Construct and Concurrent Validity of two Scales Designed to Measure Reinforcement Sensitivity

IF 0.5 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Revista Argentina de Ciencias del Comportamiento Pub Date : 2023-04-29 DOI:10.32348/1852.4206.v15.n1.30901
Marco A. Pulido, Tania Aristegui, Andrea Gutiérrez, Victoria Mariñelarena, Fernanda Parra, Mariana Pascual
{"title":"Construct and Concurrent Validity of two Scales Designed to Measure Reinforcement Sensitivity","authors":"Marco A. Pulido, Tania Aristegui, Andrea Gutiérrez, Victoria Mariñelarena, Fernanda Parra, Mariana Pascual","doi":"10.32348/1852.4206.v15.n1.30901","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Two studies assessed construct and concurrent validity of two scales designed to measure reinforcement sensitivity. Two non-probabilistic samples of college students from Mexico City were used. The first study showed that while the BIS/BAS scales may possess construct validity, they lack in concurrent one; conversely, the SPSRQ did not show construct validity but showed evidence of concurrent one. Convergent validity was assessed using self-report questionnaires. The second study showed that the BAS scales may predict response distribution, in the IOWA-GT, in a way that is consistent with Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (RST); this was not the case with the BIS scale. The results suggest that either the scales developed to assess RST, or the theory itself (or both) require a thorough revision.  ","PeriodicalId":53986,"journal":{"name":"Revista Argentina de Ciencias del Comportamiento","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista Argentina de Ciencias del Comportamiento","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.32348/1852.4206.v15.n1.30901","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Two studies assessed construct and concurrent validity of two scales designed to measure reinforcement sensitivity. Two non-probabilistic samples of college students from Mexico City were used. The first study showed that while the BIS/BAS scales may possess construct validity, they lack in concurrent one; conversely, the SPSRQ did not show construct validity but showed evidence of concurrent one. Convergent validity was assessed using self-report questionnaires. The second study showed that the BAS scales may predict response distribution, in the IOWA-GT, in a way that is consistent with Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (RST); this was not the case with the BIS scale. The results suggest that either the scales developed to assess RST, or the theory itself (or both) require a thorough revision.  
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
两种测量强化敏感度的量表之建构及同时效度
两项研究评估了两种测量强化敏感性的量表的结构和同时有效性。使用了两个来自墨西哥城的大学生的非概率样本。第一项研究表明,BIS/BAS量表可能具有结构有效性,但缺乏同时有效性;相反,SPSRQ没有显示出结构有效性,但显示出同时存在结构有效性的证据。使用自我报告问卷评估聚合有效性。第二项研究表明,BAS量表可以预测IOWA-GT中的反应分布,其方式与强化敏感性理论(RST)一致;BIS量表的情况并非如此。结果表明,无论是为评估RST而开发的量表,还是理论本身(或两者)都需要彻底修订。
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
Revista Argentina de Ciencias del Comportamiento
Revista Argentina de Ciencias del Comportamiento PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
32 weeks
期刊最新文献
Apoyo Social en Mujeres Inmigrantes de Valparaíso, Chile El uso problemático del smartphone y la autoestima: un meta-análisis Funcionamiento familiar, regulación emocional y estrés durante el confinamiento por COVID-19 en adolescentes mexicanos Las relaciones entre Habilidades narrativas y Funciones Ejecutivas en la infancia. Una revisión sistemática. Pósters 13-22
×
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