心理学进展

Vol.5 No.11 (November 2015)

中文接纳与行动问卷第二版(AAQ-II)与认知融合问卷(CFQ)在回族和哈萨克族青少年中的信效度检验
Reliability and Validity in the Chinese Version of the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire-2nd Edition (AAQ-II) and the Chinese Version of Cognitive Fusion Questionnaire (CFQ) in Hui and Kazak Adolescents

 

作者:

王小龙 , 汤永隆 :西南大学心理学部,重庆

曹 静 , 祝卓宏 :中国科学院心理研究所心理健康重点实验室,北京

安 静 :新疆昌吉州昌吉学院,新疆 昌吉

丁万兵 , 索玉兰 , 苏 华 :新疆昌吉州回民中学,新疆 昌吉

李 燕 :新疆伊犁州伊宁市青少年活动中心,新疆 伊宁

 

关键词:

经验性回避认知融合哈萨克族回族接纳与承诺疗法信度效度Experiential Avoidance Cognitive Fusion Kazakh Hui Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Reliability Validity

 

摘要:

目的:检验中文版接纳与行动问卷第二版(AAQ-II)与认知融合问卷(CFQ)中文版在哈萨克族(以下简称“哈族”)高中生群体和回族大学生群体中的信效度,为研究经验性回避以及认知融合提供可靠有效的测量工具。方法:采用方便抽样选取哈族高中生群体和回族大学生群体两个样本共482位被试(n1 = 248, n2 = 234)施测AAQ-II、CFQ,并进行项目分析、内部一致性检验和验证性因素分析,同时施测自评抑郁量表(SDS)、自评焦虑量表(SAS)以检验校标关联效度。结果:AAQ-II量表在两个样本中的 Cronbach α系数分别为0.845、0.860;CFQ量表在两个样本中的Cronbach α系数分别为0.892、0.902;验证性因素分析显示两个量表的单因素模型拟合良好。校标效度检验显示,AAQ-II得分与SDS得分呈显著正相关(r1 = 0.424, r2 = 0.409, P < 0.01),与SAS得分呈显著正相关(r1 = 0.436, r2 = 0.474, P < 0.01);CFQ得分与SDS得分呈显著正相关(r1 = 0.459, r2 = 0.334, P < 0.01) ,与SAS得分呈显著正相关(r1 = 0.393, r2 = 0.442, P < 0.01)。结论:AAQ-II、CFQ中文版在哈族高中生群体和回族大学生群体中具有较好的信效度,可在我国用于相关研究。

Objective: To examine the reliability and validity of the Chinese version of Acceptance and Action Questionnaire-2nd Edition (AAQ-II) and the Cognitive Fusion Questionnaire (CFQ) and to offer a measurement tool in studies of experiential avoidance and cognitive fusion. Methods: By conven-ience sampling method, two samples of Kazakh high school students (n1 = 248) and Hui college students (n2 = 234) were selected and assessed with the AAQ-II and CFQ for item analysis, internal consistency analysis and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The Self-rating Depression Scale (SDS) and Self-rating Anxiety Scale (SAS) were administered to test the criterion-related validity. Results: The confirmatory factor analysis verified the one-factor model of AAQ-II and CFQ. The Cronbach’s α coefficient of the two scales for the two samples was 0.845 and 0.860 (AAQ-II), 0.892 and 0.902 (CFQ), respectively. Concurrent validity results showed that AAQ-II was positively correlated with total scores of SDS (r1 = 0.424, r2 = 0.409, P < 0.01) and SAS (r1 = 0.436, r2 = 0.474, P < 0.01); CFQ was also positively correlated with total scores of SDS (r1 = 0.459, r2 = 0.334, P < 0.01) and SAS (r1 = 0.393, r2 = 0.442, P < 0.01). Conclusion: It suggests that the Chinese version of AAQ-II and CFQ are reliable and valid assessment for experiential avoidance and cognitive fusion in minority groups.

文章引用:

王小龙 , 曹 静 , 安 静 , 丁万兵 , 索玉兰 , 苏 华 , 李 燕 , 祝卓宏 , 汤永隆 (2015) 中文接纳与行动问卷第二版(AAQ-II)与认知融合问卷(CFQ)在回族和哈萨克族青少年中的信效度检验。 心理学进展, 5, 695-701. doi: 10.12677/AP.2015.511090

 

参考文献

分享
Top