Propiedades Psicométricas del Inventario de Pensamiento Dicotómico (DTI) en español
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35670/1667-4545.v24.n2.46488Palabras clave:
pensamiento dicotómico, propiedades, psicometría, DTI, estructura factorialResumen
El pensamiento dicotómico es una distorsión cognitiva que se caracteriza por emplear categorías extremas para clasificar situaciones o personas. El presente estudio tuvo como objetivo adaptar el Inventario de Pensamiento Dicotómico (DTI) en una muestra de adultos argentinos. Se constituyó una muestra intencional (n = 470) residentes en el Gran Buenos Aires y la Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, de entre 18 y 63 años (M = 30.71, DE = 10.76), de los cuales 367 eran mujeres. Los resultados del análisis factorial exploratorio y confirmatorio indicaron una estructura de dos dimensiones con adecuada confiabilidad (α = .78 para creencias dicotómicas, α = .72 para preferencia por la dicotomía, y α = .82 para el puntaje total). Se encontraron evidencias de validez convergente y discriminante, y se identificaron diferencias de género, lo que mostró mostrando niveles más altos de pensamiento dicotómico en hombres. La adaptación al español sugiere adecuadas propiedades psicométricas.
Descargas
Referencias
Arana, F. G., Keegan, E., & Rutsztein, G. (2009). Adaptación de una medida multidimensional de perfeccionismo: La Almost Perfect Scale-Revised (APS-R). Un estudio preliminar sobre sus propiedades psicométricas en una muestra de estudiantes universitarios argentinos. Revista Evaluar, 9(1), 35-53. https://doi.org/10.35670/1667-4545.v9.n1.463
Arquero, J. L., & McLain, D. L. (2010). Preliminary validation of the Spanish version of the Multiple Stimulus Types Ambiguity Tolerance Scale (MSTAT-II). The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 13(1), 476-484. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1138741600004029
Beck, A. T. (1963). Thinking and depression: I. Idiosyncratic content and cognitive distortions. Archives of General Psychiatry, 9(4), 324-333. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1963.01720160014002
Beck, A. T. (1967). Depression: Clinical, experimental and theoretical aspects. Harper and Row.
Beck, A. T., Freeman, A., & Davis, D. D. , & Associates.(2004). Cognitive therapy of personality disorders (2nd ed.).The Guilford Press.
Bentler, P. M. (1992). On the fit of models to covariances and methodology to the Bulletin.. Psychological Bulletin, 112(3), 400-404. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.3.400
Bodenhausen, G. V., Kang, S. K., & Peery, D. (2012). Social categorization and the perception of social groups. In S. T. Fiske & C. N. Macrae (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Social Cognition (pp. 311-329). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446247631
Bonfá-Araujo, B., Oshio, A., & Hauck-Filho, N. (2022). Seeing things in black and white: A scoping review on dichotomous thinking style. Japanese Psychological Research, 64(4), 461-472. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpr.12328
Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. The Guilford Press.
Budner, S. (1962). Intolerance of ambiguity as a personality variable. Journal of Personality, 30(1), 29-50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1962.tb02303.x
Byrne, B. M. (20087). Factor analysis: Confirmatory. Wiley Encyclopedia of Clinical Trials, 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780471462422.eoct946
Byrne, B. M. (2012). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203807644
Cupani, M. (2012). Análisis de ecuaciones estructurales: Conceptos, etapas de desarrollo y un ejemplo de aplicación. Revista Tesis, 2, 186-199. https://rdu.unc.edu.ar/handle/11086/22039
DeVellis, R. (2012). Scale development: Theory and applications. Sage.
Dibb-Smith, A. E., Brindal, E., Chapman, J., & Noakes, M. (2019). A mixed-methods investigation of psychological factors relevant to weight maintenance. Journal of Health Psychology, 24(4), 440-452. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105316678053
Dugas, M. J., Gosselin, P., & Ladouceur, R. (2001). Intolerance of uncertainty and worry: Investigating specificity in a nonclinical sample. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 25(5), 551-558. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005553414688
Grenier, S., Barrette, A. -M., & Ladouceur, R. (2005). Intolerance of uncertainty and intolerance of ambiguity: Similarities and differences. Personality and Individual Differences, 39(3), 593-600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.02.014
Guglielmo, S. S. (2015). Cognitive distortion: Propositions and possible worlds. Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 33(1), 53-77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10942-014-0202-7
Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30(2), 179-185. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02289447
International Test Commission. (2017). The ITC guidelines for translating and adapting tests (2nd ed.). https://www.intestcom.org
Jonason, P. K., Oshio, A., Shimotsukasa, T., Mieda, T., Csathó, A.Sitnikova, M., & Sitnikova, M.Csathó, A. (2018). Seeing the world in black or white: The Dark Triad traits and dichotomous thinking. Personality and Individual Differences, 120, 102-106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.08.030
Kaplan, R. M., & Saccuzzo, D. P. (2006). Pruebas psicológicas. Principios, aplicaciones y temas (6ta ed.). Thomson.
Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford.
Lauriola, M., Foschi, R., Mosca, O., & Weller, J. (2016). Attitude toward ambiguity: Empirically robust factors in self-report personality scales. Assessment, 23(3), 353-373. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191115577188
Labovitz, S. (1968). Criteria for selecting a significance level: A note on the sacredness of .05. The American Sociologist, 3(3), 220-222. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27701367
Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2013). Why rotate my data using Promin? (Technical Report). Department of Psychology, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona. https://www.psicologia.urv.cat/ca/
Matsunaga, M. (2010). How to factor-analyze your data right: Do’s, don’ts, and how-to’s. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(1), 97-110. https://doi.org/10.21500/20112084.854
Mieda, T., Taku, K., & Oshio, A. (2021). Dichotomous thinking and cognitive ability. Personality and Individual Differences, 169, 110008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110008
Muñiz, J., Elosua, P., & Hambleton, R. K., & International Test Commission (2013). Directrices para la traducción y adaptación de los tests: Segunda edición [International Test Commission Guidelines for test translation and adaptation: Second edition]. Psicothema, 25(2), 151-157. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2013.24
Namatame, H., Ueda, H., & Sawamiya, Y. (2015). Development of emotional intelligence through stress experiences: The role of dichotomous thinking. Journal of Health Science, 5(2), 42. https://doi.org/10.5923/j.health.20150502.03
Nguyen, N. (2020). Relationships between dichotomous thinking and other cognitive distortions. Undergraduate Psychology Research Methods Journal, 1(22), Art. 5. https://digitalcommons.lindenwood.edu/psych_journals/vol1/iss22/5
O'Connor, B. P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer's MAP Test. Behavior Research Methods, Instrumentation, and Computers, 32(3), 396-402. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03200807
Orcan, F. (2018). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Which one to use first? Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 9(4), 414-421. https://doi.org/10.21031/epod.394323
Oshio, A. (2009). Development and validation of the Dichotomous Thinking Inventory. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 37(6), 729-7412. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2009.37.6.729
Oshio, A. (2010). Characteristics of the Dichotomous Thinking Inventory Japanese version: Review of scale development process and relations with aspects of everyday life. Journal of the College of Humanities (Chubu University), 23, 45-57.
Oshio, A. (2012). The relationship between dichotomous thinking and music preferences among Japanese undergraduates. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 40(4), 567-574. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2012.40.4.567
Oshio, A., & Meshkova, T. (2012). Eating disorders, body image, and dichotomous thinking among Japanese and Russian college women. Health, 4(7), 392-399. https://doi.org/10.4236/health.2012.47062
Oshio, A., Mieda, T., & Taku, K. (2016). Younger people, and stronger effects of all-or-nothing thoughts on aggression: Moderating effects of age on the relationships between dichotomous thinking and aggression. Cogent Psychology, 3(1), 1244874. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2016.1244874
Palascha, A., van Kleef, E., & van Trijp, H. C. M. (2015). How does thinking in black and white terms relate to eating behavior and weight regain? Journal of Health Psychology, 20(5), 638-648. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105315573440
Slaney, R. B., Mobley, M., Trippi, J., Ashby, J. S., & Johnson, D. (1996). Almost Perfect Scale-Revised (APS-R) [Database record]. APA PsycTests. https://doi.org/10.1037/t02161-000
Stoeber, J. (2018). The psychology of perfectionism: An introduction. In J. Stoeber (Ed.), The psychology of perfectionism: Theory, research, applications (pp. 3-16). Routledge/Taylor & Francis.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using Multivariate Statistics (6th ed.). Allyn & Bacon/Pearson.
Ueno, Y., Mieda, T., & Oshio, A. (2017). Correlations between factors characteristic of competitive sports and dichotomous thinking. Journal of Health Psychology Research, 30, 35-44. https://doi.org/10.11560/jhpr.161124063
van de Vijver, F., & Tanzer, N. K. (2004). Bias and equivalence in cross-cultural assessment: An overview. European Review of Applied Psychology, 54(2), 119-135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2003.12.004
Veen, G., & Arntz, A. (2000). Multidimensional dichotomous thinking characterizes borderline personality disorder. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 24(1), 23-45. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005498824175
Descargas
Publicado
Número
Sección
Licencia
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución 4.0.
Revista Evaluar aplica la Licencia Internacional de Atribuciones Comunes Creativas (Creative Commons Attribution License, CCAL). Bajo esta licencia, los autores retienen la propiedad de copyright de los artículos pero permiten que, sin que medie permiso de autor o editor, cualquier persona descargue y distribuya los artículos publicados en Evaluar. La única condición es que siempre y en todos los casos se cite a los autores y a la fuente original de publicación (i.e. Evaluar). El envío de artículos a Evaluar y la lectura de los mismos es totalmente gratuito.
