Escala de Autenticidad: Evidencia de validez y confiabilidad en una muestra de Brasil y Portugal
Resumen
Este estudio presenta distintos tipos de evidencias de validez y confiabilidad de la Escala de Autenticidad (AS) en una muestra de Brasil y Portugal. El estudio consiste en una encuesta con 1.077 brasileños y 622 portugueses. Se testó el modelo con tres factores correlacionados (autoalienación, vivir auténtico y aceptación de la influencia externa), el modelo unidimensional y el modelo bifactorial. Se retuvo el modelo con tres factores correlacionados, con las tres subescalas alcanzando confiabilidad moderada a buena. Análisis factorial confirmatorio multigrupo sugirió invariancia escalar para cultura, género, edad, educación, ocupación y preocupación e impacto relacionados con Covid. Los ítems fueron evaluados por graded response model (GRM), sugiriendo que las tres subescalas no discriminan las personas con altos rasgos de autenticidad. GRM y estadísticas descriptivas indican que la escala de puntuación es inapropiada, particularmente para la subescala vivir auténtico, que es afectada por efecto techo. Las asociaciones con presencia de sentido mostraron evidencia adicional de validez. A pesar de las limitaciones, la AS es una medida adecuada para evaluar la autenticidad en diferentes grupos. Se discuten posibles modificaciones para el aprimoramiento de la AS.
Descargas
Citas
Akin, A., & Taş, İ. (2015). Yaşam anlami ölçeği: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalişmasi [Meaning in life questionnaire: A study of validity and reliability]. Turkish Studies, 10(3), 27-36. https://doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.7860
American Psychological Association, American Educational Research Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association.
Baker, F. B., & Kim, S. H. (2017). The basics of item response theory using R. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54205-8
Balbino, I. F., Galinha, I. C., Morais, C. C., & Calado, S. S. (2018). Contributo para a validação da versão portuguesa da Escala de Autenticidade [Contribution to the validation of the Portuguese version of the Authenticity Scale]. Psicologia, Saúde & Doenças, 19(3), 564–577. https://doi.org/10.15309/18psd190308
Barrett-Lennard, G. T. (1998). Carl Rogers’ helping system: Journey and substance. Sage.
Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. The Guilford Press.
Chalmers, R. P. (2012). mirt: A Multidimensional Item Response Theory package for the R environment. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(6), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i06
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233-255. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
Cook, K. F., Kallen, M. A., & Amtmann, D. (2009). Having a fit: Impact of number of items and distribution of data on traditional criteria for assessing IRT’s unidimensionality assumption. Quality of Life Research, 18(4), 447-460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-009-9464-4
Damásio, B. F., & Koller, S. H. (2015). Meaning in Life Questionnaire: Adaptation process and psychometric properties of the Brazilian version. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, 47(3), 185-195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rlp.2015.06.004
Dancey, C. P., & Reidy, J. (2007). Statistics without maths for psychology. Pearson Education.
Di Fabio, A. (2014). Authenticity Scale: Un primo contributo alla validazione della versione italiana [Authenticity Scale: A first contribution to validation of the Italian version]. Counseling: Giornale Italiano di Ricerca e Applicazioni, 7(2), 231-238.
Dunn, K. J., & McCray, G. (2020). The place of the bifactor model in confirmatory factor analysis investigations into construct dimensionality in language testing. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1357. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01357
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312
Gable, S. L., & Haidt, J. (2005). What (and why) is positive psychology? Review of General Psychology, 9, 103-110. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.9.2.103
Gliem, J. A., & Gliem, R. R. (2003). Calculating, interpreting, and reporting Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for Likert-type scales. Proceedings of the Midwest Research-to-Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education, USA.
Grégoire, S., Baron, L., Ménard, J., & Lachance, L. (2014). The Authenticity Scale: Psychometric properties of a French translation and exploration of its relationships with personality and well-being. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 46(3), 346-355. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030962
Grijak, Đ. (2017). Psychometric evaluation of the authenticity scale on the sample of students in Serbia. Psihologija, 50(1), 85-99. https://doi.org/10.2298/PSI160504001G
İlhan, T., & Özdemir, Y. (2013). Otantiklik Ölçeğinin Türkçe’ye uyarlanması: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması [Adaptation of Authenticity Scale to turkish: A validity and reliability study]. Turkish Psychological Counseling and Guidance Journal, 4(40), 142-153.
Jorgensen, T. D., Pornprasertmanit, S., Schoemann, A. M., & Rosseel, Y. (2021). semTools: Useful tools for structural equation modeling. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=semTools
Kernis, M. H., & Goldman, B. M. (2005). From thought and experience to behavior and interpersonal relationships: A multicomponent conceptualization of authenticity. In A. Tesser, J. V. Wood, & D. Stapel (Eds.), On building, defending, and regulating the self: A psychological perspective (pp. 31-52). Psychology Press.
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). The Guilford Press.
Li, C. H. (2016). Confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data: Comparing robust maximum likelihood and diagonally weighted least squares. Behavioral Research Methods, 48(3), 936-949. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0619-7
Linacre, J. M. (1999). Investigating rating scale category utility. Journal of Outcome Measurement, 3(2), 103-122.
Mokken, R. J. (1971). Theory and procedure of scale analysis: With applications in political research. The Hague Mouton.
Nartova-Bochaver, S., Reznichenko, S., & Maltby, J. (2021). The Authenticity Scale: validation in Russian culture. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 609617. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.609617
Nunes, C. H. S. D. S., & Primi, R. (2005). Impact of the sample size in the item and subject's parameters estimates under item response theory. Avaliação Psicológica, 4(2), 141-153.
