Hiller Rachel M, Weber Nathan, Young Robyn L
School of Psychology, Flinders University.
Psychol Assess. 2014 Dec;26(4):1388-93. doi: 10.1037/a0038320.
Despite the importance of theory of mind (ToM) for typical development, there remain 2 key issues affecting our ability to draw robust conclusions. One is the continued focus on false belief as the sole measure of ToM. The second is the lack of empirically validated measures of ToM as a broad construct. Our key aim was to examine the validity and reliability of the 5-item ToM scale (Peterson, Wellman, & Liu, 2005). In particular, we extended on previous research of this scale by assessing its scalability and validity for use with children from 2 years of age. Sixty-eight typically developing children (aged 24 to 61 months) were assessed on the scale's 5 tasks, along with a sixth Sally-Anne false-belief task. Our data replicated the scalability of the 5 tasks for a Rasch-but not Guttman-scale. Guttman analysis showed that a 4-item scale may be more suitable for this age range. Further, the tasks showed good internal consistency and validity for use with children as young as 2 years of age. Overall, the measure provides a valid and reliable tool for the assessment of ToM, and in particular, the longitudinal assessment of this ability as a construct.
尽管心理理论(ToM)对于正常发育很重要,但仍存在两个关键问题影响我们得出有力结论的能力。一是继续将错误信念作为心理理论的唯一衡量标准。二是缺乏经过实证验证的、作为一个宽泛概念的心理理论衡量标准。我们的主要目标是检验5项心理理论量表(彼得森、韦尔曼和刘,2005年)的有效性和可靠性。特别是,我们通过评估该量表在2岁儿童中的可扩展性和有效性,对之前关于该量表的研究进行了扩展。对68名发育正常的儿童(年龄在24至61个月之间)进行了该量表的5项任务评估,以及第六项萨利-安妮错误信念任务评估。我们的数据复制了5项任务在拉施量表而非古特曼量表上的可扩展性。古特曼分析表明,一个4项量表可能更适合这个年龄范围。此外,这些任务在用于2岁幼儿时显示出良好的内部一致性和有效性。总体而言,该测量方法为心理理论的评估,特别是作为一种能力结构的纵向评估,提供了一个有效且可靠的工具。