Phân tích tâm lý học sâu về Thang đo Độ bền Connor-Davidson: hiệu chuẩn với mô hình Rasch-Andrich

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes - Tập 13 - Trang 1-12 - 2015
Víctor B. Arias González1, María Teresa Crespo Sierra2, Benito Arias Martínez2, Agustín Martínez-Molina1, Fernando P. Ponce1
1Facultad de Psicología [School of Psychology], Universidad de Talca [University of Talca], Talca, Chile
2Facultad de Educación y Trabajo Social [School of Education and Social Work], Universidad de Valladolid [University of Valladolid], Valladolid, España

Tóm tắt

Thang đo Độ bền Connor-Davidson (CD-RISC) không thể phủ nhận là một trong những công cụ nổi tiếng nhất trong lĩnh vực đánh giá độ bền. Tuy nhiên, tiêu chí cho chất lượng tâm lý học của công cụ này chỉ dựa trên lý thuyết kiểm tra cổ điển. Mục tiêu của bài báo này tập trung vào việc hiệu chuẩn CD-RISC với một mẫu không lâm sàng gồm 444 người trưởng thành sử dụng Mô hình Thang đo Rasch-Andrich, nhằm làm rõ cấu trúc của nó và phân tích các thuộc tính tâm lý học của nó ở cấp độ mục. Hai mục đã cho thấy sự sai lệch so với mô hình và đã bị loại bỏ. 22 mục còn lại cơ bản tạo thành một thang đo đơn chiều. CD-RISC có các thuộc tính tâm lý học tốt. Sự phù hợp của cả các mục và người dùng với mô hình Rasch là tốt và các danh mục phản hồi hoạt động đúng cách. Hai trong số các mục cho thấy chức năng mục phân biệt. CD-RISC có hiệu ứng trần rõ ràng, điều này gợi ý cần thêm các mục khó hơn trong các phiên bản tương lai của thang đo.

Từ khóa

#Thang đo Độ bền Connor-Davidson #hiệu chuẩn Rasch-Andrich #thuộc tính tâm lý học #phân tích tâm lý học #mẫu không lâm sàng

