Validación de constructo factorial de la escala de personalidad de Goldberg (BIS BAS IPIP) en población costarricense

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

David Monge López, Lic https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3078-235X

Keywords

escala de personalidad

Resumen

Los modelos de la personalidad humana basados en la neurología tienen una propuesta relevante en el trabajo de Jeffrey A. Gray. Este autor propuso la existencia de sistemas neurológicos que regulan la inhibición y la activación conductual (BIS y BAS), así como las respuestas huida-lucha-congelación (FFFS). Basado en su trabajo se han creado mediciones de autoinforme para evaluar tales tendencias, en este trabajo se probó la fiabilidad y validez de constructo factorial de una escala de uso libre para evaluar las tendencias asociadas con BIS y BAS. Los resultados mostraron que las escalas del instrumento poseen buena fiabilidad (Cronbach ᾳ = 0,85 tanto para BIS como para BAS). Un análisis factorial exploratorio estableció que efectivamente los ítems de la medición se agrupaban en dos dimensiones de acuerdo a lo esperado, alcanzando tal modelo bifactorial una varianza explicada del 54,21%. El análisis factorial confirmatorio arrojó adecuados índices de ajuste (χ2^(8) = 10.02, p = 0,264; NFI = 0,987; TLI = 0,995; CFI = 0,997; SRMR = 0,038; RMSEA = 0,031). Se discute acerca de aspectos metodológicos, así como posibles líneas de trabajo para la investigación posterior.

Abstract 82 | PDF Downloads 60

Citas

1. Gray JAA critique of Eysenck’s theory of personality. En H. J. Eysenck (Ed.) A Model for Personality. Berlin, Germany: Springer; 1981 (pp. 246 – 276). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-67783-0

2. Gray JA. The Neuropsychology of Anxiety: An Enquiry into the Functions of the Septo-Hippocampal System. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press; 1982.

3. Corr, P. The Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory of Personality. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press; 2008.

4. Eynsenck HJ. Types of personality: a factorial study of seven hundred neurotics. Jrnl. of Ment. Sci. 1944, 90 (381), 851 - 861. doi: 10.1192/bjp.90.381.851

5. Eynsenck HJ. Personality and experimental psychology: the unification of psychology and the possibility of a paradigm. Jrnl. of Pers. and Soc. Psyc., 1997, 73 (6), 1224 - 1237. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.73.6.1224

6. Eysenck HJ. The Biological Basis of Personality. Springfield, Illinois: Thomas; 1967.

7. Gray JA. The psychophysiological basis of introversion - extraversion. Behav. Res. and Ther., 1970, 8 (3), 249 - 266. doi: 10.1016/0005-7967(70)90069-0

8. Gray JA. Pavlov’s Typology. Oxford, U.K.: Pergamon Press; 1964.

9. Gray J A, McNaughton N. The Neuropsychology of Anxiety. London, U.K.: Oxford University Press; 2000.

10. Corr PJ. Testing problems in J.A. Gray’s personality theory: a commentary on Matthews and Gilliland (1999). Pers. and Ind. Diff., 2001, 30 (2), 333 - 352. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00028-3

11. Corr PJ.; DeYoung, CG, McNaughton N. Motivation and personality: a neuropsychological perspective. Soc. and Pers. Psych. Comp., 2013, 7 (3), 158 - 175. doi: 10.1111/spc3.12016

12. Walker BR, Jackson CJ, Frost RA. Comparison of revised reinforcement sensitivity theory with other contemporary personality models. Pers. and Ind. Diff., 2017, 109, 232 - 236. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2016.12.053

13. Stoeber J, Corr PJ. Perfectionism, personality and future-directed thinking: further insights from revised reinforcement sensitivity theory. Pers. and Ind. Diff., 2017, 105, 78-83. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2016.09.041

14. Farrell N, Walker BR. Reinforcement sensitivity theory and the 2x2 standpoints model of achievement goals. Pers. and Ind. Diff., 2019, 139, 317 - 329. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2018.11.035

15. Bijttebier P, Beck, I, Claes L, Vandereycken W. Gray’s reinforcement sensitivity theory as a framework for research on personality-psychopatology associations. Clin. Psych. Rev., 2009, 29 (5), 421 - 430. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2009.04.002

16. Bacon AM, Corr PJ, Satchell LPA. Reinforcement sensitivity theory explanation of antisocial behaviour. Pers. and Ind. Diff., 2018, 123, 87 - 93. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2017.11.008

17. Fayazi M, Hasani J. Structural relations between brain-behavioral systems, social anxiety, depression and internet addiction: with regard to revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (r-RST). Comp. and Hum. Beh., 2017, 72, 441 - 448. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.068

18. Shahzadi K, Walker BR. Reinforcement sensitivity theory and relationship satisfaction via mastery. Pers. and Indiv. Diff., 2019, 139, 46 - 52. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2018.11.007

19. Krupi D, Corr PJ. How reinforcement sensitivity theory relates to self-determination theory. Pers. and Ind. Diff., 2020, 155, 109705. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2019.109705

20. Jensen MP, Ehde DM, Day MA. The behavioral activation and inhibition systems: implications for understanding and treating chronic pain. The Jornl. of Pain, 2016, 17 (5), 529.E1 - 529.E18. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2016.02.001

21. Wilson GD, Gray JA, Barrett PT. A factor analysis of the Gray-Wilson personality questionnaire. Pers. and Ind. Diff., 1990, 11 (10), 1037 - 1045. doi: 10.1016/0191-8869(90)90131-A

22. Ball SA, Zuckermann M. Sensation seeking, Eysenck’s personality dimensions and reinforcement sensitivity in concept formation. Pers. and Ind. Diff., 1990, 11, 343 - 353. doi: 10.1016/0191-8869(90)90216-E

