N.N., ангел смерти - (1970)

Смотреть фильм онлайн

Год: 1970
Создатель кинофильма: Янош Хершко
Перевод : Дубляж
Длительность: 107 мин. / 01:47
Рейтинг: 76.8
Актёры: Ласло Меншарош, Миклош Габор, Имре Шинкович, Лайош Эзе, Маргит Бара, Мари Тёрёчик, Тамаш Витраи, Илона Береш, Андраш Керн, Ференц Каллаи
Страна: Венгрия
Имя фильма: N.N. a hall angyala
Описание фильма: Allison PD. Missing data techniques for structural equation modeling. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 2003; 112 :545–557. [ PubMed ]
Angyal A. Disgust and related aversions. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 1941; 36 :393–412.
Arbuckle J. Full information estimation in the presence of incomplete data. In: Marcoulides GA, Schumacker RE, editors. Advanced structural equation modeling: Issues and techniques. Erlbaum; Hillsdale, NJ: 1996. pp. 243–277.
Bentler PM. Comparative fit indexes in structural equation models. Psychological Bulletin. 1990; 107 :238. [ PubMed ]
Brady EU, Kendall PC. Comorbidity of anxiety and depression in children and adolescents. Psychological Bulletin. 1992; 111 :244–255. [ PubMed ]
Brown T. Confirmatory factor analysis of the Penn State Worry Questionnaire: Multiple factors or method effects? Behaviour Research and Therapy. 2003; 41 :1411–1426. [ PubMed ]
Brown T. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford; NewYork, NY: 2006.
Campbell MA, Rapee. RM, Spence SH. Developmental changes in the interpretation of instructions on a questionnaire measure of worry. Clinical Psychologist. 2001; 5 :49–59.
Chambless DL, Mason J. Sex, sex-role stereotyping and agoraphobia. Behaviour research and therapy. 1986; 24 :231–235. [ PubMed ]
Chen FF. Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling. 2007; 14 (3):464–504.
Cheung GW, Rensvold RB. Evaluating goodness of- fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling. 2002; 9 :233–255.
Connolly KM, Olatunji BO, Lohr JM. Evidence for disgust sensitivity mediating the sex differences found in blood-injection-injury phobia and spider phobia. Personality and Individual Differences. 2008; 44 :898–908.
Cortina JM. What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and application. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1993; 78 (1):98–104.
Costello AB, Osbourne JW. Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation. 2005; 10 :1–9.
Craske MG. Origins of phobias and anxiety disorders: Who more women than men? Pergamon; 2003.
Davey GC. Self-reported fears to common indigenous animals in an adult UK population: The role of disgust sensitivity. British Journal of Psychology. 1994; 85 :541–554. [ PubMed ]
Davey GC, Buckland G, Tantow B, Dallos R. Disgust and eating disorders. European Eating Disorders Review. 1998; 6 :201–211.
Davey GL, Bond N. Using controlled comparisons in disgust psychopathology research: The case of disgust, hypochondriasis, and health anxiety. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry. 2006; 37 :4–15. [ PubMed ]
David B, Olatunji BO, Armstrong T, Ciesielski BG, Bondy CL, Broman-Fulks J. Incremental specificity of disgust sensitivity in the prediction of obsessive-compulsive disorder symptoms: Cross-sectional and prospective approaches. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry. 2009; 40 :533–543. [ PubMed ]
De Bolle M, De Fruyt F. The tripartite model in childhood and adolescence: Future directions for developmental research. Child Development Perspectives. 2010; 4 (3):174–180.
de Jong PJ, Andrea H, Muris P. Spider phobia in children: Disgust and fear before and after treatment. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 1997; 35 :559–562. [ PubMed ]
de Jong P, Merckelbach H. Blood-injection-injury phobia and fear of spiders: Domain specific individual differences in disgust sensitivity. Personality and Individual Differences. 1998; 24 :153–158.
Ekman P. An argument for basic emotions. Cognition and Emotion. 1992; 6 :169–200.
Ebesutani C, Drescher CF, Reise SP, Heiden L, Hight TL, Young J. The importance of modeling method effects: The (uni)dimensionality of the Loneliness Questionnaire. Journal of Personality Assessment. 2012; 94 :186–195. [ PubMed ]
Engelhard IM, Olatunji BO, de Jong PJ. Disgust and the development of posttraumatic stress among soldiers deployed to Afghanistan. Journal of Anxiety Disorders. 2011; 25 :58–63. [ PubMed ]
Flesch R. How to test readability. Harper & Brothers; New York: 1951.
