Cross-cultural validation of the BFOE model: Best practices and future directions for psychometric evaluation of the Fear of positive evaluation scale – Insights from a Dutch translation

IF 5.4 3区材料科学 Q2 CHEMISTRY, PHYSICAL

ACS Applied Energy Materials Pub Date : 2024-09-18 DOI:10.1016/j.janxdis.2024.102929

Wolf-Gero Lange , Ashley N. Howell , Justin W. Weeks

{"title":"Cross-cultural validation of the BFOE model: Best practices and future directions for psychometric evaluation of the Fear of positive evaluation scale – Insights from a Dutch translation","authors":"Wolf-Gero Lange , Ashley N. Howell , Justin W. Weeks","doi":"10.1016/j.janxdis.2024.102929","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The Bivalent Fear of Evaluation (BFOE) model suggests that Social Anxiety Disorder is not only characterized by fear of negative evaluation (FNE), but also fear of positive evaluation (FPE). While FNE has been firmly established, research of the latter is accumulating. To evaluate the role of the BFOE Model, and particularly FPE, validated measures such as the Fear of Positive Evaluation Scale (FPES) are pivotal. Yet, validation of psychometric properties is often at stake or neglected when translating a scale to other languages. This hampers cross-cultural evaluation of questionnaires and related concepts considerably, including the BFOE Model. To illustrate, a freely available, but not validated Dutch version of the FPES was completed, along with other measures by 354 community participants from the Netherlands and Belgium in an online study. The Dutch FPES showed excellent convergent and discriminant validity. In addition, it explained additional variance in social anxiety above and beyond FNE. These results as well as those from the factor analyses were highly comparable with those deriving from evaluations of the original English version. In conclusion, the Dutch FPES showed excellent psychometric properties and is fit for further exploring consistency or differences in the BFOE model across cultures. Based on this case, practice guidelines for international use and validation of measures are discussed, and recommendations are provided.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":4,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Energy Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Energy Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0887618524001051","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, PHYSICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Bivalent Fear of Evaluation (BFOE) model suggests that Social Anxiety Disorder is not only characterized by fear of negative evaluation (FNE), but also fear of positive evaluation (FPE). While FNE has been firmly established, research of the latter is accumulating. To evaluate the role of the BFOE Model, and particularly FPE, validated measures such as the Fear of Positive Evaluation Scale (FPES) are pivotal. Yet, validation of psychometric properties is often at stake or neglected when translating a scale to other languages. This hampers cross-cultural evaluation of questionnaires and related concepts considerably, including the BFOE Model. To illustrate, a freely available, but not validated Dutch version of the FPES was completed, along with other measures by 354 community participants from the Netherlands and Belgium in an online study. The Dutch FPES showed excellent convergent and discriminant validity. In addition, it explained additional variance in social anxiety above and beyond FNE. These results as well as those from the factor analyses were highly comparable with those deriving from evaluations of the original English version. In conclusion, the Dutch FPES showed excellent psychometric properties and is fit for further exploring consistency or differences in the BFOE model across cultures. Based on this case, practice guidelines for international use and validation of measures are discussed, and recommendations are provided.

查看原文本刊更多论文

BFOE 模型的跨文化验证：恐惧积极评价量表心理测量评估的最佳实践和未来方向--荷兰语翻译的启示

二元评价恐惧（BFOE）模型表明，社交焦虑症不仅表现为害怕负面评价（FNE），还表现为害怕正面评价（FPE）。虽然 FNE 已被牢固确立，但有关后者的研究却在不断积累。要评估 BFOE 模型的作用，尤其是 FPE 的作用，诸如 "害怕积极评价量表"（FPES）等经过验证的测量方法至关重要。然而，在将量表翻译成其他语言时，心理测量特性的验证往往受到威胁或被忽视。这极大地阻碍了对问卷和相关概念（包括 BFOE 模型）的跨文化评估。为了说明这一点，在一项在线研究中，来自荷兰和比利时的 354 名社区参与者完成了免费提供但未经验证的荷兰语版 FPES 以及其他测量方法。荷兰语 FPES 显示出极佳的收敛性和区分性。此外，它还能解释 FNE 以外的社交焦虑差异。这些结果以及因子分析结果与原始英语版本的评估结果具有很高的可比性。总之，荷兰语 FPES 显示了出色的心理测量特性，适合进一步探索不同文化背景下 BFOE 模型的一致性或差异性。在此案例的基础上，讨论了国际使用和验证测量方法的实践指南，并提出了相关建议。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

ACS Applied Energy Materials Materials Science-Materials Chemistry

CiteScore

10.30

自引率

6.20%

发文量

1368

期刊介绍： ACS Applied Energy Materials is an interdisciplinary journal publishing original research covering all aspects of materials, engineering, chemistry, physics and biology relevant to energy conversion and storage. The journal is devoted to reports of new and original experimental and theoretical research of an applied nature that integrate knowledge in the areas of materials, engineering, physics, bioscience, and chemistry into important energy applications.