008 Mar 31.
Empirical research on anger and hostility has pervaded the academic literature for more than 50 years. Accurate measurement of anger/hostility and subsequent interpretation of results requires that the instruments yield strong psychometric properties. For consistent measurement, reliability estimates must be calculated with each administration, because changes in sample characteristics may alter the scale's ability to generate reliable scores. Therefore, the present study was designed to address reliability reporting practices for a widely used anger assessment, the Buss Durkee Hostility Inventory (BDHI). Of the 250 published articles reviewed, 11.2% calculated and presented reliability estimates for the data at hand, 6.8% cited estimates from a previous study, and 77.1% made no mention of score reliability. Mean alpha estimates of scores for BDHI subscales generally fell below acceptable standards. Additionally, no detectable pattern was found between reporting practices and publication year or journal prestige. Areas for future research are also discussed.
关于愤怒和敌意的实证研究在学术文献中已存在五十多年。准确测量愤怒/敌意并对结果进行后续解读要求所使用的工具具备强大的心理测量特性。为了进行一致的测量,每次施测都必须计算信度估计值,因为样本特征的变化可能会改变量表产生可靠分数的能力。因此,本研究旨在探讨广泛使用 的愤怒评估工具——布斯-杜克敌意量表(BDHI)的信度报告做法。在所审查的250篇已发表文章中,11.2%计算并给出了手头数据的信度估计值,6.8%引用了先前研究的估计值,77.1%未提及分数信度。BDHI分量表分数的平均阿尔法估计值普遍低于可接受标准。此外,在报告做法与发表年份或期刊声望之间未发现可察觉的模式。还讨论了未来的研究方向。