School of Psychology, Western Sydney University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Centre for Clinical Interventions, Perth, Western Australia, Australia; School of Psychology, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
J Anxiety Disord. 2020 Aug;74:102273. doi: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2020.102273. Epub 2020 Jul 10.
The integrated aetiological and maintenance (IAM) model of social anxiety disorder (SAD) conceptualises four social-evaluative cognitive processes (anticipatory processing, attention to the self, attention to threat in the environment, and post-event processing) as facets of a social-evaluative threat detection construct. The current study tested this by examining potential factor structures underlying the four social-evaluative cognitive processes. Baseline data from two randomised controlled trials, consisting of 306 participants with SAD who completed measures of the four social-evaluative cognitive processes in relation to a speech task, were subjected to confirmatory factor analysis. Model fit indices and bifactor model indices showed that the optimal factor structure was a bifactor model with a Social-evaluative Threat Detection General Factor and two group factors corresponding to anticipatory processing and post-event processing. Analyses also indicated that the Social-evaluative Threat Detection General Factor had moderate to large associations with other constructs in the IAM model, whereas the two group factors only had small associations with these constructs. These findings suggest that the four social-evaluative cognitive processes can be unified as facets of a social-evaluative threat detection process, consistent with the IAM model, although group factors for anticipatory processing and post-event processing need to be taken into account.
社交焦虑障碍(SAD)的综合病因学和维持(IAM)模型将四个社会评价认知过程(预期处理、对自我的关注、对环境中威胁的关注和事件后处理)概念化为社会评价威胁检测结构的方面。本研究通过检查四个社会评价认知过程潜在的因素结构来检验这一点。来自两项随机对照试验的基线数据,包括 306 名患有 SAD 的参与者,他们在与演讲任务相关的情况下完成了四项社会评价认知过程的测量,接受了验证性因素分析。模型拟合指数和双因素模型指数表明,最佳因素结构是具有社会评价威胁检测总因子和两个对应于预期处理和事件后处理的组因子的双因素模型。分析还表明,社会评价威胁检测总因子与 IAM 模型中的其他结构具有中等至较大的关联,而两个组因子仅与这些结构具有较小的关联。这些发现表明,四个社会评价认知过程可以作为社会评价威胁检测过程的方面统一起来,与 IAM 模型一致,尽管需要考虑预期处理和事件后处理的组因子。