Assessment of type A behavior in children: a comparison of two instruments.

E G Bishop, B J Hailey, H N Anderson
{"title":"Assessment of type A behavior in children: a comparison of two instruments.","authors":"E G Bishop,&nbsp;B J Hailey,&nbsp;H N Anderson","doi":"10.1080/0097840X.1987.9936804","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The agreement of classifications yielded from two instruments used to assess children's Type A-Type B behavior, the Matthews Youth Test for Health (MYTH) and Hunter-Wolf (HWolf), was evaluated with a sample of rural children from the southern United States. Fifth grade children (N = 276) served as subjects. MYTH and HWolf scores were found to be only weakly correlated and the agreement of Type A-Type B classifications occurred at a rate only slightly above chance. To assess the psychometric properties of the instruments, both were subjected to factor analysis and reliability/internal consistency estimates were obtained and compared with previous results. A factor structure remarkably similar to that of previous reports was found for the MYTH but not the HWolf. The results closely parallel those of another recent report and provide further support for the recommendation that these instruments should not be considered interchangeable measures of Type A behavior and that when multiple measures cannot be employed for research, the investigator should use the MYTH. Caution is indicated in interpreting scores of either measure, however, since neither has yet been shown to relate to later development of coronary heart disease.</p>","PeriodicalId":76006,"journal":{"name":"Journal of human stress","volume":"13 3","pages":"121-7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1987-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/0097840X.1987.9936804","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of human stress","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0097840X.1987.9936804","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

The agreement of classifications yielded from two instruments used to assess children's Type A-Type B behavior, the Matthews Youth Test for Health (MYTH) and Hunter-Wolf (HWolf), was evaluated with a sample of rural children from the southern United States. Fifth grade children (N = 276) served as subjects. MYTH and HWolf scores were found to be only weakly correlated and the agreement of Type A-Type B classifications occurred at a rate only slightly above chance. To assess the psychometric properties of the instruments, both were subjected to factor analysis and reliability/internal consistency estimates were obtained and compared with previous results. A factor structure remarkably similar to that of previous reports was found for the MYTH but not the HWolf. The results closely parallel those of another recent report and provide further support for the recommendation that these instruments should not be considered interchangeable measures of Type A behavior and that when multiple measures cannot be employed for research, the investigator should use the MYTH. Caution is indicated in interpreting scores of either measure, however, since neither has yet been shown to relate to later development of coronary heart disease.

儿童A型行为的评估:两种工具的比较。
两种用于评估儿童a - B型行为的工具——马修斯青少年健康测试(MYTH)和亨特-沃尔夫测试(HWolf)——得出的分类一致性在美国南部农村儿童样本中进行了评估。276名五年级儿童作为研究对象。MYTH和HWolf分数之间的相关性较弱,a - B型分类的一致性仅略高于偶然性。为了评估这两种工具的心理测量特性,我们对它们进行了因子分析,并获得了信度/内部一致性估计,并与之前的结果进行了比较。在MYTH中发现了与先前报道非常相似的因子结构,而在HWolf中没有发现。这些结果与最近的另一份报告的结果非常相似,并进一步支持以下建议:不应将这些工具视为A型行为的可互换测量方法,当多种测量方法不能用于研究时,研究者应使用MYTH。然而,在解释这两种测量方法的得分时需要谨慎,因为尚未显示两者与冠心病的后期发展有关。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信