SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Bilişsel Davranışçı Psikoterapi ve Araştırmalar Dergisi / 2020 / Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 3

Validity and Reliability Study of the Turkish Version of Anxious Thoughts Inventory

Kaygı Düşünceleri Envanteri Türkçe Formunun Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Ayşegül KART
Bengü YÜCENS
Mehmet Hakan TÜRKÇAPAR
Pages
196–201
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The results of this study show that the Turkish version of AnTI is a reliable and valid measurement tool for use.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Anxious Thoughts Inventory (AnTI) was developed to measure both the content and process dimensions of worry.
📊
Key Findings & Data:To analyse the validity and the reliability of the Turkish version of AnTI, 364 collage students were included into this study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results of this study show that the Turkish version of AnTI is a reliable and valid measurement tool for use.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Anxious Thoughts Inventory (AnTI) was developed to measure both the content and process dimensions of worry. To analyse the validity and the reliability of the Turkish version of AnTI, 364 collage students were included into this study. Factor analysis revealed three factors and 50.84% of the total variance was explained with these three factors. Internal consistency of the inventory was calculated 0.908 by Cronbach alpha. AnTI was readministered to 74 participants two weeks later. AnTI total score test-retest corelation value was calculated as Rho=0.785, p<0.001. AnTI total and factors’ scores corelations with Beck Anxiety Inventory, Penn State Worry Questionnaire and subscales of Meta Cognitions Questionnaire were positively and statistically significant (p<0.05). The results of this study show that the Turkish version of AnTI is a reliable and valid measurement tool for use.

Özet

Endişeyi hem içerik hem de süreç açısından değerlendirmek için geliştirilen Kaygı Düşünceleri Envanteri(KDE) Türkçe formunun geçerlik ve güvenirlik açısından değerlendirildiği bu çalışmaya 364 üniversiteöğrencisi dahil edildi. Faktör analizi ile ölçeği oluşturan üç faktör elde edildi ve bu faktörler toplamvaryansın %50,84’ünü açıklamaktaydı. Tüm ölçeğin iç tutarlık katsayısı Cronbach’s α=0,908 olarakbulunmuştur. Çalışmaya katılan 74 katılımcıya KDE iki hafta sonra tekrar uygulanmıştır. Toplam puaniçin test - tekrar test korelasyon değeri Rho=0,785, p<0,001 olarak tespit edilmiştir. KDE’nin 3 faktörüve toplam puanının, Beck Anksiyete Envanteri, Penn State Endişe Ölçeği ve Üst Biliş Ölçeği alt ölçekleriile ilişkisi değerlendirilmiş ve tüm ölçekler ile pozitif yönde, istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir ilişki gösterdiğisaptanmıştır (p<0,05). Bu bulgular KDE Türkçe formunun geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçüm aracı olarakkullanılabileceğini göstermektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

KART, A., YÜCENS, B., TÜRKÇAPAR, M. H. (2020). Validity and Reliability Study of the Turkish Version of Anxious Thoughts Inventory. Bilişsel Davranışçı Psikoterapi ve Araştırmalar Dergisi, Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 3, 196–201. https://ajindex.com/articles/352538

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (5)

  1. Capobianco, L., Morris, J. A. ve Wells, A. (2018). Worry and rumination: do they prolong physiological and affective recovery from stress? Anxiety, Stress and Coping, 31(3), 291–303.https:// doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2018.1438723 Gladstone, G. L., Parker, G. B., Mitchell, P. B., Malhi, G. S., Wilhelm, K. A. ve Austin, M.-P. (2005). A Brief Measure of Worry Severity (BMWS): personality and clinical correlates of severe worriers. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 19(8), 877–892.https://doi. org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2004.11.003 Kertz, S. J., Bigda-Peyton, J. S., Rosmarin, D. H. ve Björgvinsson, T. (2012). The importance of worry across diagnostic presentations: Prevalence, severity and associated symptoms in a partial hospital setting. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 26(1), 126–133.https://doi. org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2011.10.005 Khawaja, N. G. ve Chapman, D. (2007). Cognitive predictors of worry in a non-clinical population. Clinical Psychologist, 11(1), 24–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/13284200601151778
  2. Kircanski, K., Thompson, R. J., Sorenson, J., Sherdell, L. ve Gotlib, I. H. (2018). The everyday dynamics of rumination and worry: precipitant events and affective consequences. Cognition and Emotion, 32(7), 1424–1436.https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2 017.1278679 Meyer, T. J., Miller, M. L., Metzger, R. L. ve Borkovec, T. D. (1990). Development and validation of the Penn State Worry Questionnaire. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 28(6), 487–495. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(90)90135-6
  3. Mohlman, J., de Jesus, M., Gorenstein, E. E., Kleber, M., Gorman, J. M. ve Papp, L. A. (2004). Distinguishing generalized anxiety disorder, panic disorder, and mixed anxiety states in older treatment-seeking adults. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 18(3), 275–290.
  4. Moreno A. L., Gomes, W. B., De Souza, L. K. ve Gauer, G. (2014). Validation of the “Anxious Thoughts Inventory ” for use. Arquivos Brasileiros de Psicologia, 66(3), 20–30. http://pepsic.bvsalud.org/ pdf/arbp/v66n3/03.pdf Morrison, A. P. ve Wells, A. (2007). Relationships between worry, psychotic experiences and emotional distress in patients with schizophrenia spectrum diagnoses and comparisons with anxious and non-patient groups. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 45(7), 1593–1600.
  5. Padros-Blazquez, F., Gonzalez-Betanzos, F., Martinez-Medina, M. P. ve Wagner F. (2018). Psychometric Characteristics of the Original and Brief Version of the Penn State Worry Questionnaire (PSWQ) in Mexican Samples. Actas Esp Psiquiatr 46(4), 117–124. ht