Tài liệu tham khảo

Friedli L. Mental Health, Resilience and Inequalities. Denmark: World Health Organization; 2009 [http://www.euro.who.int/document/e92227.pdf] Fergus S, Zimmerman MA. Adolescent resilience: a framework for understanding healthy development in the face of risk. Annu Rev Public Health. 2005;26:399–419. Haskett ME, Nears K, Ward CS, McPherson AV. Diversity in adjustment of maltreated children: factors associated with resilient functioning. Clin Psychol Rev. 2006;26:796–812. Evans R, Pinnock K. Promoting resilience and protective factors in the children’s fund. J Child Poverty. 2007;13:21–36. Olsson CA, Bond L, Burns JM, Vella-Brodrick DA, Sawyer SM. Adolescent resilience: a concept analysis. J Adolesc. 2003;26:1–11. Vanderbilt-Adriance E, Shaw DS. Conceptualizing and re-evaluating resilience across levels of risk, time, and domains of competence. Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev. 2008;11:30–58. Windle G, Bennett KM, Noyes J. A methodological review of resilience measurement scales. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2011;9:8. Windle G. What is resilience? A systematic review and concept analysis. Rev Clin Gerontol. 2010;21:1–18. Windle G. What is resilience? A review and concept analysis. Rev Clin Gerontol. 2011;21:151–69. Wagnild GM, Young HM. Development and psychometric evaluation of the resilience scale. J Nurs Meas. 1993;1:165–78. Block J, Kremen AM. IQ and ego-resiliency: Conceptual and empirical connections and separateness. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1996;70:349–61. Klohnen EC. Conceptual analysis and measurement of the construct of ego-resiliency. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1996;70:1067–79. Hurtes KP, Allen LR. Measuring resiliency in youth: the resiliency attitudes and skills profile. Ther Recreat J. 2001;35(4):333–47. Connor KM, Davidson JRT. Development of a new resilience scale: the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC). Depress Anxiety. 2003;18:76–82. Oshio A, Kaneko H, Nagamine S, Nakaya M. Construct validity of the adolescent resilience scale. Psychol Rep. 2003;93:1217–22. Friborg O, Barlaug D, Martinussen M, Rosenvinge JH, Hjemdal O. Resilience in relation to personality and intelligence. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2005;14:29–42. Friborg O, Hjemdal O, Rosenvinge JH, Martinussen M. A new rating scale for adult resilience: what are the central protective resources behind healthy adjustment? Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2003;12:65–76. Bartone P. Test-retest reliability of the Dispositional Resilience Scale-15, a brief hardiness scale. Psychol Rep. 2007;101:943–4. Campbell-Sills L, Stein MB. Psychometric analysis and refinement of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC): validation of a 10 item measure of resilience. J Trauma Stress. 2007;20:1019–28. Donnon T, Hammond W. A psychometric assessment of the self reported youth resiliency assessing developmental strengths questionnaire. Psychol Rep. 2007;100:963–78. Sun J, Stewart D. Development of population-based resilience measures in the primary school setting. Health Educ. 2007;7:575–99. Smith BW, Dalen J, Wiggins K, Tooley E, Christopher P, Bernard J. The brief resilience scale: assessing the ability to bounce back. Int J Behav Med. 2008;15:194–200. Ungar M, Liebenberg L, Boothroyd R, Kwong WM, Lee TY, Leblanc J, et al. The study of youth resilience across cultures: Lessons from a pilot study of measurement development. Res Hum Dev. 2008;5:166–80. Windle G, Markland DA, Woods B. Examination of a theoretical model of psychological resilience in older age. Aging Ment Health. 2008;12:285–92. Sijtsma K. On the use, misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach’s alpha. Psychometrika. 2009;74:107–20. Sočan G. Assessment of reliability when test items are not essentially t-equivalent. In Developments in Survey Methodology. Edited by Ferligoj A, Mrvar A. Metodološki zvezki, 15, Ljubljana: FDV;2000:23-35. Ten Berge JMF, Sočan G. The greatest lower bound to the reliability of a test and the hypothesis of unidimensionality. Psychometrika. 2004;69:613–25. Campbell-Sills L, Cohan SL, Stein MB. Relationship of resilience to personality, coping, and psychiatric symptoms in young adults. Behav Res Ther. 2006;44:585–99. Menezes VA, Fernández B, Hernández L, Ramos F, Contador I. Resiliencia y el modelo Burnout-Engagement en cuidadores formales de ancianos. Psicothema. 2006;18(4):791–6. Singh K, Yu X. Psychometric evaluation of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) in a sample of Indian students. J Adolesc. 2010;1:23–30. Gucciardi DF, Jackson B, Coulter TJ, Mallet CJ. The Connor-Davidson Resilience scale (CD-RISC): dimensionality and age related measurement invariance with Australian cricketers. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2011;12:423–33. Burns RA, Anstey KJ. The Connor-Davidson Resilience scale (CD-RISC): testing the invariance of a uni-dimensional resilience measure that is independent of positive and negative affect. Pers Individ Dif. 2010;48:527–31. Yu X, Lau JTF, Mak WWS, Zhang J, Lui WWS, Zhang J. Factor structure and psychometric properties of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale among Chinese adolescents. Compr Psychiatry. 2011;52:218–24. Lamond AJ, Depp CA, Allison M, Langer R, Reichstadt J, Moore DJ, et al. Measurement and predictors of resilience among community-dwelling older women. J Psychiatr Res. 2009;43:148–54. Preacher KJ, McCallum RC. Repairing Tom Swift’s electric factor analysis machine. Underst Stat. 2003;2:13–43. Notario-Pacheco B, Solera-Martínez M, Serrano-Parra MD, Bartolomé-Gutiérrez R, García-Campayo J, Martínez-Vizcaíno V. Reliability and validity of the Spanish version of the 10-item Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (10-item CD-RISC) in young adults. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010;9:63. Andrich D. Rasch models for measurement. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications; 1988. Ayala RJ. The theory and practice of item response theory. New York, NY: The Guilford Press; 2009. Bond TG, Fox CM. Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. Mahwah NJ: LEA; 2001. Crocker L, Algina J. Introduction to classical and modern test theory. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning; 2008. Embretson SE, Hershberger SL. The new rules of measurement. Mahwah NJ: LEA; 1999. Embretson SE, Reise SP. Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah NJ: LEA; 2000. Van der Linden WJ, Hambleton RK. Handbook of modern item response theory. New York: Springer; 1997. Wright BD, Stone MH. Best test design. Rasch measurement. Chicago: MESA Press; 1979. Bobes J, Bascaran MT, García-Portilla MP, Bousoño M, Sáiz PA, Wallance DH. Banco de instrumentos básicos de psiquiatría clínica. Barcelona: Psquiatría ED; 2008. Lorenzo-Seva U, Ferrando PJ. FACTOR: a computer program to fit the exploratory factor analysis model. Behav Res Methods. 2006;38:88–91. Andrich D. Rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika. 1978;43:561–73. Andrich D. Rasch Models for Measurement. Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Measurement in the Social sciences. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications; 1988. Rasch G. Probabilistic Models for Some Intelligence and Attainment tests. Chicago: MESA Press; 1960. Rasch G. On specific objectivity: an attempt at formalizing the request for generality and validity of scientific statements. In: Blegvad M, editor. The Danish Yearbook of Philosophy. Copenhagen: Munksgaard Publishing House; 1977. p. 58–94. Wright BD, Masters GN. Rating Scale Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago, MESA Press; 1982. Linacre JM. A user’s guide to WINSTEPS [Computer Manual]. Chicago: Winsteps; 2011. Linacre JM, Wright BD. WINSTEPS: Multiple Choice, Rating Scale, and Partial Credit Rasch Analysis [Computer Program]. Chicago: MESA; 1999. Hu L, Bentler PM. Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to under-parameterized model misspecification. Psychol Methods. 1998;3:424–53. Timmerman ME, Lorenzo-Seva U. Dimensionality assessment of ordered polytomous items with parallel analysis. Psychol Methods. 2011;16:209–20. Velicer WF. Determining the number of components from the matrix of partial correlations. Psychometrika. 1976;41:321–7. Linacre JM. A user’s guide to WINSTEPS-Ministep: Rasch-Model computer programs. Chicago: MESA; 2008. Prieto G, Delgado AR. Análisis de un test mediante el modelo de Rasch. Psicothema. 2003;15:94–100. Cohen J. Statistical Power for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates; 1988. Linacre JM. WINSTEPS: Rasch measurement computer program. 2005. [http://www.winsteps.com/winman/index.htm] Linacre JM. Investigating rating scale category utility. J Outcome Meas. 1999;3:103–22. Zwick R, Thayer DT, Lewis C. An empirical Bayes approach to Mantel-Haenszel DIF analysis. J Educ Meas. 1999;36:1–28.