Flora D, Curran P. An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. Psychological Methods. 2004; 9 :466–491. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
Graham JM. Congeneric and (essentially) tau-equivalent estimates of score reliability what they are and how to use them. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 2006; 66 (6):930–944.
Haidt J, McCauley C, Rozin P. Individual differences in sensitivity to disgust: A scale sampling seven domains of disgust elicitors. Personality and Individual Differences. 1994; 16 :701–713.
Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielki R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap): A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics supports. Journal of Biomedical Information. 2009; 42 :377–381. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
Holgado-Tello F, Chacon-Moscoso S, Barbero-Garcia I, Vila-Abad E. Polychoric versus Pearson correlations in exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of ordinal variables. Quality and Quantity. 2010; 44 :153–166.
Hu LT, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal. 1999; 6 (1):1–55.
Izard CE. Basic emotions, relations among emotions, and emotion-cognition relations. Psychological Review. 1992; 99 :561–565. [ PubMed ]
Izard CE. Four systems for emotion activation: Cognitive and noncognitive processes. Psychological Review. 1993; 100 :68–90. [ PubMed ]
Jacques HA, Mash EJ. A test of the tripartite model of anxiety and depression in elementary and high school boys and girls. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 2004; 32 (1):13–25. [ PubMed ]
Kelly MM, Forsyth JP, Karekla M. Sex differences in response to a panicogenic procedure: An experimental evaluation of panic vulnerability in a non-clinical sample. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 2006; 44 :1421–1430. [ PubMed ]
Kessler RC, Berglund P, Demler O, Jin R, Merikangas KR, Walters EE. Lifetime prevalance and age-of-onset distributions of DSM-IV disorders in the Nation Comorbidity Survey Replication. Archives of General Psychiatry. 2005; 62 :593–602. [ PubMed ]
Kessler RC, Ruscio AM, Shear K, Wittchen H-U. Epidemiology of anxiety disorders. In: Antony MM, Stein B, editors. Oxford Handbook of Anxiety and Related Disorders. Oxford University Press; New york: 2009. pp. 19–33.
Kim EH, Ebesutani C, Young J, Olatunji BO. Factor structure of the Disgust Scale-Revised in an adolescent sample. Assessment. 2013; 20 :620–631. [ PubMed ]
Kline TJ. Psychological testing: A practical approach to design and evaluation. Sage Publications, Incorporated; 2005.
Koch MD, O'Neill HK, Sawchuk CN, Connolly K. Domain-specific and generalized disgust sensitivity in blood-injection-inury phobia: The application of behavioral approach/avoidance tasks. Journal of Anxiety Disorders. 2002; 16 :511–527. [ PubMed ]
Kovacs M. Children's Depression Inventory. Multi-Health Systems, Incorporated; 1992.
Levenson RW. Autonomic nervous system differences among emotions. Psychological Science. 1992; 3 :23–27.
Marsh HW. Positive and negative global self-esteem: A substantively meaningful distinction or artifactors? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1996; 70 :810–819. [ PubMed ]
Matchett G, Davey GC. A test of a disease-avoidance model of animal phobias. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 1991; 29 :91–94. [ PubMed ]
McDonald RP. Test theory: A unified treatment. Psychology Press; 1999.
McKay D, Moretz MW. The intersection of disgust and contamination fear. In: Olatunji BO, McKay D, editors. Disgust and its disorders: Theory, assessment, and treatment implications. American Psychological Association; Washington, : 2009.
Mulkens SA, de Jong PJ, Merckelbach H. Disgust and spider phobia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 1996; 105 :464–468. [ PubMed ]
Muris P, Huijding J, Mayer B, Langkamp M, Reyhan E, Olatunji B. Assessment of disgust sensitivity in children with an age-downward version of the Disgust Emotion Scale. Behavior Therapy. 2012; 43 :876–886. [ PubMed ]
Muris P, Mayer B, Huijding J, Konings T. A dirty animal is a scary animal! Effects of disgust-related information on fear beliefs in children. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 2008a; 46 :137–144. [ PubMed ]
Muris P, Merckelbach H, Nederkoorn S, Rassin E, Candel I, Horselenberg R. Disgust and psychopathopathological symptoms in a nonclinical sample. Personality and Individual Differences. 2000; 29 :1163–1167.
