Washington University in St. Louis, 1 Brookings Drive, Campus Box 1125, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA.
J Anxiety Disord. 2011 Jun;25(5):623-30. doi: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2011.02.002. Epub 2011 Feb 13.
The validity of both the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale and Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation scale has been well-supported, yet the scales have a small number of reverse-scored items that may detract from the validity of their total scores. The current study investigates two characteristics of participants that may be associated with compromised validity of these items: higher age and lower levels of education. In community and clinical samples, the validity of each scale's reverse-scored items was moderated by age, years of education, or both. The straightforward items did not show this pattern. To encourage the use of the straightforward items of these scales, we provide normative data from the same samples as well as two large student samples. We contend that although response bias can be a substantial problem, the reverse-scored questions of these scales do not solve that problem and instead decrease overall validity.
社会交往焦虑量表和简要恐惧负面评价量表的有效性都得到了很好的支持,但这些量表有少量反向计分的项目,可能会降低总分的有效性。本研究调查了两个可能与这些项目有效性受损有关的参与者特征:年龄较大和受教育程度较低。在社区和临床样本中,每个量表反向计分项目的有效性都受到年龄、受教育年限或两者的调节。简单项目没有表现出这种模式。为了鼓励使用这些量表的简单项目,我们提供了来自相同样本以及两个大型学生样本的常模数据。我们认为,尽管反应偏差可能是一个严重的问题,但这些量表的反向计分问题并没有解决这个问题,反而降低了整体有效性。