The Dunn Worry Questionnaire and the Paranoia Worries Questionnaire: new assessments of worry
The Dunn Worry Questionnaire and the Paranoia Worries Questionnaire: new assessments of worry
复制标题
DOI：
10.1017/s0033291719000588
复制
发表时间：
2020-04-01
影响因子：
6.9
通讯作者：
Dunn, Graham
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Freeman, Daniel;Bird, Jessica C.;Dunn, Graham
背景：焦虑的认知过程将消极的想法保持在脑海中，并阐述其内容，导致许多心理健康障碍的发生。我们的主要目标是开发一种适用于研究和临床治疗的一般问题担忧的直截了当的测量方法。我们的第二个目标是发展一种有问题的担忧，特别是与偏执恐惧有关的担忧。方法对250名非临床者和50例精神病患者在过去一个月的焦虑治疗试验中对焦虑项目库进行评估。探索性因素分析和项目反应理论(IRT)指导了量表项目的选择。对273例非临床者、79例精神病患者和93例社交焦虑症患者进行了IRT分析。采用其他临床测量方法评估同时效度。对75名参与者进行了重测信度评估。对43例精神病患者进行了对变化敏感性的评估。结果编制了由10个条目组成的一般忧虑量表(Dunn Reasure Quality，DWQ)和由5个条目组成的偏执型焦虑问卷(Parania Reasures，PWQ)。所有项目都具有很高的区分性(DWQ a=1.98-5.03；PWQ a=4.10-10.7)，表明潜在担忧的小幅增加会导致项目背书的概率很高。DWQ在广泛的焦虑分布上具有高度的信息量，而PWQ在临床水平的偏执焦虑上具有最高的精确度。量表表现出良好的内部信度、重测信度、同时效度和对变化的敏感性。结论一般问题焦虑和偏执恐惧的新量表具有良好的心理测量学特性。
Background The cognitive process of worry, which keeps negative thoughts in mind and elaborates the content, contributes to the occurrence of many mental health disorders. Our principal aim was to develop a straightforward measure of general problematic worry suitable for research and clinical treatment. Our secondary aim was to develop a measure of problematic worry specifically concerning paranoid fears. Methods An item pool concerning worry in the past month was evaluated in 250 non-clinical individuals and 50 patients with psychosis in a worry treatment trial. Exploratory factor analysis and item response theory (IRT) informed the selection of scale items. IRT analyses were repeated with the scales administered to 273 non-clinical individuals, 79 patients with psychosis and 93 patients with social anxiety disorder. Other clinical measures were administered to assess concurrent validity. Test-retest reliability was assessed with 75 participants. Sensitivity to change was assessed with 43 patients with psychosis. Results A 10-item general worry scale (Dunn Worry Questionnaire; DWQ) and a five-item paranoia worry scale (Paranoia Worries Questionnaire; PWQ) were developed. All items were highly discriminative (DWQ a = 1.98-5.03; PWQ a = 4.10-10.7), indicating small increases in latent worry lead to a high probability of item endorsement. The DWQ was highly informative across a wide range of the worry distribution, whilst the PWQ had greatest precision at clinical levels of paranoia worry. The scales demonstrated excellent internal reliability, test-retest reliability, concurrent validity and sensitivity to change. Conclusions The new measures of general problematic worry and worry about paranoid fears have excellent psychometric properties.