Reliability and validity test of Chinese version of the Sensitivity to Punishment and Sensitivity to Reward Questionnaire for Adolescence

doi:10.11852/zgetbjzz2023-0163

Abstract

Abstract: Objective To revise the Sensitivity to Punishment and Sensitivity to Reward Questionnaire (SPSRQ), and to evaluate its validity and reliability in Chinese adolescents. Methods Standard forward-backward translation procedure, cross-cultural adaptation and pilot test were used in the translation of the SPSRQ.From Jan.17th to Sept.30th in 2022,totally 1 350 adolescents were tested by random sampling and grade stratified sampling. The data were classified into two groups, data of one group were used to conduct exploratory factor analysis and item analysis, and data of the other group were used to conduct confirmatory factor analysis, criterion validity test and reliability test. Results The Chinese version of SPSRQ-A contained two dimensions of reward sensitivity and punishment sensitivity, with 16 items in reward sensitivity and 21 items in punishment sensitivity, whose cumulative contribution of variance accounted for 54.321% of total variance. Confirmatory factor analysis showed that the fitting indexes met the statistical standard (χ²/df=3.156, RMSEA=0.059, SRMR=0.0617, CFI=0.906, NNFI=0.900). Item-content validity index(I-CVI) was 0.800 - 1.000, and scale-content validity index/average(S-CVI/Ave) was 0.970. There was significant correlation between the scores of two dimensions and the scores of two criterion scales (r=-0.453 - 0.604, P<0.001). The Cronbach's α coefficient of the scale and each dimension ranged from 0.883 to 0.953, the split-half reliability coefficient of the scale was 0.887. Conclusion The Chinese version of SPSRQ-A shows good reliability and validity, which can be used as an effective tool to evaluate the reinforcement sensitivity of Chinese adolescents.

Key words: the Sensitivity to Punishment and Sensitivity to Reward Questionnaire, Chinese adolescent, reliability, validity

摘要： 目的对奖惩敏感性问卷(SPSRQ)进行汉化修订,并检验其在青少年中的信效度,以期为评估青少年奖惩敏感性提供可靠工具。方法对SPSRQ进行翻译、回译、跨文化调试,形成青少年SPSRQ中文版(SPSRQ-A);2022年1月17日—9月30日采用随机抽样法和年级分层抽样法对1 350名青少年施测,将总样本随机平均分成两组,采用一组数据进行项目分析和探索性因子分析,另一组数据进行验证性因子分析、效标效度和信度检验。结果 SPSRQ-A中文版包含奖励敏感性(16个条目)和惩罚敏感性(21个条目)2个维度,累计方差贡献率为54.321%。验证性因子模型主要拟合指标符合测量学要求(χ²/df=3.156,RMSEA=0.059,SRMR=0.062,CFI=0.906,NNFI=0.900);条目内容效度指数(I-CVI)均为0.800~1.000,平均量表内容效度指数(S-CVI/Ave)为0.970;SPSRQ-A中文版2个维度得分与2个效标量表得分显著相关(r=-0.453~0.604,P＜0.001)。信度检验:总量表和敏感性、惩罚敏感性维度Cronbach's α系数为0.883~0.953,折半信度为0.887。结论 SPSRQ-A中文版信效度良好,可作为评价我国青少年强化敏感性的有效工具。

关键词: 奖惩敏感性问卷, 中国青少年, 信度, 效度

CLC Number:

R179

LI Zhanquan, ZHU Lin, CHEN Zekai. Reliability and validity test of Chinese version of the Sensitivity to Punishment and Sensitivity to Reward Questionnaire for Adolescence[J]. Chinese Journal of Child Health Care, 2023, 31(9): 980-985.

李展权, 朱琳, 陈泽恺. 奖惩敏感性问卷的汉化及其在青少年中的信效度检验[J]. 中国儿童保健杂志, 2023, 31(9): 980-985.

