设为首页 | 加入收藏
网站首页 本刊简介 编委会 投稿指南 过刊浏览 广告合作 网上订购 下载专区 联系我们  
元认知问卷在中国大学生中的修订
作者:范文超  符仲芳  徐慰  朱雅雯  余萌  王建平 
单位:1. 北京师范大学心理学院  应用实验心理北京重点实验室  北京 100875 2. 南京师范大学心理学院  南京 210024 3. 西北师范大学心理学院  兰州 730070 4. 首都医科大学  北京 100088 
关键词:元认知/元认知问卷 信度 效度 
分类号:R395.1
出版年,卷(期):页码:2017,25(3):448-452
摘要:

目的:修订元认知问卷30题版(MCQ-30),并考察其在中国大学生被试中的信效度。方法:首先选取172名大学生被试进行预测试,据此调整题目,确定最终版内容;正式施测中,共选取了657名被试进行问卷施测;两周后,选取96名被试进行重测。结果:所有题目区分度良好,所有的题总相关均显著(r介于0.366-0.633之间,Ps<0.01)。验证性因素分析的结果表明原始问卷结构在数据中的模型拟合(χ2=877.010,χ2/df=2.29,RMESA=0.039,CFI=0.923,TLI=0.912,SRMR=0.049)良好,5因子包括:认知自信、对担忧的积极信念、认知自我意识、担忧的无法掌控/危险、控制想法的需要。问卷总体及各维度Cronbach α系数、重测信度、分半信度分别介于0.735-0.897、0.593-0.741、0.715-0.871之间,同时效标关联效度良好,问卷与帕多瓦量表、特质焦虑量表的相关系数分别为0.57、0.37(Ps<0.01)。结论:MCQ-30中文版具有良好的信效度,可作为中国大学生元认知水平的测量工具。

Objective: To revise the Metacognitions Questionnaire-30 and test its reliability and validity in Chinese college students sample. Methods: Before the formal test, 172 subjects answered the MCQ-30, and the final descriptions were made according to the feedback of this test. In the form test, totally 657 subjects were assessed. Results: All the items had good discrimination, the correlations between every item and the total score ranged from 0.366 to 0.633(Ps<0.01). The results of confirmatory factor analysis showed that the original structure of MCQ-30 had a goodness-of-fit of model(χ2=877.010, χ2/df=2.29, RMESA=0.039, CFI=0.923, TLI=0.912, SRMR=0.049). Cronbach α, Test-retest reliability and splithalf reliability of the total questionnaire and dimensions were 0.735-0.897, 0.593-0.741 and 0.715-0.871, respectively. Meanwhile, the criterion validity was good, with the correlation between MCQ-30 and PI-WSUR was 0.57(P<0.01), and MCQ-30 and STAI was 0.37(P<0.01). Conclusion: The revised version of MCQ-30 has satisfactory reliability and validity, which can be an effective tool to measure the meta-conition characteristics in Chinese college students.

基金项目:
作者简介:
参考文献:

1 Brown AL. Knowing when,where and how to remember:A problem of metacognition. R. Glaser(Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology, Vol. 1, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1978. 77-165
2 Wells A, Matthews G. Attention and emotion:A clinical perspective. Hove:Erlbaum, 1994
3 Wells A. Metacognition and worry:A cognitive model of generalized anxiety disorder. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 1995, 23(03):301-320
4 Wells A. Metacognitive therapy for anxiety and depression. New York:Guilford Press, 2009
5 陈骁, 冯正直. 特质反刍思维与执行控制功能缺陷. 中国临床心理学杂志, 2015, 23(6):1065-1069
6 McEvoy PM, Erceg-Hurn DM, Anderson RA, et al. Group metacognitive therapy for repetitive negative thinking in primary and non-primary generalized anxiety disorder:An effectiveness trial. Journal of Affective Disorders, 2015, 175:124-132
7 Lysaker PH, Dimaggio G, Wickett-Curtis A, et al. Deficits in metacognitive capacity are related to subjective distress and heightened levels of hyperarousal symptoms in adults with posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 2015, 16(4):384-398
8 Koch J, Exner C. Selective attention deficits in obsessivecompulsive disorder:The role of metacognitive processes. Psychiatry Research, 2015, 225(3):550-555
9 Papageorgiou C, Wells A. An empirical test of a clinical metacognitive model of rumination and depression. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 2003, 27(3):261-273
10 Normann N, Emmerik AAP, Morina N. The efficacy of metacognitive therapy for anxiety and depression:A meta-analytic review. Depression and Anxiety, 2014, 31(5):402-411
11 Papageorgiou C, Wells A. Group metacognitive therapy for severe antidepressant and CBT resistant depression:A baseline-controlled trial. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 2015, 39(1):14-22
12 Cartwright-Hatton S, Wells A. Beliefs about worry and intrusions:The Meta-Cognitions Questionnaire and its correlates. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 1997, 11(3):279-296
13 Wells A, Cartwright-Hatton S. A short form of the metacognitions questionnaire:properties of the MCQ-30. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 2004, 42(4):385-396
14 Burns GL, Keortge SG, Formea GM, et al. Revision of the Padua Inventory of obsessive compulsive disorder symptoms:distinctions between worry, obsessions, and compulsions. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1996, 34(2):163-173
15 庞礴, 朱春燕, 汪凯, 等. PI-WSUR 量表在中国大学生人群中的修订. 中国临床心理学杂志, 2009, 17(2):131-133
16 Spielberger CD. Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory STAI (form Y)("self-evaluation questionnaire"). Consulting Psychologists Press, 1983. 1-24
17 李文利, 钱铭怡. 状态特质焦虑量表中国大学生常模修订. 北京大学学报:自然科学版, 1995, 31(1):108-114
18 Cho Y, Jahng S, Chai S. The factor structure and concurrent validity of the Korean Version of the Metacognitions Questionnaire 30(K-MCQ-30). Journal of Clinical Psychology, 2012, 68(3):349-391
19 Y?lmaz AE, Gençöz T, Wells A. Psychometric characteristics of the Penn State Worry Questionnaire and Metacognitions Questionnaire-30 and metacognitive predictors of worry and obsessive-compulsive symptoms in a Turkish sample. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 2008, 15(6):424-439
20 吴小勇, 黄希庭. 从记忆提取到元认知评价:自我反思的加工机制. 中国临床心理学杂志, 2015, 23(3):458-462

服务与反馈:
文章下载】【加入收藏
您是第访问者

《中国临床心理学杂志》编辑部
地址:湖南省长沙市中南大学湘雅二医院内, 410011
电 话:0731-85292472    电子邮件:cjcp_china@163.com
本系统由北京博思汇文数字科技有限公司设计开发 技术服务电话:400-921-9838