Psychiatry research · 2018
Traditional-Chinese Dispositional Flow Scale-2 and Flow State Scale-2 in Taiwanese subjects with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Huang Lin-Jye, Hu Fu-Chang, Wu Chinyu, Yang Yi-Hong, Lee Shu-Chun, Fang Yung-Chun, Huang Hsu-Chang, Lai Kuan-Yu, Yu Chun-Yi
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The 36-item Dispositional Flow Scale-2 (DFS-2) and Flow State Scale-2 (FSS-2) were developed to assess flow experience in daily and specific activities. Although their validity and reliability had been examined in general populations and different cultures, little is known for schizophrenic subjects. Thus, this study aimed to validate Traditional-Chinese DFS-2 (TCDFS-2) and FSS-2 (TCFSS-2) in Taiwanese subjects with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder.
METHODS: We recruited 229 adult participants from outpatient clinics, day care centers, and psychiatric rehabilitation centers in Taipei. They filled out 36-item TCDFS-2 and TCFSS-2 under guidance. The LISREL 9.30 software was used to conduct exploratory factor analysis for exploring measurement structures, and then confirmatory factor analysis for identifying factor models.
RESULTS: The six first-order factor and one second-order factor measurement models were obtained for both 36-item TCDFS-2 (Chi-square statistic = 999.1, df = 545, p < 0.0001, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation [RMSEA] = 0.0603, and Comparative Fit Index [CFI] = 0.9213) and TCFSS-2 (Chi-square statistic = 987.9, df = 539, p < 0.0001, RMSEA = 0.0603, and CFI = 0.9213).
CONCLUSION: Our factor models differed remarkably from those of 36-item DFS-2 and FSS-2. Yet, they were barely acceptable to be used to measure flow experiences in schizophrenic subjects in clinical applications. Since the factor scores, measurement structures, or even definitions of flow experiences could differ substantially between healthy people and patients with mental illness, disease-specific instruments of flow experiences should be considered in the future.
METHODS: We recruited 229 adult participants from outpatient clinics, day care centers, and psychiatric rehabilitation centers in Taipei. They filled out 36-item TCDFS-2 and TCFSS-2 under guidance. The LISREL 9.30 software was used to conduct exploratory factor analysis for exploring measurement structures, and then confirmatory factor analysis for identifying factor models.
RESULTS: The six first-order factor and one second-order factor measurement models were obtained for both 36-item TCDFS-2 (Chi-square statistic = 999.1, df = 545, p < 0.0001, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation [RMSEA] = 0.0603, and Comparative Fit Index [CFI] = 0.9213) and TCFSS-2 (Chi-square statistic = 987.9, df = 539, p < 0.0001, RMSEA = 0.0603, and CFI = 0.9213).
CONCLUSION: Our factor models differed remarkably from those of 36-item DFS-2 and FSS-2. Yet, they were barely acceptable to be used to measure flow experiences in schizophrenic subjects in clinical applications. Since the factor scores, measurement structures, or even definitions of flow experiences could differ substantially between healthy people and patients with mental illness, disease-specific instruments of flow experiences should be considered in the future.