Muris P, Merckelbach H, Schmidt H, Mayer B. The revised version of the Screen for Child Anxiety Related Emotional Disorders (SCARED-R): Factor structure in normal children. Personality and Individual Differences. 1999a; 26 :99–112.
Muris P, Merckelbach H, Schmidt H, Tierney S. Disgust sensitivity, trait anxiety, and anxiety disorder symptoms in normal children. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 1999b; 37 :953–961. [ PubMed ]
Muris P, van der Heiden S, Rassin E. Disgust sensitivity and psychopathological symptoms in nonclinical children. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry. 2008b; 39 :133–146. [ PubMed ]
Muthen B, du Toit SHC, Spisic D. Robust inference using weighted least squares and quadratic estimating equations in latent variable modeling with categorical and continuous outcomes. 1997 Available from
Muthen B, Muthen L. Mplus Muthen and Muthen; Los Angeles; CA: 2010.
Nunnally J. Psychometric methods. McGraw-Hill; New York: 1978.
Olatunji BO. Evaluative learning and emotional responding to fearful and disgusting stimuli in spider phobia. Journal of Anxiety Disorders. 2006; 20 :858–876. [ PubMed ]
Olatunji BO, Arrindell WA, Lohr JM. Can the sex differences in disgust sensitivity account for the sex differences in blood-injection-injury fears? Personality and Individual Differences. 2005a; 39 :61–71.
Olatunji BO, Ebesutani C, Reise SP. A Bifactor Model of Disgust Proneness Examination of the Disgust Emotion Scale. Assessment. 2014 1073191114541673. [ PubMed ]
Olatunji BO, McKay D. Further exploration of the role of disgust sensitivity in anxiety and related disorders. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping. 2006; 19 :331–334.
Olatunji BO, Sawchuk CN. Disgust: Characteristic features, social implications, and clinical manifestations. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. 2005; 24 :932–952.
Olatunji BO, Lohr JM, Smits JJ, Sawchuk CN, Patten K. Evaluative conditioning of fear and disgust in blood-injection-injury phobia : Specificity and impact of individual differences in disgust sensitivity. Journal of Anxiety Disorders. 2009; 23 :153–159. [ PubMed ]
Olatunji BO, Sawchuk CN, Arrindell WA, Lohr JM. Disgust sensitivity as a mediator of the sex differences in contamination fears. Personality and Individual Differences. 2005b; 38 :713–722.
Olatunji BO, Williams NL, Sawchuk CN, Lohr JM. Disgust, anxiety, and fainting symptoms associated with blood-injection-injury phobia: A structural model. Journal of Anxiety Disorders. 2006; 20 :23–41. [ PubMed ]
Olatunji BO, Williams NL, Tolin DF, Sawchuk CN, Abramowitz JS, Lohr JM, et al. The disgust scale: Item analysis, factor structure, and suggestions for refinement. Psychological Assessment. 2007; 19 :281–297. [ PubMed ]
Ollendick TH. Reliability and validity of the revised fear survey schedule for children (FSSC-R). Behaviour Research and Therapy. 1983; 21 :685–692. [ PubMed ]
Ollendick TH, Ollendick DG. Anxiety disorders in the mentally retarded. In: Matson JL, Barrett RP, editors. Psychopathology of the Mentally Retarded. Grune & Stratton; New York: 1982.
Overton PG, Markland FE, Taggart HS, Bagshaw GL, Simpson J. Self-disgust mediates the relationship between dysfunctional cognitions and depressive symptomatology. Emotion. 2008; 8 :379–385. [ PubMed ]
Page AC, Tan BJ. Disgust and blood-injury-injection phobia. In: Olatunji BO, McKay D, editors. Disgust and its disorders: Theory, assessment, and treatment implications. American Psychological Association; Washington, : 2009.
