Institute of Epidemiology and Social Medicine, University Medicine Greifswald.
Psychol Addict Behav. 2013 Sep;27(3):573-83. doi: 10.1037/a0029368. Epub 2012 Aug 6.
Little is known about the applicability of the transtheoretical model of intentional behavior change (TTM) to individuals with unhealthy alcohol use that is primarily characterized by low readiness to change. This study examined the psychometric properties of short measures by assessing three core constructs of the TTM: the 20-item Processes of Change (POC-20) scale, and short versions of the Alcohol Decisional Balance Scale (ADBS) and the Alcohol Abstinence Self-Efficacy (AASE) scale. A sample of 427 individuals with unhealthy alcohol use (Mage = 30 years, 65% men), identified at job agencies in northeastern Germany, completed all three scales. Item difficulty (d), selectivity (rit), and Cronbach's alpha were calculated. Confirmatory factory analyses were used to test for construct validity and latent mean differences across the stages. The psychometric properties of the 8-item AASE were adequate (d range: 0.59-0.78; rit range: 0.59-0.68; α range: 0.74-0.81), except for one subscale. Most items of the POC-20 and the 10-item ADBS were difficult (dPOC range: 0.08-0.40; dADBS range: 0.21-0.58); selectivity (ritPOC range: 0.26-0.62; ritADBS range: 0.34-0.68) and internal consistency (αPOC range: 0.41-0.76; αADBS range: 0.64-0.78) were low to moderate. Construct validity was acceptable (Comparative Fit Index range: 0.95-0.99). The association between stages and TTM constructs partially followed expected patterns. Suggestions for modifications of TTM measures are discussed for better applicability among proactively recruited samples of individuals with unhealthy alcohol use and with primarily low readiness to change. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2013 APA, all rights reserved).
关于跨理论模型的(intentional behavior change, TTM)在以低度改变意愿为主要特征的不健康饮酒者中的适用性,人们知之甚少。本研究通过评估 TTM 的三个核心构念,即 20 项变化过程量表(Processes of Change, POC-20)、简短版酒精决策平衡量表(Alcohol Decisional Balance Scale, ADBS)和酒精禁欲自我效能量表(Alcohol Abstinence Self-Efficacy, AASE),考察了简短测量的心理计量学特性。在德国东北部的就业机构中识别出的 427 名不健康饮酒者(Mage=30 岁,65%为男性)完成了所有三个量表。计算了项目难度(d)、选择性(rit)和克朗巴赫的α系数。验证性因子分析用于检验结构效度和各阶段的潜在均值差异。8 项 AASE 的心理计量学特性是适当的(d 范围:0.59-0.78;rit 范围:0.59-0.68;α 范围:0.74-0.81),除了一个子量表。POC-20 和 10 项 ADBS 的大多数项目都很困难(dPOC 范围:0.08-0.40;dADBS 范围:0.21-0.58);选择性(ritPOC 范围:0.26-0.62;ritADBS 范围:0.34-0.68)和内部一致性(αPOC 范围:0.41-0.76;αADBS 范围:0.64-0.78)较低至中等。结构效度是可接受的(比较拟合指数范围:0.95-0.99)。阶段与 TTM 构念之间的关系部分符合预期模式。针对 TTM 测量的修改建议进行了讨论,以更好地适用于以低度改变意愿为主要特征的主动招募的不健康饮酒者样本。(PsycINFO 数据库记录(c)2013 APA,保留所有权利)。