Re-assessing the assessment of fears of positive and negative evaluation: Scale development and psychometric evaluation of the Bivalent Fear of Evaluation Scale (BFOES)

IF 4.8 2区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY Journal of Anxiety Disorders Pub Date : 2024-07-01 DOI:10.1016/j.janxdis.2024.102879
Justin W. Weeks , Miranda Beltzer , Karen M. Schmidt , Thomas M. Olino , Philippe R. Goldin , James J. Gross , Richard G. Heimberg , Peggy M. Zoccola
{"title":"Re-assessing the assessment of fears of positive and negative evaluation: Scale development and psychometric evaluation of the Bivalent Fear of Evaluation Scale (BFOES)","authors":"Justin W. Weeks ,&nbsp;Miranda Beltzer ,&nbsp;Karen M. Schmidt ,&nbsp;Thomas M. Olino ,&nbsp;Philippe R. Goldin ,&nbsp;James J. Gross ,&nbsp;Richard G. Heimberg ,&nbsp;Peggy M. Zoccola","doi":"10.1016/j.janxdis.2024.102879","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The <em>bivalent fear of evaluation</em> (BFOE) model of social anxiety divides fear of evaluation into two distinct valences: fear of positive evaluation (FPE) and fear of negative evaluation (FNE). However, there is evidence that the two most widely utilized and psychometrically supported measures of FNE and FPE contain items which are ambiguous with regard to valence of evaluative fear. To formally address this, the BFOE Scale (BFOES) was developed, by merging items from measures of FNE and FPE into a single scale with an integrated response format. The present studies examined the psychometric profile of the BFOES across a large pooled archival dataset (<em>N</em> = 2216), which included approximately 10 % (<em>n</em> = 224) patients with social anxiety disorder (SAD). The factorial validity, internal consistency, and construct validity of the BFOES were examined. Additionally, item response theory analyses were employed for the purpose of merging items from self-report scales which utilized different Likert-type response formats. Results from both studies provided support for the psychometric profile of the BFOES. The implications of the BFOES for the assessment of social anxiety, and theoretical models of fear of evaluation and SAD, are discussed.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48390,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Anxiety Disorders","volume":"105 ","pages":"Article 102879"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Anxiety Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0887618524000550","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The bivalent fear of evaluation (BFOE) model of social anxiety divides fear of evaluation into two distinct valences: fear of positive evaluation (FPE) and fear of negative evaluation (FNE). However, there is evidence that the two most widely utilized and psychometrically supported measures of FNE and FPE contain items which are ambiguous with regard to valence of evaluative fear. To formally address this, the BFOE Scale (BFOES) was developed, by merging items from measures of FNE and FPE into a single scale with an integrated response format. The present studies examined the psychometric profile of the BFOES across a large pooled archival dataset (N = 2216), which included approximately 10 % (n = 224) patients with social anxiety disorder (SAD). The factorial validity, internal consistency, and construct validity of the BFOES were examined. Additionally, item response theory analyses were employed for the purpose of merging items from self-report scales which utilized different Likert-type response formats. Results from both studies provided support for the psychometric profile of the BFOES. The implications of the BFOES for the assessment of social anxiety, and theoretical models of fear of evaluation and SAD, are discussed.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
重新评估对正面和负面评价的恐惧:二元评价恐惧量表(BFOES)的量表开发和心理测量学评估
社交焦虑的二价评价恐惧(BFOE)模型将评价恐惧分为两种不同的情绪:积极评价恐惧(FPE)和消极评价恐惧(FNE)。然而,有证据表明,FNE 和 FPE 这两种使用最广泛、最受心理测量学支持的测量方法所包含的项目在评价恐惧的价态方面是模糊不清的。为了正式解决这一问题,我们将 FNE 和 FPE 量表中的项目合并为一个量表,并采用综合反应格式,编制了 BFOE 量表(BFOES)。本研究在一个大型档案数据集(N = 2216)中检验了 BFOES 的心理测量学特征,其中包括约 10% 的社交焦虑症(SAD)患者(n = 224)。我们对 BFOES 的因子效度、内部一致性和构建效度进行了检验。此外,研究人员还采用了项目反应理论分析方法,以合并采用不同李克特型反应格式的自我报告量表中的项目。这两项研究的结果为 BFOES 的心理测量学特征提供了支持。本文讨论了 BFOES 对社交焦虑评估的影响,以及害怕评价和 SAD 的理论模型。
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 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
16.60
自引率
2.90%
发文量
95
期刊介绍: The Journal of Anxiety Disorders is an interdisciplinary journal that publishes research papers on all aspects of anxiety disorders for individuals of all age groups, including children, adolescents, adults, and the elderly. Manuscripts that focus on disorders previously classified as anxiety disorders such as obsessive-compulsive disorder and posttraumatic stress disorder, as well as the new category of illness anxiety disorder, are also within the scope of the journal. The research areas of focus include traditional, behavioral, cognitive, and biological assessment; diagnosis and classification; psychosocial and psychopharmacological treatment; genetics; epidemiology; and prevention. The journal welcomes theoretical and review articles that significantly contribute to current knowledge in the field. It is abstracted and indexed in various databases such as Elsevier, BIOBASE, PubMed/Medline, PsycINFO, BIOSIS Citation Index, BRS Data, Current Contents - Social & Behavioral Sciences, Pascal Francis, Scopus, and Google Scholar.
期刊最新文献
Corrigendum to “Metacognitive therapy versus exposure and response prevention for obsessive-compulsive disorder – a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial” Journal of Anxiety Disorders (2024), Volume 104, June 2024, 102873 Excessive avoidance bias towards uncertain faces in non-clinical social anxiety individuals Interplay of serum BDNF levels and childhood adversity in predicting earlier-onset post-traumatic stress disorder: A two-year longitudinal study Negative emotion differentiation buffers against intergenerational risk for social anxiety in at-risk adolescent girls Intensive treatments for children and adolescents with anxiety or obsessive-compulsive disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1