BMC psychiatry · 2026
Development and validation of the Beliefs in Social Anxiety Scale (BIAS) for Chinese socially anxious adults and adolescents.
СтатьяВалидационное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Cui Liechuan, Feng Lele, Huang Jingjing, Liu Jiaqi, Luo Jia, Yu Meng, Tang Xinfeng
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Maladaptive social beliefs play a pivotal role in the development and maintenance of social anxiety; however, existing measures have limited cultural adaptability for Chinese populations. Therefore, this study developed and validated the Beliefs in Social Anxiety Scale (BIAS), designed to assess maladaptive social beliefs among Chinese adolescents and adults.
METHODS: Three studies were conducted to examine its psychometric properties using data from community samples of Chinese adolescents and adults. Study 1 employed a mixed-methods approach. Initial items were generated through semi-structured qualitative interviews with individuals reporting high levels of social anxiety (N = 34), defined as scoring ≥ 19 on the Social Phobia Inventory (SPIN). A larger quantitative sample (N = 1,087) was then used to explore the scale's factor structure and conduct preliminary validation of its psychometric properties. Study 2 (baseline: N = 769; 6-month follow-up: N = 503) validated the scale's properties longitudinally in adults. Study 3 (N = 1,017) assessed its applicability in adolescents in two high schools.
RESULTS: Across studies, the BIAS showed a stable four-factor structure, including negative self-perception, perceived poor social skills, high estimated social cost, and high estimated visibility of physical symptoms. Confirmatory factor analyses supported this structure across samples, with acceptable-to-good fit indices (CFI = 0.926 to 0.968, TLI = 0.918 to 0.965, RMSEA = 0.042 to 0.077, SRMR = 0.036 to 0.046). Internal consistency was good to excellent (α/ω = 0.82 to 0.97), and the scale demonstrated convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity, as well as comparability across gender, time, and samples.
CONCLUSIONS: The BIAS provides a culturally sensitive and psychometrically robust tool for assessing maladaptive social beliefs in Chinese community populations. It may facilitate the identification of culturally shaped belief patterns and inform the development of culturally adapted cognitive-behavioral interventions. Limitations include gender imbalance, mixed administration formats, use of community samples, and preliminary evidence for predictive validity based on a relatively small longitudinal subsample, highlighting the need for further validation in clinical and diverse populations.
CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
METHODS: Three studies were conducted to examine its psychometric properties using data from community samples of Chinese adolescents and adults. Study 1 employed a mixed-methods approach. Initial items were generated through semi-structured qualitative interviews with individuals reporting high levels of social anxiety (N = 34), defined as scoring ≥ 19 on the Social Phobia Inventory (SPIN). A larger quantitative sample (N = 1,087) was then used to explore the scale's factor structure and conduct preliminary validation of its psychometric properties. Study 2 (baseline: N = 769; 6-month follow-up: N = 503) validated the scale's properties longitudinally in adults. Study 3 (N = 1,017) assessed its applicability in adolescents in two high schools.
RESULTS: Across studies, the BIAS showed a stable four-factor structure, including negative self-perception, perceived poor social skills, high estimated social cost, and high estimated visibility of physical symptoms. Confirmatory factor analyses supported this structure across samples, with acceptable-to-good fit indices (CFI = 0.926 to 0.968, TLI = 0.918 to 0.965, RMSEA = 0.042 to 0.077, SRMR = 0.036 to 0.046). Internal consistency was good to excellent (α/ω = 0.82 to 0.97), and the scale demonstrated convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity, as well as comparability across gender, time, and samples.
CONCLUSIONS: The BIAS provides a culturally sensitive and psychometrically robust tool for assessing maladaptive social beliefs in Chinese community populations. It may facilitate the identification of culturally shaped belief patterns and inform the development of culturally adapted cognitive-behavioral interventions. Limitations include gender imbalance, mixed administration formats, use of community samples, and preliminary evidence for predictive validity based on a relatively small longitudinal subsample, highlighting the need for further validation in clinical and diverse populations.
CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.