Price M, Higa-McMillan C, Ebesutani C, Okamura K, Nakamura B, Chorpita BF, Weisz J. Symptom differentiation of anxiety and depression across youth development and clinic-referred/non-referred samples: An examination of competing factor structures of the Child Behavior Checklist DSM-Oriented Scales. Development and Psychopathology. in press. [ PubMed ]
Reise SP, Moore TM, Haviland MG. Bifactor models and rotations: Exploring the extent to which multidimensional data yield univocal scale scores. Journal of personality assessment. 2010; 92 (6):544–559. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
Reise SP, Morizot J, Hays RD. The role of the bifactor model in resolving dimensionality issues in health outcomes measures. Quality of Life Research. 2007; 16 (1):19–31. [ PubMed ]
Rozin P, Fallon AE. A perspective on disgust. Psychological Review. 1987; 94 :23–41. [ PubMed ]
Rozin P, Haidt J, McCauley CR. Disgust. In: Lewis M, Haviland JM, editors. Handbook of Emotions. Guilford Publications; New York: 2000.
Rubin DB. Multiple imputation after 18+ years. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 1996; 91 (434):473–489.
Sawchuk CN. The acquisition and maintenance of disgust: Developmental and learning perspectives. In: Olatunji BO, McKay D, editors. Disgust and its disorders: Theory, assessment, and treatment implications. American Psychological Association; Washington, DC, US: 2009. pp. 77–97.
Schafer JL, Graham JW. Missing data: our view of the state of the art. Psychological methods. 2002; 7 (2):147. [ PubMed ]
Schinele A, Start R, Walter B, Vaitl D. The connection between disgust sensitivity and blood-related fears, faintness symtoms, and obsessive-compulsiveness in a non-clinical sample. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping. 2003; 16 :185–193.
Schniering CA, Hudson JL, Rapee RM. Issues in the diagnosis and assessment of anxiety disorders in children and adolescents. Clinical Psychology Review. 2000; 20 :453–478. [ PubMed ]
Silverman WK, Albano AM. Anxiety disorders interview schedule for DSM-IV. Oxford University Press; 1996.
Steiger JH. Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate behavioral research. 1990; 25 :173–180. [ PubMed ]
Stevenson RJ, Oaten MJ, Case TI, Repacholi BM, Wagland P. Children's response to disgust elicitors: Development and acquistion. Developmental Psychology. 2010; 46 :165–177. [ PubMed ]
Thorpe SJ, Patel SP, Simonds LM. The relationship between disgust sensitivity, anxiety, and obsessions. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 2003; 41 :1397–1409. [ PubMed ]
Thorpe SJ, Salkovskis PM. Studies on the role of disgust in the acquisition and maintenance of specific phobias. Behaviour Reserch and Therapy. 1998; 36 :877–893. [ PubMed ]
Tomkins SS. Affect, imagery, consciousness, Vol. II. The negative affects. Springer; New York: 1963.
Tucker LR, Lewis C. A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika. 1973; 38 :1–10.
Velicer WF, Jackson DN. Component analysis versus common factor analysis: Some issues in selecting an appropriate procedure. Multivariate Behavioral Research. 1990; 25 :1–28. [ PubMed ]
Zinbarg RE, Barlow DH, Brown TA. Hierarchical structure and general factor saturation of the Anxiety Sensitivity Index: Evidence and implications. Psychological Assessment. 1997; 9 :277–284. doi:
Zinbarg RE, Revelle W, Yovel I, Li W. Cronbach's, Revelle's, and McDonald's: Their relations with each other and two alternative conceptualizations of reliability. Psychometrika. 2005; 70 :123–133.

General Discussion
The present investigation examined the psychometric properties of the newly developed CDS in four independent samples of children ages 5 to 13 years. Across these four samples, the CDS total score demonstrated an average Cronbach's alpha Although the internal reliability of the CDS total score was acceptable in the present investigation ( Nunnally, 1978 ), it was not exceptional. However, this may not be a limitation of the measure per se but a byproduct of assessing complex emotional processes in children. Research has shown that young children often have difficulty labeling and communicating emotion and they may not be able to provide fully accurate reports of their own emotions until 89 years of age, when their understanding of emotions becomes based on internal mental cues (see Schniering, Hudson, & Rapee, 2000 for review). Therefore, some young children may experience difficulty recognizing and describing the features of disgust, which may contribute to a less internally consistent assessment of their sensitivity to disgust. This highlights the importance of a multimodal approach to the assessment of disgust sensitivity in children that is sensitive to developmental considerations. Although development of the CDS represents an initial step in facilitating such research, subsequent revision of the scale items and response options may prove valuable in improving the reliability of the measure.
