McKay Michael T, Morgan Grant B, van Exel N Job, Worrell Frank C
a Centre for Public Health, Liverpool John Moores University , Liverpool , United Kingdom.
J Pers Assess. 2015;97(4):395-402. doi: 10.1080/00223891.2014.999338. Epub 2015 Jan 29.
Despite its widespread use, disagreement remains regarding the structure of the Consideration of Future Consequences Scale (CFCS). In particular there is disagreement regarding whether the scale assesses future orientation as a unidimensional or multidimensional (immediate and future) construct. Using 2 samples of high school students in the United Kingdom, 4 models were tested. The totality of results including item loadings, goodness-of-fit indexes, and reliability estimates all supported the bifactor model, suggesting that the 2 hypothesized factors are better understood as grouping or method factors rather than as representative of latent constructs. Accordingly this study supports the unidimensionality of the CFCS and the scoring of all 12 items to produce a global future orientation score. Researchers intending to use the CFCS, and those with existing data, are encouraged to examine a bifactor solution for the scale.
尽管考虑未来后果量表（CFCS）被广泛使用，但对于该量表的结构仍存在分歧。特别是，对于该量表是将未来取向评估为单维结构还是多维（即时和未来）结构存在分歧。利用英国高中生的两个样本，对4种模型进行了测试。包括项目负荷、拟合优度指标和信度估计在内的所有结果都支持双因素模型，这表明这两个假设因素更应被理解为分组或方法因素，而非潜在结构的代表。因此，本研究支持CFCS的单维性以及对所有12个项目进行计分以得出一个整体的未来取向分数。鼓励打算使用CFCS的研究人员以及拥有现有数据的人员对该量表检验双因素解决方案。
