Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-qks25 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-22T02:48:14.453Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Psychometric Analysis of the Subscales of the Thoughts and Real-Life Experiences Scale

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 October 2014

Jagdish Dua  and
Ian Price
Jagdish Dua
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of New England
Ian Price
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of New England
Get access

Abstract

This paper reports on the reliability, validity, and factor analysis of the subscales of the Thoughts and Real-Life Experiences Scale (THARL Scale). Two hundred and twenty-three subjects completed the THARL Scale. Of these, 86 subjects also completed anxiety, stress, depressive cognitions, well-being, and general psychological health scales. Six weeks later, 174 subjects completed the THARL Scale again. The four subscales of the THARL Scale were found to be reliable. Thought-related distress and real life related distress correlated positively with anxiety, stress, and depressive cognitions, and the thought-related positive affect and real life related positive affect correlated negatively with anxiety, stress, and depressive cognitions. High distress was associated with low well-being and low psychological health, and high positive affect was associated with high well-being and high psychological health. Results of multiple regression analyses showed that positive affect due to thoughts was the best predictor of anxiety, while positive affect due to day-to-day experiences was the best predictor of stress and depressive cognitions. Positive and negative affect caused by thoughts were the two significant predictors of well-being while negative affect caused by thoughts and positive affect caused by day-to-day experiences were the two significant predictors of general psychological health. It was concluded that the THARL Scale may be employed as an instrument for the diagnosis of psychological problems and emotional health.

Type
Research Article
Information
Behaviour Change , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , June 1992 , pp. 104 - 111
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Beck, A.T. (1976). Cognitive therapy and the emotional disorders. New York: International Universities Press.Google Scholar
Black, J.D. (1985). Review of the general health questionnaire. In Mitchell, J.V. (Ed.), The ninth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 603–604). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurement, University of Nebraska.Google Scholar
Cox, T. (1985). The nature and measurement of stress. Ergonomics, 28, 1155–1163.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cox, T., Thirlaway, M., Gotts, G., & Cox, S. (1983). The nature and assessment of general well-being. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 27, 353–359.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crandell, C.J., & Chambless, D.L. (1986). The validation of an inventory for measuring depressive thoughts: The Crandell Cognitions Inventory. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 24, 403–411.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dua, J.K. (1989). A scale to measure stress and distress. In Sheppard, J.L. (Ed.), Advances in behavioural medicine (Vol. 6, pp. 111–125). Sydney: Cumberland College of Health Sciences.Google Scholar
Dua, J. (1990). Assessment of positive and negative affect as a result of thoughts and real-life experiences. Behaviour Change, 7, 62–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dua, J.K., & Breu, P. (1988). Distress and general well-being. Unpublished Manuscript, University of New England.Google Scholar
Goldberg, D.P. (1972). The detection of psychiatric illness by questionnaire. (Maudsley Monograph No. 21). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, D., & Williams, P. (1988). A user's guide to the general health questionnaire. Windsor, Berkshire: NFER-Nelson Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Kendall, P.C. (1983). Methodology and cognitive-behavioral assessment. Behavioural Psychotherapy, 11, 285–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendall, P.C., & Hollon, S.D. (1981). Assessing self-referent speech: Methods in the measurement of self-statements. In Kendall, P.C. & Hollon, S.D. (Eds.), Assessment strategies for cognitive-behavioral interventions, (pp. 85–118). New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendall, P.C., Howard, B.L., & Hays, R.C. (1989). Self-referent speech and psychopathology: The balance of positive and negative thinking. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 13, 583–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazarus, R.S. (1966). Psychological stress and the coping process. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Mackay, C.J., Cox, T., Burrows, G.C., & Lazzerini, A.J. (1978). An inventory for the measurement of self-reported stress and arousal. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 17, 283–284.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mahoney, M.J. (1977). Cognitive therapy and research: A question of questions. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1, 1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meichenbaum, D. (1977). Cognitive-behavioral modification: An interpretive approach. New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norusis, M.J. (1985). SPSSX advanced statistics guide. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.Google Scholar
Rappa, S. (1987). Self-esteem, assertiveness. and stress as a function of distress. Unpublished preliminary honours thesis, University of New England, Armidale, New South Wales.Google Scholar
Schwartz, R.M., & Garamoni, G.L. (1986). A structural model of positive and negative states in mind: Assymmetry in the internal dialogue. In Kendall, P.C. (Ed.), Advances in cognitive-behavioral research and therapy (Vol. 5, pp. 1–62). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, J.A. (1953). A personality scale of manifest anxiety. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 48, 285–290.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Watson, D., & Tellegen, A. (1985). Toward a consensual structure of mood. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 219–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar