Cross-cultural similarities and differences in level of personality functioning across eight countries.

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
L F Carvalho, C Oliveira, A M P Bento, G H Gonçalves, G M Francisco, T R Sultani, A P Gonçalves, F Valentini, G Pianowski, G M Machado
{"title":"Cross-cultural similarities and differences in level of personality functioning across eight countries.","authors":"L F Carvalho, C Oliveira, A M P Bento, G H Gonçalves, G M Francisco, T R Sultani, A P Gonçalves, F Valentini, G Pianowski, G M Machado","doi":"10.1080/13548506.2025.2502840","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Previous studies have not found cross-cultural full measurement invariance for the Level of Personality Functioning Scale - Brief Form 2.0 (LPFS-BF 2.0). While invariance analysis ensures valid cross-cultural comparisons, it may not capture all possible cultural impacts. One possibility is to employ network analysis to compare countries regarding connections and centrality indicators. This study aimed to validate the cross-cultural applicability of the LPFS-BF 2.0 across eight countries: Australia, Brazil, the United Kingdom, Iran, Italy, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the United States. The sample comprised 4,310 adults (aged between 18 to 84); the majority of the total sample reported being women (72.9%), being Caucasian (56.6%) who completed the LPFS-BF 2.0. Measurement invariance was assessed using multi-group confirmatory factor analysis (MGCFA), while network analysis explored the centrality and interrelationships of LPFS-BF 2.0 items within each country. Our findings mark the first time full invariance across different cultures was observed with the LPFS-BF 2.0. Network analysis revealed unique cultural patterns in item centrality, suggesting the need for further refinement of specific items to address cultural differences. The study highlights the LPFS-BF 2.0 as a robust tool for assessing personality functioning globally and underscores the importance of culturally sensitive adaptations in personality assessment. Network analysis offers an innovative method for assessing cultural differences in personality, and identifying stable and variable aspects of pathology to inform clinical interventions.</p>","PeriodicalId":54535,"journal":{"name":"Psychology Health & Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"1-19"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychology Health & Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13548506.2025.2502840","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Previous studies have not found cross-cultural full measurement invariance for the Level of Personality Functioning Scale - Brief Form 2.0 (LPFS-BF 2.0). While invariance analysis ensures valid cross-cultural comparisons, it may not capture all possible cultural impacts. One possibility is to employ network analysis to compare countries regarding connections and centrality indicators. This study aimed to validate the cross-cultural applicability of the LPFS-BF 2.0 across eight countries: Australia, Brazil, the United Kingdom, Iran, Italy, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the United States. The sample comprised 4,310 adults (aged between 18 to 84); the majority of the total sample reported being women (72.9%), being Caucasian (56.6%) who completed the LPFS-BF 2.0. Measurement invariance was assessed using multi-group confirmatory factor analysis (MGCFA), while network analysis explored the centrality and interrelationships of LPFS-BF 2.0 items within each country. Our findings mark the first time full invariance across different cultures was observed with the LPFS-BF 2.0. Network analysis revealed unique cultural patterns in item centrality, suggesting the need for further refinement of specific items to address cultural differences. The study highlights the LPFS-BF 2.0 as a robust tool for assessing personality functioning globally and underscores the importance of culturally sensitive adaptations in personality assessment. Network analysis offers an innovative method for assessing cultural differences in personality, and identifying stable and variable aspects of pathology to inform clinical interventions.

八个国家人格功能水平的跨文化异同。
以往的研究并未发现人格功能水平简表2.0 (LPFS-BF 2.0)的跨文化全测量不变性。虽然不变性分析确保了有效的跨文化比较,但它可能无法捕捉到所有可能的文化影响。一种可能性是采用网络分析来比较各国之间的联系和中心性指标。本研究旨在验证LPFS-BF 2.0在澳大利亚、巴西、英国、伊朗、意大利、约旦、沙特阿拉伯和美国这八个国家的跨文化适用性。样本包括4,310名成年人(年龄在18至84岁之间);完成LPFS-BF 2.0的大部分样本为女性(72.9%),高加索人(56.6%)。使用多组验证性因子分析(MGCFA)评估测量不变性,而网络分析探讨了每个国家内LPFS-BF 2.0项目的中心性和相互关系。我们的研究结果标志着LPFS-BF 2.0首次在不同文化中观察到完全不变性。网络分析揭示了项目中心性的独特文化模式,表明需要进一步完善特定项目以解决文化差异。该研究强调了LPFS-BF 2.0作为评估全球人格功能的强大工具,并强调了文化敏感适应在人格评估中的重要性。网络分析提供了一种创新的方法来评估人格的文化差异,并确定病理的稳定和可变方面,以告知临床干预。
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
Psychology Health & Medicine
Psychology Health & Medicine PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
200
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Psychology, Health & Medicine is a multidisciplinary journal highlighting human factors in health. The journal provides a peer reviewed forum to report on issues of psychology and health in practice. This key publication reaches an international audience, highlighting the variation and similarities within different settings and exploring multiple health and illness issues from theoretical, practical and management perspectives. It provides a critical forum to examine the wide range of applied health and illness issues and how they incorporate psychological knowledge, understanding, theory and intervention. The journal reflects the growing recognition of psychosocial issues as they affect health planning, medical care, disease reaction, intervention, quality of life, adjustment adaptation and management. For many years theoretical research was very distant from applied understanding. The emerging movement in health psychology, changes in medical care provision and training, and consumer awareness of health issues all contribute to a growing need for applied research. This journal focuses on practical applications of theory, research and experience and provides a bridge between academic knowledge, illness experience, wellbeing and health care practice.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信