Rasch analysis can change how we think about and measure Focusing attitudes: adaptation and evaluation of a German Focusing Manner Scale

IF 0.5 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Danny Gehlen, Heinz Zimmer
{"title":"Rasch analysis can change how we think about and measure Focusing attitudes: adaptation and evaluation of a German Focusing Manner Scale","authors":"Danny Gehlen, Heinz Zimmer","doi":"10.1080/14779757.2022.2028664","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Person-centered psychotherapists can improve therapeutic attunement by using well-designed theories and self-report questionnaires. However, previous evaluations of the Focusing Manner Scale (FMS) did not consider item-level information as a means to improve Focusing attitude measurement. Thus, we adapted a German FMS-A.G and applied Rasch analysis to evaluate it with German undergraduates (N = 687). An exploratory factor analysis replicated the original Japanese version’s (FMS-A.J) low signal-to-noise ratio and three-factorial structure (Acting, Attending, Distancing; α = .76, .75, .62). Rasch analysis indicated each scale’s item distribution reduced reliability and construct validity: neither item wordings nor previous construct definitions targeted higher Focusing attitude levels. Moreover, we could not replicate concurrent validity with the General Health Questionnaire. Yet, Acting and Attending converged with the Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness, especially with Body-Listening (r = .45, .52). Our evidence suggests that Acting and Attending can be used for research purposes, but Distancing should be improved. Rasch analysis provides practically useful results that can improve how we understand and assess Focusing attitudes.","PeriodicalId":44274,"journal":{"name":"Person-Centered and Experiential Psychotherapies","volume":"42 1","pages":"309 - 330"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Person-Centered and Experiential Psychotherapies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14779757.2022.2028664","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT Person-centered psychotherapists can improve therapeutic attunement by using well-designed theories and self-report questionnaires. However, previous evaluations of the Focusing Manner Scale (FMS) did not consider item-level information as a means to improve Focusing attitude measurement. Thus, we adapted a German FMS-A.G and applied Rasch analysis to evaluate it with German undergraduates (N = 687). An exploratory factor analysis replicated the original Japanese version’s (FMS-A.J) low signal-to-noise ratio and three-factorial structure (Acting, Attending, Distancing; α = .76, .75, .62). Rasch analysis indicated each scale’s item distribution reduced reliability and construct validity: neither item wordings nor previous construct definitions targeted higher Focusing attitude levels. Moreover, we could not replicate concurrent validity with the General Health Questionnaire. Yet, Acting and Attending converged with the Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness, especially with Body-Listening (r = .45, .52). Our evidence suggests that Acting and Attending can be used for research purposes, but Distancing should be improved. Rasch analysis provides practically useful results that can improve how we understand and assess Focusing attitudes.
拉什分析可以改变我们思考和测量聚焦态度的方式:德国聚焦态度量表的适应和评价
以人为本的心理治疗师可以通过设计良好的理论和自我报告问卷来提高治疗调谐。然而,以往对聚焦态度量表(FMS)的评价并未考虑项目层面信息作为改进聚焦态度测量的手段。因此,我们采用了德国的FMS-A。G,并应用Rasch分析对德国大学生(N = 687)进行评价。探索性因子分析复制了原始日本版本(FMS-A.J)的低信噪比和三因子结构(表演,出席,距离;α = .76, .75, .62)。Rasch分析表明,每个量表的项目分布降低了信度和构念效度:项目措辞和先前的构念定义都没有针对更高的关注态度水平。此外,我们不能重复与一般健康问卷同时效度。然而,行为和参与与内感受意识的多维评估相融合,尤其是与身体倾听相融合(r = 0.45, 0.52)。我们的证据表明,“行动”和“参与”可以用于研究目的,但“距离”应该得到改善。拉什分析提供了实际有用的结果,可以改善我们如何理解和评估聚焦态度。
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
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
33.30%
发文量
37
×
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