Although an EFA in Study 1 revealed a two-factor bifactor solution which includes a general factor that accounts for the covariance among all the CDS items and two independent subfactors corresponding to Disgust Avoidance and Disgust Affect best represented the data, there were concerns given that the Disgust Affect factor contained only reverse-worded items. In an initial attempt to determine if the reverse-worded items emerged as an artifact of a method effect or if they represent a distinct and theoretically meaningful factor, a CFA of the two-factor bifactor model of the CDS was examined in Study 2. Results showed that the bifactor model fit the data significantly better than a one-factor model that controlled for method effects due to reverse-scoring of the negatively-worded items. This suggests that the CDS measures a general disgust sensitivity response as well as two distinct subfactors (Disgust Affect and Disgust Avoidance) that cannot be explained by method effects alone. A bifactor model of the CDS scores has important implications for the study of disgust sensitivity and its association with anxiety disorder symptoms among youth. For example, the bifactor structure of the scale offers researchers the flexibility to examine how general and specific disgust responses simultaneously confer risk for anxiety disorders. Similarly, examination of profile scores on general and specific disgust facets of the scale may offer incremental predictive validity than either the total score on the CDS or the two subfactors alone.
The present findings suggest that the CDS consists of a general disgust sensitivity factor in addition to two distinct component factors. However, the present findings did reveal lower reliability estimates for the Disgust Affect factor relative to the Disgust Avoidance factor. The relatively lower reliability of the Disgust Affect factor may be partially due to reverse-worded items that can be more difficult for children to understand. The lower reliability may also be partially accounted for by fewer items for the Disgust Affect factor relative to the Disgust Avoidance factor. Despite the lower reliability, the present findings revealed that the Disgust Affect subscale scores provided a higher degree of reliable variance than the Disgust Avoidance subscale scores after accounting for the general disgust sensitivity factor. This suggests that the Disgust Affect factor may offer some incremental utility above and beyond the general disgust sensitivity factor of the CDS. Assuming that the Disgust Avoidance and Disgust Affect factors of the CDS represent distinct processes, the lower reliability estimates for the Disgust Affect factor may reflect a more complex process to assess in children. Early in development, children learn through intrafamilial modeling with facial expressions and social referencing ( Stevenson et 2010 ) to avoid disgust elicitors ( don't put that in your mouth!). Behavioral avoidance of disgusting stimuli (Disgust Avoidance) may be what is actively taught to young children through such learning processes which may facilitate a more internally consistent response than affective labeling of disgust responses (Disgust Affect) that require cognitive resources that are underdeveloped in young children ( Rozin & Fallon, 1987 ).
Factor analysis of measures of disgust sensitivity in adults has consistently produced multidimensional solutions, suggesting that disgust sensitivity is not a unitary construct ( de Jong & Merckelbach, 1998 ; Olatunji et 2007 ). However, the present findings suggest that emergence of distinct disgust domains may be moderated by development. The CDS was modeled after the DS-R, the most commonly used measure of disgust sensitivity in adults. The DS-R consists of three disgust domains including Core Disgust, Contamination Disgust, and Animal-Reminder Disgust ( Olatunji et 2007 ). However, the present findings suggest that distinct disgust domains of this sort that are thematically-driven may not be readily observed early in childhood. That is, older children and adults may be more sensitive to gradations in the content of disgust stimuli whereas younger children are less cognizant of such nuances. The acquisition of disgust is thought to develop in stages, starting with basic taste and smell aversions in infancy and early childhood, followed by an understanding of contagion in late childhood, and more complex responses such as socio-moral disgust appearing in later childhood and adolescence (see Sawchuk, 2009 for review). The adaptation of the disgust response to more complex stimuli across development may be a byproduct of increasing cognitive maturity. Therefore, developmental limitations in young children may prevent observation of complex disgust domains found among adult samples. Recent research examining the factor structure of disgust responses, as assessed by the DS-R, in adolescents found three factors corresponding to Contagion, Mortality, and Contact Disgust ( Kim, Ebesutani, Young, & Olatunji, 2013 ). This finding is consistent with the view that the nature of disgust domains may evolve over development. With increasing cognitive capacity, more complex disgust domains that are characterized by differences in content and contagion potency may be more readily observed. This pattern of findings also highlights the importance of future research examining the factor structure of disgust responses across the developmental continuum. In addition to the psychometric implications, such an approach may inform knowledge on how disgust responses are acquired over time and how they are extended to various domains.
