Search

Background: A motivation dimension of the core psychiatric symptom anhedonia additional has been suggested. The Temporal Experience of Pleasure Scale (TEPS) has been reported to assess anticipatory and consummatory pleasure separately in multiple factor-structure models. This study explored the factor structure of a Chinese version of the 18-item TEPS and further explored the measurement invariance of the TEPS across sex and clinical status (non-clinical, psychiatric). Methods: Best-fit factor structure of the TEPS was examined in a non-clinical cohort of 7410 undergraduates, randomized into sample 1 (N = 3755) for exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and sample 2 (N = 3663) for confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Additionally, serial CFA was conducted to evaluate measurement invariance across sex and between clinical (N = 313) and non-clinical (N = 341) samples. Results: EFA supported a new four-factor structure with a motivation component, based on the original two-factor model (consummatory pleasure with/without motivation drive, anticipatory pleasure with/without motivation drive). CFA confirmed the four-factor model as the best-fit structure and revealed a second-order hierarchy in non-clinical and clinical samples. Full scalar invariance was observed across clinical and non-clinical samples and across sex in the clinical sample; only partial scalar invariance was observed across sex in the non-clinical sample. Conclusions: A four-factor structured TEPS can assess motivation-driving dimensions of anticipatory and consummatory pleasure, consistent with the recently advanced multidimensional structure of anhedonia. CFA and measurement invariance results support application of the TEPS for assessing motivation aspects of anhedonia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Personality Inventory for the DSM-5 (PID-5) is an established tool for assessing personality disorder (PD) traits that was developed based on section III of the DSM-5. It is composed of 220 items, organized into 25 facets, which are distributed among five domains. The psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the PID-5 remain to be demonstrated. Two samples were embodied in this study that included 3,550 undergraduates and 406 clinical patients. To probe the structure of the PID-5, parallel analyses were conducted to explore the unidimensionality of its 25 facets and a series of confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) were carried out to confirm the 25 lower-order facets and their distribution among five higher-order domains. Then, the PID-5 was employed to measure the DSM-5 and ICD-11 trait models and to explore the relationship of DSM-IV categorical PDs with DSM-5 and ICD-11 personality traits. Correlation and regression analyses were conducted to probe how well DSM-IV categorical PDs correspond with maladaptive personality traits specified in the DSM-5 and five ICD-11 domains. The respective average internal reliability coefficients of the 25 facets obtained for undergraduate and clinical patient samples were 0.76 and 0.81, those obtained for the five DSM-5 domains were 0.89 and 0.91, and those obtained for the five ICD-11 domains were 0.87 and 0.89. Serial CFAs confirmed the rationality of the PID-5's lower-order 25-facet structure and higher-order five-domain structure in both samples. Correlation and regression analyses showed that DSM-5 specified traits explain the variance in PD presentation with a manifold stronger correlation (R 2 = 0.24–0.44) than non-specified traits (R 2 = 0.04–0.12). Overall, the PID-5 was shown to be a reliable, stable, and structurally valid assessment tool that captures pathological personality traits related to DSM-5 and ICD-11 PDs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Anxiety sensitivity (AS) is a trait-like predisposing factor for the prevalence of anxiety in patients diagnosed with breast cancer. The Anxiety Sensitivity Index-3 (ASI-3) has been widely used in both general and clinical samples for measuring AS. However, the data about its psychometric properties in women with breast cancer are deficient. In addition, there is no evidence proving the measure equivalence of ASI-3 across sociodemographic variables in the specific sample. Thus, the present study examined the psychometric properties and conducted measure equivalence testing of ASI-3 in Chinese women diagnosed with breast cancer. Methods: This study included 815 Chinese women diagnosed with breast cancer. Single group confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was administrated to detect the factorial validity of ASI-3, and multigroup CFAs were conducted to test the measurement equivalence of ASI-3 across