23. Carver CS, White TL. Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: the BIS/BAS scales. Jrnl. of Pers. and Soc. Psych., 1994, 67 (2), 319 - 333. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.67.2.319

24. Torrubia R, Ávila C, Moltó J, Caseras X. The Sensitivity to Punishment and Sensitivity to Reward Questionnaire (SPSRQ) as a measure of Gray’s anxiety and impulsive dimensions. Pers. and Ind. Diff., 2001, 31 (6), 837 - 862. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00183-5

25. Reuter M, Cooper AJ, Smillie LD, Markett S, Montag C. A new measure for the revised reinforcement sensitivity theory: psychometric criteria and genetic validation. Front. in Syst. Neurosc., 2015, 9, 38. doi: 10.3389/fnsys.2015.00038

26. Goldberg LR. A broad-bandwith, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower level facets of several five-factor models. En I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. de Fruyt & F. Ostendorf (Eds.). Personality Psychology in Europe, Vol. 7. Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press, 1999 (pp. 7 - 28)

27. Martínez MV, Zalazar J, Federico M, Pilatti A, Cupani M. Adaptación del cuestionario de personalidad BIS BAS IPIP a una muestra de estudiantes universitarios argentinos y análisis de su relación con patrones de consumo de alcohol. Avan. en Psic. Lat., 2012, 30 (2), 304 - 316.

28. GNU PSPP Users’ Guide. Release 0.8.5. London, U.K.: GNU; 2014.

29. Ferrando PJ, Aguiano-Carrasco C. El análisis factorial como técnica de investigación en psicología. Pap. del Psic., 2010, 31, 18-33.

30. Shapiro A, ten Berge JMF. Statistical inference of minimum rank factor analysis. Psychomet., 2002, 67 (1), 79-94. doi: 10.1007/BF02294710

31. Lorenzo-Seva U. Why rotate my data using Promin? Technical Report. Department of Psychology, Universitat Rovira i Virgil, Tarragona; 2013. Recurso electrónico disponible en http://psico.fcep.urv.es/ utilitats/factor. Accesado en Abril, 6, 2020.

32. Timmerman ME, Lorenzo-Seva U. Dimensionality assessment of ordered polytomous items with parallel analysis. Psych. Meth., 16 (2), 2011, 209-220. doi: 10.1037/a0023353.

33. Lorenzo-Seva U, Ferrando PJ. FACTOR: A computer program to fit the exploratory factor analysis model. Behav. Res. Meth., Instr. and Comp., 2006, 38 (1), 88-91.

34. Matsunaga M. Item Parceling in Structural Equation Modeling: A Primer. Comm. Meth. and Meas., 2008, 2 (4), 260 - 293. doi: 10.1080/19312450802458935

35. Byrne B. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS. Basics Concepts, Applications and Programming. New York, USA: Routledge; 2010.

36. Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struc. Equat. Mod., 1999, 6, 1-55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118

37. Browne TA. Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. New York, USA: Guilford Press; 2006.

38. Rosseel Y. lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling. Jrnl. of Stat. Soft., 2012, 48 (2), 1-36. doi: 10.18637/jss.v048.i02

39. Kline RB. Principles and Practices of Structural Equation Modeling. Fourth Edition. New York, U.S.A.: The Guilford Press; 2016.

40. Hau KT., & Marsh, H. W. The use of item parcels in structural equation modeling: Nonnormal data and small sample sizes. Brit. Jrnl. of Math. and Stat. Psych., 2004, 57, 327–351. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8317.2004.tb00142.x

41. Little TD, Cunningham WA, Shahar G, Widaman KF. To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Struc. Equat. Model., 2002, 9, 151–173. doi: 10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_1

42. Ossenkopp KP, Mazmanian, DS. The principle of aggregation in psychobiological correlational research: An example from the open field-test. Anim. Learn. & Behav., 1985, 13, 339 - 344. doi: 10.3758/BF03208007

43. Bandalos DL, Finney SJ. Item parceling issues in structural equation modeling. En G. A. Marcoulides & R. E. Schumacker (Eds.) New Develop. and Tech. in Struc. Equat. Model. Mahwah, New Jersey, U.S.A.: LEA, 2001 (pp. 269–296).

44. McCrae RR, Costa PT. The five factor theory of personality. En O. P. John, R. W. Robins & L. A. Pervin (Eds.) Handbook of Personality Theory and Research, New York, U.S.A.: Guilford Press. 2008 (pp. 159 - 181).

45. Lee K, Ashton MC. The H Factor of Personality. Waterloo, Ontario, Canada: Wilfrid Laurier University Press; 2012.

46. Panksepp J. Affective Neuroscience: The Foundations of Human and Animal Emotions. New York, U.S.A.: Oxford University Press; 1998.

47. Baron-Cohen S. Mindblindness: An Essay on Autism and Theory of Mind. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press/Bradford Books; 1995.

48. Baron-Cohen S. The Essential Difference: Men, Women and the Extreme Male Brain. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Penguin/Basic Books; 2003.

49. Heatherton TF. Neuroscience of self and self-regulation. Ann. Rev. of Psych., 2011, 62, 363 - 390. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.121208.131616

50. Fiske ST. Social Beings. 4th Ed. New York, U.S.A.: Wiley; 2014.

51. Haidt J. The new synthesis in moral psychology. Science, 2007, 316 (5827), 998–1002. doi: 10.1126/science.1137651

52. Solomon S, Greenberg J, Pyszczynski T. A terror management theory of social behavior: The psychological functions of esteem and cultural worldviews. En M. P. Zanna (Ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Volume 24. San Diego, California, U.S.A.: Academic Press, 1991, 93-159.