Western Sydney University; Macquarie University.
Centre for Clinical Interventions, Perth; Curtin University.
Behav Ther. 2019 May;50(3):571-581. doi: 10.1016/j.beth.2018.09.004. Epub 2018 Sep 18.
Existing literature suggests that anticipatory processing and post-event processing-two repetitive thinking processes linked to social anxiety disorder (SAD)-might be better conceptualized as facets of an underlying unidimensional repetitive thinking construct. The current study tested this by examining potential factor structures underlying anticipatory processing and post-event processing. Baseline data from two randomized controlled trials, consisting of 306 participants with SAD who completed anticipatory processing and post-event processing measures in relation to a speech task, were subjected to confirmatory factor analysis. A bifactor model with a General Repetitive Thinking factor and two group factors corresponding to anticipatory processing and post-event processing best fit with the data. Further analyses indicated an optimal model would include only the General Repetitive Thinking factor (reflecting anticipatory processing and a specific aspect of post-event processing) and Post-event Processing group factor (reflecting another specific aspect of post-event processing that is separable), providing evidence against a unidimensional account of repetitive thinking in SAD. Analyses also indicated that the General Repetitive Thinking factor had moderately large associations with social anxiety and life interference (rs = .43 to .47), suggesting its maladaptive nature. The separable Post-event Processing group factor only had small associations with social anxiety (rs = .16 to .27) and was not related to life interference (r = .11), suggesting it may not, in itself, be a maladaptive process. Future research that further characterises the bifactor model components and tests their utility has the potential to improve the conceptualisation and assessment of repetitive thinking in SAD.
现有文献表明，预期处理和事件后处理——与社交焦虑症（SAD）相关的两种重复思维过程——可能更好地被概念化为潜在单一维度重复思维结构的方面。本研究通过检查预期处理和事件后处理的潜在因素结构来检验这一点。两项随机对照试验的基线数据，共 306 名 SAD 患者完成了与演讲任务相关的预期处理和事件后处理测量，这些数据接受了验证性因素分析。具有一般重复思维因素和两个对应于预期处理和事件后处理的组因素的双因素模型最符合数据。进一步的分析表明，最佳模型将仅包括一般重复思维因素（反映预期处理和事件后处理的特定方面）和事件后处理组因素（反映事件后处理的另一个可分离的特定方面），这为 SAD 中重复思维的单一维度解释提供了证据。分析还表明，一般重复思维因素与社交焦虑和生活干扰有中等程度的关联（rs =.43 到.47），表明其适应不良的性质。可分离的事件后处理组因素仅与社交焦虑有较小的关联（rs =.16 到.27），与生活干扰无关（r =.11），这表明它本身可能不是一个适应不良的过程。进一步描述双因素模型成分并测试其效用的未来研究有可能改善 SAD 中重复思维的概念化和评估。
