中国临床心理学杂志

内隐积极-消极情感测验在中学生群体中的信效度检验

作者：韦嘉张进辅毛秀珍

单位：1. 四川师范大学教育科学学院成都 610068 2. 西南大学心理学部重庆 400715

分类号：R395.1

出版年,卷(期):页码：2018,26(2):254-258

摘要：

目的：对中文版内隐积极-消极情感测验（IPANAT）在中学生群体中进行信效度检验。方法：通过5次抽样，初测调查20人对IPANAT进行条目可理解性检验；再测调查474人对IPANAT进行项目分析、探索性因素分析形成正式调查测验；正式调查共两组，426人进行验证性因素分析，同时完成儿童版积极-消极情感量表、相同形容词检核表进行聚合效度和区分效度检验；418人同时完成中文简版儿童焦虑和抑郁量表检验效标关联效度。另抽取49人进行2周重测信度检验。结果：中文版IPANAT的内隐积极情感测验和内隐消极情感测验的α系数分别在0.88-0.94和0.78-0.83之间，两周重测组内相关系数为0.84和0.86，两因子模型各主要拟合指标为χ²/df=2.36，CFI=0.98，TLI=0.97，SRMR=0.04，RMSEA=0.06。内隐积极情感测验与儿童版积极-消极情感量表测得的积极情感消极情感，相同形容词检核表测得的积极情感和消极情感的相关分别为0.51、-0.14、0.28和-0.22，与中文简版儿童焦虑和抑郁量表测得的焦虑和抑郁的相关为-0.16和-0.21；内隐消极情感测验与儿童版积极-消极情感量表测得的积极情感、消极情感，相同形容词检核表测得的积极情感消极情感的相关分别为0.01、0.33、-0.10和0.32，与中文简版儿童焦虑和抑郁量表测得的焦虑和抑郁的相关为0.29和0.30（若r≥0.14均P<0.01）。结论：中文版IPANAT具有较好的信效度，是测量中学生内隐积极-消极情感的适宜工具。

Objective:To introduce Chinese version of the Implicit Positive and Negative Affect Test(IPANAT), and ex-amine its reliability and validity in Chinese middle school students. Methods:Based on the Chinese Version of IPANAT, the researchers investigated 474 students for exploratory factor analysis(EFA). Succeeding, 426 students were asked to com-plete a battery of structured questionnaires, including the Chinese version of IPANAT for confirmatory factor analysis(CFA), Positive and Negative Affect Scale for Children(PANAS-C), Same Adjective Inventory(SAI) to test convergent and divergent validity. Meanwhile, another 418 students completed IPANAT and Revised Child Anxiety and Depression Scale-Short Ver-sion(RCADS) to test criterion validity. 49 students were re-tested two-weeks later for measuring test-retest reliability. Result:The result of CFA showed that the structure of the IPANAT was reasonable:χ²/df=2.36, CFI=0.98, TLI=0.97, SRMR=0.04, RMSEA=0.06. The α coefficients of the IPAT and INAT were 0.88-0.94 and 0.78-0.83. The test-retest reliabilities (2 weeks interval) were 0.84 and 0.86(ICC). For the score of IPAT, the correlation coefficients were 0.51 to the PANAS-Cpositive affect, -0.14 to the PANAS-C-negative affect, 0.28 to the SAI-positive affect and -0.22 to the SAI-negative af-fect; -0.16 to the RCADS-Anxiety and -0.21 to the RCADS-Depression; For the score of INAT, the correlation coefficients were 0.01 to the PANAS-C-positive affect, 0.33 to the PANAS-C-negative affect, -0.10 to the SAI-positive affect and 0.32 to the SAI-negative affect; 0.29 to the RCADS-Anxiety and 0.30 to the RCADS-Depression(if r≥0.14, Ps<0.01). Conclusion:Chines eversion of IPANAT is a reliable and valid instrument for assessing implicit positive and negative affect for Chinese middle school students.

基金项目：

本研究得到国家自然科学青年基金项目（31400897）和教育部人文社科青年基金项目（17JYC880104）的资助

作者简介：

参考文献：

1 潘婷婷, 丁雪辰, 桑标, 刘影, 谢诗韵, 冯星熠. 正负性情感量表儿童版(PANAS-C)的信效度初探. 中国临床心理学杂志, 2015, 23(3):397-400
2 QuirinM, KazénM, KuhlJ. When nonsense sounds happy or helpless:The Implicit Positive and Negative Affect Test (IPANAT). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2009, 97:500-516
3 廖军和, 欧阳儒阳, 左春荣, 李相南,苏永强.贫困大学生感戴与主观幸福感的关系:链式中介效应分析. 中国临床心理学杂志, 2015, 23(5):722-724
4 Clark LA, Watson D. Tripartite Model of Anxiety and Depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1991, 100:316-336
5 Anderson ER, Hope DA. A review of the tripartite model for understanding the link between anxiety and depression in youth. Clinical Psychology Review, 2008, 28:275-287
6 魏欢, 陈维, 韦嘉, 张进辅. 儿童版积极-消极情感量表 (PANAS-C)在中学生群体中的信效度检验. 中国临床心理学杂志, 2017, 25:105-110
7 Quirin M, Wróbel M, Norcini PA, et al. A Cross-Cultural Validation of the Implicit Positive and Negative Affect Test (IPANAT). European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 2016. 1-12
8 Quirin M, Bode RC. An Alternative to Self-Reports of Trait and State Affect. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 2014, 30:231-237
9 Gendolla GH. Implicit affect primes effort:a theory and research on cardiovascular response. International journal of psychophysiology:official journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology, 2012, 86:123-135
10 杨治良, 刘素珍, 赵华, 吴梦麟. 内隐情感记忆实验研究 Ⅰ:精神分裂症情感记忆特征. 中国临床心理学杂志, 1996, 4(3):193-196
11 陈璟, 姜金栋, 汪为, 李红. 决策中情绪作用机制的理论研究述评.心理科学, 2014, 37:1346-1353
12 Ebesutani C, Ale C, Young J, et al. Factor The Revised Child Anxiety and Depression Scale-Short Version:Scale Reduction via Exploratory Bifactor Modeling of the Broad Anxiety. Psychological Assessment, 2012, 24:833-845
13 Chorpita BF, Spence SH. Revised Children's Anxiety and Depression Scale(Chinese). Retrieved August 5, 2016, from http://www.childfirst.ucla.edu/Resources.html
14 Dia DA, Harrington D, Silverman WK. An examination of the tripartite model of anxiety and depression in an outpatient sample of adolescents. Journal of Evidence-based Social Work, 2010, 7:302-312
15 邱皓政. 量化研究法(三):测验原理与量表发展技术. 台北:双叶书廊, 2012
16 Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Podsakoff NP. Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual review of psychology, 2012, 63:539-569

服务与反馈：

【文章下载】【加入收藏】