18
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Perceived vulnerability to disease: Development and validation of a 15-item self-report instrument

      , ,
      Personality and Individual Differences
      Elsevier BV

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references11

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Individual differences in sociosexuality: evidence for convergent and discriminant validity.

          Individual differences in willingness to engage in uncommitted sexual relations were investigated in 6 studies. In Study 1, a 5-item Sociosexual Orientation Inventory (SOI) was developed. Studies 2, 3, and 4 provided convergent validity evidence for the SOI, revealing that persons who have an unrestricted sociosexual orientation tend to (a) engage in sex at an earlier point in their relationships, (b) engage in sex with more than 1 partner at a time, and (c) be involved in relationships characterized by less investment, commitment, love, and dependency. Study 5 provided discriminant validity for the SOI, revealing that it does not covary appreciably with a good marker of sex drive. Study 6 demonstrated that the SOI correlates negligibly with measures of sexual satisfaction, anxiety, and guilt. The possible stability of, origins of, and motivational bases underlying individual differences in sociosexuality are discussed.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The Health Anxiety Inventory: development and validation of scales for the measurement of health anxiety and hypochondriasis.

            A self-rated measure of health anxiety should be sensitive across the full range of intensity (from mild concern to frank hypochondriasis) and should differentiate people suffering from health anxiety from those who have actual physical illness but who are not excessively concerned about their health. It should also encompass the full range of clinical symptoms characteristic of clinical hypochondriasis. The development and validation of such a scale is described. Three studies were conducted. First, the questionnaire was validated by comparing the responses of patients suffering from hypochondriasis with those suffering from hypochondriasis and panic disorder, panic disorder, social phobia and non-patient controls. Secondly, a state version of the questionnaire was administered to patients undergoing cognitive-behavioural treatment or wait-list in order to examine the measure's sensitivity to change. In the third study, a shortened version was developed and validated in similar types of sample, and in a range of samples of people seeking medical help for physical illness. The scale was found to be reliable and to have a high internal consistency. Hypochondriacal patients scored significantly higher than anxiety disorder patients, including both social phobic patients and panic disorder patients as well as normal controls. In the second study, a 'state' version of the scale was found to be sensitive to treatment effects, and to correlate very highly with a clinician rating based on an interview of present clinical state. A development and refinement of the scale (intended to reflect more fully the range of symptoms of and reactions to hypochondriasis) was found to be reliable and valid. A very short (14 item) version of the scale was found to have comparable properties to the full length scale. The HAI is a reliable and valid measure of health anxiety. It is likely to be useful as a brief screening instrument, as there is a short form which correlates highly with the longer version.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The Disgust Scale: item analysis, factor structure, and suggestions for refinement.

              In the 4 studies presented (N = 1,939), a converging set of analyses was conducted to evaluate the item adequacy, factor structure, reliability, and validity of the Disgust Scale (DS; J. Haidt, C. McCauley, & P. Rozin, 1994). The results suggest that 7 items (i.e., Items 2, 7, 8, 21, 23, 24, and 25) should be considered for removal from the DS. Secondary to removing the items, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses revealed that the DS taps 3 dimensions of disgust: Core Disgust, Animal Reminder Disgust, and Contamination-Based Disgust. Women scored higher than men on the 3 disgust dimensions. Structural modeling provided support for the specificity of the 3-factor model, as Core Disgust and Contamination-Based Disgust were significantly predictive of obsessive- compulsive disorder (OCD) concerns, whereas Animal Reminder Disgust was not. Results from a clinical sample indicated that patients with OCD washing concerns scored significantly higher than patients with OCD without washing concerns on both Core Disgust and Contamination-Based Disgust, but not on Animal Reminder Disgust. These findings are discussed in the context of the refinement of the DS to promote a more psychometrically sound assessment of disgust sensitivity. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2007 APA, all rights reserved).
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Personality and Individual Differences
                Personality and Individual Differences
                Elsevier BV
                01918869
                October 2009
                October 2009
                : 47
                : 6
                : 541-546
                Article
                10.1016/j.paid.2009.05.001
                aaf6892d-8143-46e9-9262-5af9419d0fdf
                © 2009

                http://www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article