Vigneau François, Cormier Stéphanie
College of Psychology, Université de Moncton, Canada.
J Pers Assess. 2008 May;90(3):280-5. doi: 10.1080/00223890701885027.
Past studies of the factor structure of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI; Spielberger, Gorsuch, Lushene, Vagg, & Jacobs, 1983) have arrived at various solutions. However, a relatively strong consensus supports a four-factor (State Anxiety Present, State Anxiety Absent, Trait Anxiety Present, and Trait Anxiety Absent) structure of the scale resulting from the combination of item polarity dimensions and the original two factors (State and Trait Anxiety). In this article, we assessed the adequacy of an alternative factor model of STAI data, the two-construct, two-method model, in three large samples using confirmatory factor analysis. The results revealed a statistical advantage of the two-construct, two-method model over the one-factor model, the two-construct factor model, and the four-factor model. We discuss possible interpretational advantages of the two-construct, two-method model of the STAI.
以往关于状态-特质焦虑量表(STAI;斯皮尔伯格、戈鲁奇、卢申、瓦格和雅各布斯,1983年)因子结构的研究得出了各种结果。然而,一个相对较强的共识支持该量表的四因子结构(存在状态焦虑、不存在状态焦虑、存在特质焦虑和不存在特质焦虑),这是由项目极性维度与原始的两个因子(状态焦虑和特质焦虑)相结合而产生的。在本文中我们使用验证性因子分析在三个大样本中评估了STAI数据的另一种因子模型——双结构双方法模型的适当性。结果显示双结构双方法模型相对于单因子模型、双结构因子模型和四因子模型具有统计学优势。我们讨论了STAI双结构双方法模型可能存在的解释优势。