The CDS also demonstrated good convergent and known groups validity in the present investigation. As predicted, scores on the total CDS were significantly correlated with scores on measures of anxiety and fear. This finding is consistent with previous research among adults ( Matchett & Davey, 1991 ; Mulkens et 1996 ) as well as research using adult measures of disgust sensitivity in children ( Muris et 2008b ). The present study also found that youth with a diagnosis of a specific phobia reported greater disgust sensitivity on the CDS compared to a nonclinical youth sample. This finding is consistent with prior research implicating disgust sensitivity in the development and maintenance of specific phobias (Matchett & Davey, 1994; Mulkins et 1996 ; Page & Tan, 2007; Olatunji et 2006 ). The findings further suggest that the disgust sensitivity-specific phobia association is readily observed even in young children. Of note is that the Disgust Affect factor did not significantly differentiate youth with a diagnosis of a specific phobia from controls. This finding suggests that the Disgust Affect factor may have limited utility in differentiating those with a wide range of phobias from those that do not. Future research is needed to examine if the CDS and its factors have greater utility in differentiating samples with more homogenous phobias from those that do not have such phobias. The CDS also demonstrated good discriminant validity in the present investigation as scores on the scale did not significantly correlate with scores on a measure of depression. This finding is consistent with a previous study that found no association between disgust sensitivity and depression symptoms in a sample of adults ( Muris et 2000 ). Although there is some evidence that disgust experienced towards the self may confer risk for depression ( Overton, Markland, Taggart, Bagshaw, & Simpson, 2008 ), these findings suggest that disgust experienced towards stimuli in one's environment may play less of a role in the development of depression.
Findings with adults have consistently shown that women report higher disgust sensitivity compared to men ( Davey, 1994 ; Haidt et 1994 ; Schinele et al, 2003 ). The present investigation is largely consistent with this notion as girls generally scored higher on the CDS than boys in three samples. However, this finding was not consistent in the present investigation as no gender differences on the CDS were found in two samples. One interpretation of these findings is that gender differences in sensitivity to disgust may be less reliable in young children. That is, the gender stereotyped reinforcement contingencies that may give rise to gender differences in disgust sensitivity may not yet be firmly established until later in development. Given that prior research with adults suggests that gender differences in some anxiety disorder symptoms can be accounted for by gender differences in disgust sensitivity ( Olatunji et 2005a, 2005b ), future research examining the processes, which may include socialization or parental transmission, that facilitate heightened disgust sensitivity in young girls may reveal unique opportunities for early intervention.
Although the present series of studies suggests that the CDS has good psychometric properties, several limitations of the current investigation should be considered. First, although the bifactor model was found to be the best fit for the data, inclusion of a relatively large number of reverse-worded items indicates that wording of the items may warrant further consideration. Indeed, young children may have some difficulty understanding reverse-worded items thereby reducing the consistency of responses. Future research should assess whether these items can be reworded to improve reliability. This would also provide an opportunity to reexamine the factor structure of the scale. Second, the assessment of the reliability of the scale is limited to internal consistency and examination of the test-retest reliability of the CDS scale scores in future research will prove valuable in determining the stability of the scale. While this is a psychometric issue, such research may also inform our understanding of the nature of disgust sensitivity itself, especially in regards to if and how disgust sensitivity changes over time and how such change is moderated by development. Third, the CDS was not directly compared to downward versions of disgust sensitivity measures that are commonly used with children in other studies. Such comparisons may prove valuable in providing researchers with some guidance as to which scale to use and when. A likely outcome from such work is that the CDS may be more appropriate for younger children whereas currently available downward measures of disgust sensitivity may be more appropriate for older children. However, this remains an empirical question. Lastly, the present investigation is also limited by the exclusive use of self-report in examining the convergent and discriminant validity of the CDS. Linking scores on the CDS with disgust responding through other assessment modalities will be an important aim for future research. For example, disgust-related behavioral approach tasks have been employed with young children ( Stevenson et 2010 ) and performance on such tasks would be predicted to correspond with scores on the CDS. Despite these limitations, the initial studies presented here suggest that the CDS is an age-appropriate measure of disgust sensitivity in children. The CDS is thus likely to provide utility in further illuminating the role of disgust sensitivity in anxiety-related disorders among youth.
Качество: HD
Просмотры: 380