References

[1] Krupic D, Corr PJ. How reinforcement sensitivity theory relates to self-determination theory[J]. Pers Individ Differ, 2020, 155:1-5.
[2] 郭少聃,何金莲,张利燕.强化敏感性人格理论述评[J].心理科学进展, 2009,17(2): 390-395.
Guo SR, He JL, Zhang YL. Reinforcement sensitivity theory of personality: A commentary[J]. Adv Psychol Sci, 2009,17(2): 390-395.(in Chinese)
[3] Adrian-Ventura J, Costumero V, Parcet MA, et al. Linking personality and brain anatomy:A structural MRI approach to reinforcement sensitivity theory[J]. Soc Cogn Affect Neur, 2019, 14(3):329-338.
[4] 谷莉,杨若汐,周广东.强化敏感性人格特质对两性亲密关系的影响:成人依恋类型的中介作用[J]. 心理与行为研究,2018,16(4): 534-540.
Gu L, Yang RX, Zhou GD. The effect of reinforcement sensitivity of a personality on intimate relationships:The mediation effect of adult attachment[J]. Stud Physiol Behav, 2018,16(4): 534-540.(in Chinese)
[5] 程浩,张亚利,姚雪,等.自恋与行为抑制/激活系统的关系:元分析[J].心理科学进展,2021,29(10): 1796-1807.
Cheng H, Zhang YL, Yao X, et al. The relationship between narcissism and BIS/BAS: A meta-analysis[J]. Adv Psychol Sci, 2021,29(10): 1796-1807.(in Chinese)
[6] Van Beveren ML, De Clercq B, Braet C. Just the way you are. Understanding emotion regulation strategiesin youth from temperamental differences[J]. J Res Pers, 2020, 88:1-11.
[7] Rádosi A, Pászthy B, Welker T, et al. The association between reinforcement sensitivity and substance use is mediated by individual differences in dispositional affectivity in adolescents[J]. Addict Behav, 2021, 114:106719.
[8] Sutton CA, L'insalata AM, Fazzino TL. Reward sensitivity, eating behavior, and obesity-related outcomes: A systematic review[J]. Physiol Behav, 2022, 252(11):3843.
[9] Torrubia R, Avila C, Molto J, et al. The Sensitivity to Punishment and Sensitivity to Reward Questionnaire (SPSRQ) as a measure of Gray's anxiety and impulsivity dimensions[J]. Pers Individ Differ, 2001, 31(6):837-862.
[10] Vargas T, Maloney J, Gupta T, et al. Measuring facets of reward sensitivity, inhibition, and impulse control in individuals with problematic Internet use[J]. Psychiatry Res, 2019, 275:351-358.
[11] Salemi E, Mirzazade Z, Dehshiri G, et al. Sensitivity to punishment and emotional eating: The mediating role of shame and rumination[J]. Psychol Psychother, 2022, 95(4):875-887.
[12] Keulers EHH, Hurks PPM. Psychometric properties of a new ADHD screening questionnaire: Parent report on the (potential) underlying explanation of inattention in their school-aged children[J]. Child Neuropsychol, 2021, 27(8):1117-1132.
[13] 郭永香,宋广文,赵平平,等.大学生惩罚和奖励敏感性问卷(SPSRQ)的修订[J].济南职业学院学报,2011,13(1): 91-97.
Guo YX, Song GW, Zhao PP, et al. A revision of the Punishment and Reward Sensitivity Questionnaire (SPSRQ) for college students[J].Journal of Jinan Vocational College, 2011,13(1): 91-94, 97.(in Chinese)
[14] 王恩界.奖惩敏感度量表中文版用于大学生的信效度分析[J].中国学校卫生,2012,33(6): 694-696.
Wang EJ. Reliability and validity of Chinese version of SPSRO in university students[J]. Chin J Sch Health, 2012, 33(6): 694-696.(in Chinese)
[15] Carver CS, White TL. Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS Scales[J]. J Pers Soc Psychol, 1994, 67(2):319-333.
[16] 田晓林,向慧,王艺明.行为抑制-激活系统量表的汉化及信、效度检测[J].贵州医科大学学报,2017,42(4): 426-430.
Tian XL, Xiang H, Wang YM. Reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the BIS-BAS Scale[J].J Guizhou Med Univ, 2017,42(4): 426-430.(in Chinese)
[17] Dvorak RD, Simons JS. Moderation of resource depletion in the self-control strength model: differing effects of two modes of self-control[J]. Pers Soc Psychol Bull, 2009, 35(5):572-583.
[18] 谢东杰,王利刚,陶婷,等.青少年自我控制双系统量表中文版的效度和信度[J].中国心理卫生杂志,2014,24: 386-391.
Xie DJ, Wang LG, Tao T, et al. Validity and reliability of the Chinese version of the Dual-Mode of Self-Control Scale for Adolescents[J]. Chin Mental Health J, 2014,24: 386-391.(in Chinese)
[19] 钟晓钰,李铭尧,李凌艳.问卷调查中被试不认真作答的控制与识别[J].心理科学进展,2021,29(2): 225-237.
Zhong XY, Li MY, Li LY. Preventing and detecting insufficient effort survey responding[J]. Adv Psychol Sci, 2021,29(2): 225-237.(in Chinese)
[20] 吴明隆.问卷统计分析实务[M].重庆:重庆大学出版社,2018.
[21] Simms LJ, Zelazny K, Williams TF, et al. Does the number of response options matter? Psychometric perspectives using personality questionnaire data[J]. Psychol Assess, 2019, 31(4):557-566.
[22] Jebb AT, Ng V, Tay L. A review of key Likert scale development advances: 1995-2019[J]. Front Psychol, 2021, 12:637547.
[23] Ozolins U, Hale S, Cheng X, et al. Translation and back-translation methodology in health research - a critique[J]. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res, 2020, 20(1):69-77.
[24] Ma LL, Wang YY, Yang ZH, et al. Methodological quality (risk of bias) assessment tools for primary and secondary medical studies: What are they and which is better?[J]. Mil Med Res, 2020, 7(1):1-11.
[25] Hussey I, Hughes S. Hidden invalidity among 15 commonly used measures in social and personality psychology[J]. AMPPS, 2020, 3(2):166-184.
[26] Colquitt JA, Sabey TB, Rodell JB, et al. Content validation guidelines: Evaluation criteria for definitional correspondence and definitional distinctiveness[J]. J Appl Psychol, 2019, 104(10):1243-1265.
[27] Victoria S. Improving fit indices in structural equation modeling with categorical data[J]. Multivar Behav Res, 2020, 56(3):390-407.