Paek, I., & Cole, K. (2019). Using R for item response theory model applications. Routledge.
Peterson, R. A., Kim, Y., & Choi, B. (2020). A meta-analysis of construct reliability indices and measurement model fit metrics. Methodology, 16(3), 208-223. https://doi.org/10.5964/meth.2797
Portugal, M. V. (2017). Versão portuguesa do Questionário do Sentido da Vida: Primeiros estudos psicométricos [Portuguese version of the Meaning in Life Questionnaire]. Non-published master thesis, Universidade de Lisboa. https://repositorio.ul.pt/bitstream/10451/33211/1/ulfpie052851_tm.pdf
R Core Team. (2023). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (version 4.1.3) [Computer software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
Rhemtulla, M., Brosseau-Liard, P. É., & Savalei, V. (2012). When can categorical variables be treated as continuous? A comparison of robust continuous and categorical SEM estimation methods under suboptimal conditions. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 354-373. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029315
Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person: A therapist’s view of psychotherapy. Constable.
Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1-36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika, 34(Suppl 1), 1-97. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03372160
Schreiber, J. B., Nora, A., Stage, F. K., Barlow, E. A., & King, J. (2006). Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(6), 323-338. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.99.6.323-338
Shamsi, A., Ghamarani, A., Samadi, M., & Ahmadzadeh, M. (2012). The study of the validity and reliability of the Authentic Personality Scale. Psychological Methods and Models, 2(8), 89-100.
Sherman, R. A. (2015). Multicon: An R Package for the Analysis of Multivariate Contructs, R package Version 1.6. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/multicon/multicon.pdf
Sijtsma, K., & Molenaar, I. W. (1987). Reliability of test scores in nonparametric item response theory. Psychometrika, 52(1), 79–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02293957
Sijtsma, K., & Molenaar, I. W. (2002). Introduction to nonparametric item response theory. SAGE Publications.
Soper, D.S. (2023). A-priori sample size calculator for structural equation models [software]. Available from https://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc
Steger, M. F., Frazier, P., Oishi, S., & Kaler, M. (2006). The meaning in life questionnaire: assessing the presence of and search for meaning in life. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53(1), 80-93. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.53.1.80
Terwee, C. B., Bot, S. D., de Boer, M. R., van der Windt, D. A., Knol, D. L., Dekker, J., ... & de Vet, H. C. (2007). Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60(1), 34-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012
Vainio, M. M., & Daukantaitė, D. (2016). Grit and different aspects of well-being: Direct and indirect relationships via sense of coherence and authenticity. Journal of Happiness Studies, 17(5), 2119-2147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-015-9688-7
Valentini, F., & Damásio, B. F. (2016). Variância Média Extraída e Confiabilidade Composta: Indicadores de precisão [Average Variance Extracted and Composite Reliability: Reliability coefficients]. Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa, 32(2), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-3772e322225
Winnicott, D. W. (1965). The maturational processes and the facilitating environment. International Universities Press.
Wood, A. M., Linley, P. A., Maltby, J., Baliousis, M., & Joseph, S. (2008). The authentic personality: A theoretical and empirical conceptualization and the development of the Authenticity Scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55(3), 385-399. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.55.3.385
Xia, M., Lv, H., & Xu, X. (2022). Validating the Chinese version authenticity scale: Psychometrics in college and community samples. Current Psychology, 41, 7301–7313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-01326-7
Yen, W. M. (1993). Scaling performance assessments: Strategies for managing local item dependence. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30, 187-213. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1993.tb00423.x
Zlyvkov, V. L., Lukomska, S. O., Kotukh, О. V., Dykhovichnyi, O. O., & Kruglova, N. V. (2019). Authenticity of the english language teacher’s: the validation of authenticity questionnaire using item response theory. Science progress in European countries: new concepts and modern solutions, 335.
Zoysa, P., Kumar, S., Amarasuriya, S. D., & Mendis, N. S. (2021). Being yourself: An assessment of authenticity in undergraduates of a University in Sri Lanka. Asia Pacific Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy, 12(2), 138-153. https://doi.org/10.1080/21507686.2021.1924810
Derechos de autor 2024 Servicio de Publicaciones, Universidad de Murcia (España)
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-CompartirIgual 4.0.
Las obras que se publican en esta revista están sujetas a los siguientes términos:
1. El Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Murcia (la editorial) conserva los derechos patrimoniales (copyright) de las obras publicadas, y favorece y permite la reutilización de las mismas bajo la licencia de uso indicada en el punto 2.
© Servicio de Publicaciones, Universidad de Murcia, 2022
2. Las obras se publican en la edición electrónica de la revista bajo una licencia Creative Commons Reconocimiento-CompartirIgual 4.0 Internacional (texto legal). Se pueden copiar, usar, difundir, transmitir y exponer públicamente, siempre que: i) se cite la autoría y la fuente original de su publicación (revista, editorial y URL de la obra); ii) no se usen para fines comerciales; iii) se mencione la existencia y especificaciones de esta licencia de uso.
3. Condiciones de auto-archivo. Se permite y se anima a los autores a difundir electrónicamente las versiones pre-print (versión antes de ser evaluada y enviada a la revista) y/o post-print (versión evaluada y aceptada para su publicación) de sus obras antes de su publicación, ya que favorece su circulación y difusión más temprana y con ello un posible aumento en su citación y alcance entre la comunidad académica. Color RoMEO: verde.