various sociodemographic variables. The reliability of ASI-3 was tested by Cronbach's alpha coefficient, Guttman split-half coefficient, McDonald's omega coefficient, and test–retest coefficient. The standardized factor loadings, construct reliability, and the average variance extracted of factors were used to measure the construct validity of ASI-3, and the partial correlations were conducted to examine the criterion-related validity of ASI-3. Results: The ASI-3 had satisfactory reliability and validity in Chinese women diagnosed with breast cancer; three-factor model fitted the data well in CFA and reached partial strict invariances across age, education, and residence groups. Conclusion: This study explored the psychometric properties and measurement invariance across sociodemographic variables of ASI-3 in Chinese women diagnosed with breast cancer. Our results not only proved that the ASI-3 is an appropriate instrument for measuring AS but also deepened the understanding of ASI-3 in Chinese women with malignancy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Anhedonia is a core clinical symptom of mental disorders. The Revised Physical Anhedonia Scale (RPAS) and the Revised Social Anhedonia Scale (RSAS) have been applied in clinical and non-clinical samples since 1980s. However, the construct of a unified RPAS&RSAS for comprehensive measurement of anhedonia has never been explored. Therefore, the purpose of our study was to examine the factor structure of the unified RPAS&RSAS among undergraduates and clinical patients. Methods: A total of 3435 undergraduates from two universities and 294 clinical patients with mental disorders had completed the Chinese version of the RPAS and the RSAS. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were each conducted to reveal the constructs of the RPAS and the RSAS. CFA was used to evaluate first- and second-order models for the unified RPAS&RSAS in undergraduates and clinical patients. The internal consistency and test-retest reliability of the RPAS and the RSAS were also evaluated. Results: EFA and CFA indicated 2-factor structures for RPAS and RSAS, with the factors being defined as anticipatory anhedonia and consummatory anhedonia. The second-order model of the unified RPAS&RSAS in the undergraduates and clinical patients both had satisfactory fit index values (Undergraduate sample: CFI = 0.901, TLI = 0.899, RMSEA = 0.055, SRMR = 0.086; Clinical sample: CFI = 0.922, TLI = 0.911, RMSEA = 0.052, SRMR = 0.078). The psychometric robustness of the RPAS&RSAS were confirmed by high internal consistency and test-retest reliability values. Conclusions: The unified RPAS&RSAS with a second-order structure was confirmed in both undergraduates and clinical samples in Chinese. The construct of anhedonia was refreshed as covering physical and social domains, and each of them includes both anticipatory and consummatory components. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Anhedonia, a key symptom of depression and schizophrenia, has emerged as a potential endophenotype. The aim of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of a Chinese version of the Snaith-Hamilton Pleasure Scale(SHAPS), a self-report anhedonia scale, in a non-clinical sample and clinical sample inclusive of major depressive disorder (MDD), schizophrenia, or a personality disorder.Methods: A total of 4,722 undergraduate students and 352 clinical patients participated in this study. Internal consistency was assessed by calculating Cronbach's α and mean inter-item correlation (MIC) values. Test-retest reliability and convergent validity were assessed with Pearson r coefficients. The best fitting of six potential factor-structure models was determined by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Measurement invariance across genders and samples was determined by multi-group CFA.Results: Internal consistency of the Chinese version of the SHAPS was acceptable in non-clinical (Cronbach's α = 0.90) and clinical (Cronbach's α = 0.91) samples. Four-week interval test-retest reliability was 0.60. Moreover, the Spanish four-factor structure had the best fit indexes in both samples. Scalar invariance was established across genders as well as across non-clinical sample and clinical sample. SHAPS was significantly related with the Temporal Experience of Pleasure Scale (TEPS) and Beck Depression Inventory (BDI).Limitations: There was a restricted scope of convergent validity and the size of clinical sample is relatively small, psychometric properties in elderly sample is also required.Conclusion: The Chinese version of the SHAPS is a reliable, effective, simple and convenient tool for assessing and screening for anhedonia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]