• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

[对罗特内外控量表的项目反应理论评估:一种新方法及若干考量]

[An IRT assessment of Rotter's I-E scale: a new approach and some considerations].

作者信息

Ferrando Pere Joan, Demestre Josep, Anguiano-Carrasco Cristina, Chico Eliseo

机构信息

Universidad Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona, Spain.

出版信息

Psicothema. 2011 Apr;23(2):282-8.

PMID:21504682
Abstract

This study assessed the functioning and measurement properties of Rotter's Locus of Control Scale in its Spanish version by using a new approach based on Item Response Theory. Our procedure allows us: (a) to detect the impact of response biases (acquiescence and social desirability); (b) to evaluate clearly the test dimensionality and structure; (c) to evaluate and understand the causes of some items' inefficiency; and (d) to increase measurement precision. Globally, the results do not contradict those obtained in previous research, but allow some of the criticisms the scale had received to be qualified. Some recommendations for use are proposed.

摘要

本研究采用基于项目反应理论的新方法,评估了西班牙语版罗特控制点量表的功能及测量特性。我们的程序使我们能够:(a) 检测反应偏差(默许和社会期望)的影响;(b) 清晰评估测验的维度和结构;(c) 评估并理解某些项目低效的原因;以及 (d) 提高测量精度。总体而言,结果与先前研究所得结果并不矛盾,但对该量表所受到的一些批评进行了限定。文中还提出了一些使用建议。

相似文献

1
[An IRT assessment of Rotter's I-E scale: a new approach and some considerations].[对罗特内外控量表的项目反应理论评估:一种新方法及若干考量]
Psicothema. 2011 Apr;23(2):282-8.
2
Measuring the psychological construct of control. Discriminant, divergent, and incremental validity of the Shapiro Control Inventory and Rotter's and Wallstons' Locus of Control Scales.测量控制的心理结构。夏皮罗控制量表与罗特和沃尔斯顿的控制点量表的区分效度、发散效度和增量效度。
Int J Psychosom. 1993;40(1-4):35-46.
3
[Validation of a sport injury locus of control scale].[运动损伤控制源量表的验证]
Encephale. 2008 Apr;34(2):146-52. doi: 10.1016/j.encep.2006.08.004. Epub 2007 Nov 19.
4
Dimensionality of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale and its relationships with the Three-and the Five-factor personality models.罗森伯格自尊量表的维度及其与三因素和五因素人格模型的关系。
J Pers Assess. 2007 Apr;88(2):246-9. doi: 10.1080/00223890701268116.
5
Social desirability scale values of locus of control scale items.控制点量表项目的社会赞许性量表值。
J Pers Assess. 1976 Jun;40(3):306-9. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa4003_10.
6
Derivation of the acceptance and self-worth adjustment scale.接纳与自我价值调整量表的编制
Optom Vis Sci. 2010 Nov;87(11):899-907. doi: 10.1097/OPX.0b013e3181f6f760.
7
Comparing the psychometric properties of two measures of wisdom: predicting forgiveness and psychological well-being with the Self-Assessed Wisdom Scale (SAWS) and the Three-Dimensional Wisdom Scale (3D-WS).比较两种智慧测量方法的心理测量特性:用自我评估智慧量表(SAWS)和三维智慧量表(3D-WS)预测宽恕和心理健康。
Exp Aging Res. 2011 Mar;37(2):129-41. doi: 10.1080/0361073X.2011.554508.
8
Psychometric properties of the Marlowe-Crowne social desirability scale with adult male sexual offenders.马洛-克劳恩社会赞许性量表在成年男性性犯罪者中的心理测量特性。
Sex Abuse. 2009 Mar;21(1):21-34. doi: 10.1177/1079063208325203.
9
Social anxiety and fear of negative evaluation: construct validity of the BFNE-II.社交焦虑与对负面评价的恐惧:BFNE-II的结构效度
J Anxiety Disord. 2007;21(1):131-41. doi: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2006.03.010. Epub 2006 May 3.
10
[Polish version of the Groningen Social Disabilities Schedule II (GSDS II)--assessment of validity].[格罗宁根社会残疾评定量表II(GSDS II)波兰语版——效度评估]
Psychiatr Pol. 2007 Nov-Dec;41(6):779-87.

引用本文的文献

1
Why Do We Take Risks? Perception of the Situation and Risk Proneness Predict Domain-Specific Risk Taking.我们为何冒险?对情境的认知和风险倾向预测特定领域的冒险行为。
Front Psychol. 2021 Mar 8;12:562381. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.562381. eCollection 2021.
2
Individuals Who Believe in the Paranormal Expose Themselves to Biased Information and Develop More Causal Illusions than Nonbelievers in the Laboratory.在实验室中,相信超自然现象的人比不信者更容易接触到有偏见的信息,并产生更多的因果错觉。
PLoS One. 2015 Jul 15;10(7):e0131378. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0131378. eCollection 2015.