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。

Abstract: 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

[1] 曹静, 吉阳, 祝卓宏(2013). 接纳与行动问卷第二版中文版测评大学生的信效度. 中国心理卫生杂志, 27(11), 873-877.

[2] 舒良(1999). 自评抑郁量表和抑郁状态问卷. 中国心理卫生杂志, 增刊, 194-195.

[3] 吴文源(1999). 焦虑自评量表. 中国心理卫生杂志, 增刊, 235-238.

[4] 张婍, 王淑娟, 祝卓宏(2012). 接纳与承诺疗法的心理病理模型和治疗模式. 中国心理卫生杂志, 26(5), 377-381.

[5] 张维晨, 吉阳, 李新, 郭慧娜, 祝卓宏(2014). 认知融合问卷中文版的信效度分析. 中国心理卫生杂志, 28(1), 40-44.

[6] Bond, F. W., Hayes, S. C., Baer, R. A., Carpenter, K. M., Guenole, N., Orcutt, H. K., et al. (2011). Preliminary Psychometric Properties of the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire-ii: A Revised Measure of Psychological Inflexibility and Experiential Avoidance. Behavior Therapy, 42, 676-688. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2011.03.007

[7] Hayes, S. C. (1989) Rule-Governed Behavior: Cognition, Contingencies, and Instructional Control. New York: Plenum Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-0447-1

[8] Hayes, S. C., & Lillis, J. (2012). Acceptance and Commitment Therapy. Washington DC: Magination Press.

[9] Hayes, S. C., & Wilson, K. G. (1996). Experiential Avoidance and Behavioral Disorders: A Functional Dimensional Approach to Diagnosis and Treatment. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 64, 1152-1168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.64.6.1152

[10] Hayes, S. C., Luoma, J. B., Bond, F. W., Masuda, A., & Lillis, J. (2005). Acceptance and Commitment Therapy: Model, Processes and Outcomes. Behaviour Research & Therapy, 44, 1-25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2005.06.006

[11] Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K. D., & Wilson, K. G. (2012). Acceptance and Commitment Therapy: An Experiential Approach to Behavior Change. New York: The Guilford Press.

[12] Karekla, M., & Panayiotou, G. (2011). Coping and Experiential Avoidance: Unique or Overlapping Constructs? Journal of Behavior Therapy & Experimental Psychiatry, 42, 163-170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2010.10.002

[13] Kashdan, T. B., & Rottenberg, J. (2010). Psychological Flexibility as a Fundamental Aspect of Health. Clinical Psychology Review, 30, 865-878. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2010.03.001

[14] Martine, F., Voshaar, M. A. H. O., Klooster, P. M. T., & Bohlmeijer, E. T. (2012). Further Evaluation of the Psychometric Properties of the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire-ii. Psychological As-sessment, 24, 925-936. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0028200

[15] Mccracken, L. M., & Jane, Z. (2010). General Psychological Acceptance and Chronic Pain: There Is More to Accept than the Pain Itself. European Journal of Pain, 14, 170-175. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpain.2009.03.004

分享
Top