Positive Beliefs about Post-Event Processing in Social Anxiety Disorder

IF 1.5 4区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Behaviour Change Pub Date : 2021-12-01 DOI:10.1017/bec.2021.25
Ariella P. Lenton-Brym, Olivia Provost-Walker, Virginia Tsekova, R. McCabe, K. Rowa
{"title":"Positive Beliefs about Post-Event Processing in Social Anxiety Disorder","authors":"Ariella P. Lenton-Brym, Olivia Provost-Walker, Virginia Tsekova, R. McCabe, K. Rowa","doi":"10.1017/bec.2021.25","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Background: Post-event processing (PEP) is an important maintenance factor of social anxiety disorder (SAD). This study examined psychometric properties of the Positive Beliefs about Post-Event Processing Questionnaire (PB-PEPQ; Fisak & Hammond, 2013), which measures metacognitive beliefs about PEP. Method: Participants receiving treatment for SAD (n = 71) and other anxiety and related disorders (n = 266) completed self-report questionnaires at several timepoints. Results: Confirmatory factor analysis did not support the PB-PEPQ's proposed unidimensional model. Subsequent exploratory factor analysis yielded a three-factor structure consisting of engaging in PEP to (1) review negative events (Negative scale), (2) review positive events (Positive scale), and (3) better understand one's social anxiety (Understand scale). Within the SAD subsample, PB-PEPQ scales demonstrated good internal consistency (α = 0.83–0.85) and test–retest reliability (r = 0.65–0.78). Convergent and criterion validity of the PB-PEPQ Negative scale were supported. PB-PEPQ scale scores were significantly higher within the SAD group, as compared with the other groups (generalised anxiety disorder, panic disorder and agoraphobia, posttraumatic stress disorder, and obsessive-compulsive disorder), supporting the scales’ discriminative validity. Conclusion: Findings support the reliability and validity of the PB-PEPQ in a clinical sample and reveal the measure's multifactorial structure.","PeriodicalId":46485,"journal":{"name":"Behaviour Change","volume":"39 1","pages":"247 - 262"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Behaviour Change","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bec.2021.25","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Background: Post-event processing (PEP) is an important maintenance factor of social anxiety disorder (SAD). This study examined psychometric properties of the Positive Beliefs about Post-Event Processing Questionnaire (PB-PEPQ; Fisak & Hammond, 2013), which measures metacognitive beliefs about PEP. Method: Participants receiving treatment for SAD (n = 71) and other anxiety and related disorders (n = 266) completed self-report questionnaires at several timepoints. Results: Confirmatory factor analysis did not support the PB-PEPQ's proposed unidimensional model. Subsequent exploratory factor analysis yielded a three-factor structure consisting of engaging in PEP to (1) review negative events (Negative scale), (2) review positive events (Positive scale), and (3) better understand one's social anxiety (Understand scale). Within the SAD subsample, PB-PEPQ scales demonstrated good internal consistency (α = 0.83–0.85) and test–retest reliability (r = 0.65–0.78). Convergent and criterion validity of the PB-PEPQ Negative scale were supported. PB-PEPQ scale scores were significantly higher within the SAD group, as compared with the other groups (generalised anxiety disorder, panic disorder and agoraphobia, posttraumatic stress disorder, and obsessive-compulsive disorder), supporting the scales’ discriminative validity. Conclusion: Findings support the reliability and validity of the PB-PEPQ in a clinical sample and reveal the measure's multifactorial structure.
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
社交焦虑障碍事件后加工的积极信念
摘要背景:事件后处理(PEP)是社交焦虑症(SAD)的重要维持因素。本研究检验了事件后处理积极信念问卷(PB-PEPQ;Fisak&Hammond,2013)的心理测量特性,该问卷测量了关于政治公众人物的元认知信念。方法:接受SAD(n=71)和其他焦虑及相关疾病治疗的参与者(n=266)在几个时间点完成了自我报告问卷。结果:证实性因子分析不支持PB-PEPQ提出的一维模型。随后的探索性因素分析产生了一个三因素结构,包括参与政治公众人物(1)回顾负面事件(负面量表),(2)回顾正面事件(正面量表)和(3)更好地理解自己的社交焦虑(理解量表)。在SAD子样本中,PB-PEPQ量表表现出良好的内部一致性(α=0.83-0.85)和测试-再测试可靠性(r=0.65-0.78)。PB-PEPQ-阴性量表的收敛性和标准有效性得到支持。与其他组(广泛性焦虑症、恐慌症和广场恐惧症、创伤后应激障碍和强迫症)相比,SAD组的PB-PEPQ量表得分显著较高,支持量表的判别有效性。结论:研究结果支持PB-PEPQ在临床样本中的可靠性和有效性,并揭示了该测量的多因素结构。
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
Behaviour Change
Behaviour Change PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: Behaviour Change is the journal of the Australian Association for Cognitive and Behavioural Therapy and has long been considered a leader in its field. It is a quarterly journal that publishes research involving the application of behavioural and cognitive-behavioural principles and techniques to the assessment and treatment of various problems. Features of Behaviour Change include: original empirical studies using either single subject or group comparison methodologies review articles case studies brief technical and clinical notes book reviews special issues dealing with particular topics in depth.
期刊最新文献
A Tribute to the Behaviour Change Journal, 1984-2023 Online Self-Help Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Module for College Students with Higher Gaming Disorder During COVID-19: A Pilot Study The Impact of Cognitive Restructuring on Post-Event Rumination and Its Situational Effect on Socially Anxious Adolescents The Social Determinants of Loneliness During COVID-19: Personal, Community, and Societal Predictors and Implications for Treatment – CORRIGENDUM The Social Determinants of Loneliness During COVID-19: Personal, Community, and Societal Predictors and Implications for Treatment
×
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