简易创伤后适应不良信念量表(B-PMBS):提出创伤后自我认知和他人认知的简易测量方法。

IF 2.3 2区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY
Jaeyoung Kim, Isak Kim, Harim Lee
{"title":"简易创伤后适应不良信念量表(B-PMBS):提出创伤后自我认知和他人认知的简易测量方法。","authors":"Jaeyoung Kim, Isak Kim, Harim Lee","doi":"10.1037/tra0002039","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The Posttraumatic Maladaptive Beliefs Scale (PMBS) assesses negative beliefs about self, others, and the world posttrauma. Despite a strong theoretical basis, its three-subscale structure lacked empirical support for its structural validity. This study aims to evaluate the psychometric properties of the PMBS and assess its applicability across diverse populations.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>With 443 trauma-exposed participants, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), which revealed an inadequate factor structure. Subsequently, we explored an alternative structure and its applicability across demographics using multigroup CFAs to test measurement invariance.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Initial CFA revealed that the three-subscale structure of the PMBS, based on theoretical conceptualization, had an inadequate fit. Through exploratory factor analyses, an alternative eight-item, two-factor model was derived using Subsample 1 (<i>n</i> = 222). The validity of this model was further confirmed through CFA on a separate Subsample 2 (<i>n</i> = 221). The scale was renamed as the Brief version of the Posttraumatic Maladaptive Beliefs Scale (B-PMBS). The B-PMBS demonstrated sound convergent and divergent validity with variables such as the number of traumatic events, their perceived impact, event centrality, resilience, and core self-evaluation. It also showed factorial invariance across various demographic groups, including gender, race, and disability status.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These findings challenge the structural validity of the original PMBS and support the psychometric validity of the B-PMBS across diverse populations. Its reliability and brevity make the B-PMBS a valuable tool for clinicians and researchers seeking to identify and address posttraumatic cognitions in various settings. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20982,"journal":{"name":"Psychological trauma : theory, research, practice and policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Brief Posttraumatic Maladaptive Beliefs Scale (B-PMBS): Proposing a brief measure of posttraumatic cognitions about self and others.\",\"authors\":\"Jaeyoung Kim, Isak Kim, Harim Lee\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/tra0002039\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The Posttraumatic Maladaptive Beliefs Scale (PMBS) assesses negative beliefs about self, others, and the world posttrauma. Despite a strong theoretical basis, its three-subscale structure lacked empirical support for its structural validity. This study aims to evaluate the psychometric properties of the PMBS and assess its applicability across diverse populations.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>With 443 trauma-exposed participants, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), which revealed an inadequate factor structure. Subsequently, we explored an alternative structure and its applicability across demographics using multigroup CFAs to test measurement invariance.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Initial CFA revealed that the three-subscale structure of the PMBS, based on theoretical conceptualization, had an inadequate fit. Through exploratory factor analyses, an alternative eight-item, two-factor model was derived using Subsample 1 (<i>n</i> = 222). The validity of this model was further confirmed through CFA on a separate Subsample 2 (<i>n</i> = 221). The scale was renamed as the Brief version of the Posttraumatic Maladaptive Beliefs Scale (B-PMBS). The B-PMBS demonstrated sound convergent and divergent validity with variables such as the number of traumatic events, their perceived impact, event centrality, resilience, and core self-evaluation. It also showed factorial invariance across various demographic groups, including gender, race, and disability status.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These findings challenge the structural validity of the original PMBS and support the psychometric validity of the B-PMBS across diverse populations. Its reliability and brevity make the B-PMBS a valuable tool for clinicians and researchers seeking to identify and address posttraumatic cognitions in various settings. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20982,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychological trauma : theory, research, practice and policy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychological trauma : theory, research, practice and policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0002039\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological trauma : theory, research, practice and policy","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0002039","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:采用创伤后适应不良信念量表(PMBS)评估创伤后对自我、他人和世界的消极信念。虽然理论基础较强,但其三分量表结构的结构有效性缺乏实证支持。本研究旨在评估PMBS的心理测量特性,并评估其在不同人群中的适用性。方法:对443名创伤暴露者进行验证性因素分析(CFA),发现因素结构不合理。随后,我们探索了另一种结构及其在人口统计学中的适用性,使用多组CFAs来检验测量不变性。结果:初步的CFA显示,PMBS的三分量表结构基于理论概念,具有不充分的拟合性。通过探索性因子分析,我们使用Subsample 1 (n = 222)导出了一个可选的八项双因子模型。通过单独的子样本2 (n = 221)的CFA进一步证实了该模型的有效性。该量表被重新命名为创伤后适应不良信念量表(B-PMBS)的简要版本。B-PMBS在创伤性事件数量、感知影响、事件中心性、弹性和核心自我评价等变量上均表现出良好的收敛效度和发散效度。它还显示了不同人口统计群体的因素不变性,包括性别、种族和残疾状况。结论:这些发现挑战了原始PMBS的结构效度,支持了B-PMBS在不同人群中的心理测量效度。它的可靠性和简便性使B-PMBS成为临床医生和研究人员在各种情况下寻求识别和解决创伤后认知的宝贵工具。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Brief Posttraumatic Maladaptive Beliefs Scale (B-PMBS): Proposing a brief measure of posttraumatic cognitions about self and others.

Objective: The Posttraumatic Maladaptive Beliefs Scale (PMBS) assesses negative beliefs about self, others, and the world posttrauma. Despite a strong theoretical basis, its three-subscale structure lacked empirical support for its structural validity. This study aims to evaluate the psychometric properties of the PMBS and assess its applicability across diverse populations.

Method: With 443 trauma-exposed participants, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), which revealed an inadequate factor structure. Subsequently, we explored an alternative structure and its applicability across demographics using multigroup CFAs to test measurement invariance.

Results: Initial CFA revealed that the three-subscale structure of the PMBS, based on theoretical conceptualization, had an inadequate fit. Through exploratory factor analyses, an alternative eight-item, two-factor model was derived using Subsample 1 (n = 222). The validity of this model was further confirmed through CFA on a separate Subsample 2 (n = 221). The scale was renamed as the Brief version of the Posttraumatic Maladaptive Beliefs Scale (B-PMBS). The B-PMBS demonstrated sound convergent and divergent validity with variables such as the number of traumatic events, their perceived impact, event centrality, resilience, and core self-evaluation. It also showed factorial invariance across various demographic groups, including gender, race, and disability status.

Conclusions: These findings challenge the structural validity of the original PMBS and support the psychometric validity of the B-PMBS across diverse populations. Its reliability and brevity make the B-PMBS a valuable tool for clinicians and researchers seeking to identify and address posttraumatic cognitions in various settings. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
11.20
自引率
3.20%
发文量
427
期刊介绍: Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy publishes empirical research on the psychological effects of trauma. The journal is intended to be a forum for an interdisciplinary discussion on trauma, blending science, theory, practice, and policy. The journal publishes empirical research on a wide range of trauma-related topics, including: -Psychological treatments and effects -Promotion of education about effects of and treatment for trauma -Assessment and diagnosis of trauma -Pathophysiology of trauma reactions -Health services (delivery of services to trauma populations) -Epidemiological studies and risk factor studies -Neuroimaging studies -Trauma and cultural competence
×
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