Cross-cultural validation of the BFOE model: Best practices and future directions for psychometric evaluation of the Fear of positive evaluation scale – Insights from a Dutch translation

IF 4.8 2区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY Journal of Anxiety Disorders Pub Date : 2024-09-18 DOI:10.1016/j.janxdis.2024.102929
Wolf-Gero Lange , Ashley N. Howell , Justin W. Weeks
{"title":"Cross-cultural validation of the BFOE model: Best practices and future directions for psychometric evaluation of the Fear of positive evaluation scale – Insights from a Dutch translation","authors":"Wolf-Gero Lange ,&nbsp;Ashley N. Howell ,&nbsp;Justin W. Weeks","doi":"10.1016/j.janxdis.2024.102929","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The Bivalent Fear of Evaluation (BFOE) model suggests that Social Anxiety Disorder is not only characterized by fear of negative evaluation (FNE), but also fear of positive evaluation (FPE). While FNE has been firmly established, research of the latter is accumulating. To evaluate the role of the BFOE Model, and particularly FPE, validated measures such as the Fear of Positive Evaluation Scale (FPES) are pivotal. Yet, validation of psychometric properties is often at stake or neglected when translating a scale to other languages. This hampers cross-cultural evaluation of questionnaires and related concepts considerably, including the BFOE Model. To illustrate, a freely available, but not validated Dutch version of the FPES was completed, along with other measures by 354 community participants from the Netherlands and Belgium in an online study. The Dutch FPES showed excellent convergent and discriminant validity. In addition, it explained additional variance in social anxiety above and beyond FNE. These results as well as those from the factor analyses were highly comparable with those deriving from evaluations of the original English version. In conclusion, the Dutch FPES showed excellent psychometric properties and is fit for further exploring consistency or differences in the BFOE model across cultures. Based on this case, practice guidelines for international use and validation of measures are discussed, and recommendations are provided.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48390,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Anxiety Disorders","volume":"107 ","pages":"Article 102929"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-18","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/S0887618524001051","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 suggests that Social Anxiety Disorder is not only characterized by fear of negative evaluation (FNE), but also fear of positive evaluation (FPE). While FNE has been firmly established, research of the latter is accumulating. To evaluate the role of the BFOE Model, and particularly FPE, validated measures such as the Fear of Positive Evaluation Scale (FPES) are pivotal. Yet, validation of psychometric properties is often at stake or neglected when translating a scale to other languages. This hampers cross-cultural evaluation of questionnaires and related concepts considerably, including the BFOE Model. To illustrate, a freely available, but not validated Dutch version of the FPES was completed, along with other measures by 354 community participants from the Netherlands and Belgium in an online study. The Dutch FPES showed excellent convergent and discriminant validity. In addition, it explained additional variance in social anxiety above and beyond FNE. These results as well as those from the factor analyses were highly comparable with those deriving from evaluations of the original English version. In conclusion, the Dutch FPES showed excellent psychometric properties and is fit for further exploring consistency or differences in the BFOE model across cultures. Based on this case, practice guidelines for international use and validation of measures are discussed, and recommendations are provided.
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
BFOE 模型的跨文化验证:恐惧积极评价量表心理测量评估的最佳实践和未来方向--荷兰语翻译的启示
二元评价恐惧(BFOE)模型表明,社交焦虑症不仅表现为害怕负面评价(FNE),还表现为害怕正面评价(FPE)。虽然 FNE 已被牢固确立,但有关后者的研究却在不断积累。要评估 BFOE 模型的作用,尤其是 FPE 的作用,诸如 "害怕积极评价量表"(FPES)等经过验证的测量方法至关重要。然而,在将量表翻译成其他语言时,心理测量特性的验证往往受到威胁或被忽视。这极大地阻碍了对问卷和相关概念(包括 BFOE 模型)的跨文化评估。为了说明这一点,在一项在线研究中,来自荷兰和比利时的 354 名社区参与者完成了免费提供但未经验证的荷兰语版 FPES 以及其他测量方法。荷兰语 FPES 显示出极佳的收敛性和区分性。此外,它还能解释 FNE 以外的社交焦虑差异。这些结果以及因子分析结果与原始英语版本的评估结果具有很高的可比性。总之,荷兰语 FPES 显示了出色的心理测量特性,适合进一步探索不同文化背景下 BFOE 模型的一致性或差异性。在此案例的基础上,讨论了国际使用和验证测量方法的实践指南,并提出了相关建议。
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