| . |
 Spielberger
CD et al: The experience and expression of anger: Construction and validation
of an
anger expression scale.
In MA Chesney, RH Rosenman (Eds.), Anger and Hostility in Cardiovascular
and Behavioral Disorders.
Hemisphere: Cambridge, 1985.
Type
of Measure: Used without modification.
Role
in Center Model: Chronic/Stable Burdens and Resources:
Personal Attributes
Purpose:
To assess tendencies to express anger openly (Anger-out) and to suppress
anger or keep
it in (Anger-in).
Anger suppression is thought to have deleterious effects on mental and
physical
functioning, and has been
linked to CHD, cancer, and infectious disease.
Description:
Subjects rate how often they behave in certain ways when they are “angry
or furious”
using a 4-point rating scale.
No time frame or referent period is used.
Scaling:
1 = Almost Never, 2 = Sometimes, 3 = Often, 4 = Almost Always
#
items: 16 (8 Anger-out and 8 Anger-in)
Sample
items: “I lose my temper” “I say nasty things” (Anger-out)
“I
keep things in” “I boil inside, but I don’t show it” (Anger-in)
Original
Psychometric Data: high school students (n=1,114)
Reliability:
Anger-in: males, alpha = .84; females = .81
Anger-out:
males = .73; females = .75
(Anger-in
& Anger-out are uncorrelated/independent dimensions.)
Validity:
Related to other measure of “suppressed hostility” (Harburg et al.) in
expected
ways.
Correlates
with state and trait anger and anxiety in expected ways;
uncorrelated
with state/trait curiosity.
Higher
Anger-in related to higher blood pressure; higher anger-out related to
somewhat
lower BP.
Additional
References:
 Burns
JW: Anger management style and hostility: Predicting symptom-specific
physiological
reactivity
among chronic low back pain patients. J Behav Med 20:505-522, 1997.
Frasure-Smith
N, Lesperance F, Talajic M: The impact of negative emotions on prognosis
following
myocardial infarction: Is it more than depression? Health Psychol
14:388-398, 1995.
Johnson
EH, Collier P, Nazzaro P, Gilbert DC: Psychological and physiological predictors
of
lipids
in black males. J Behav Med 15:285-298, 1992.
Kerns
RD, Rosenberg R, Jacob MC: Anger expression and chronic pain. J Behav Med
17:57-67,
1994.
Knight
RG, Chisholm BJ, Paulin JM, Waal-Manning HJ: The Spielberger Anger Expression
Scale:
Some psychometric data. Br J Clin Psychol 27:279-281, 1988.
Linden
W, Chambers L, Maurice J, Lenz JW: Sex differences in social support,
self-deception,
hostility, and ambulatory cardiovascular activity.
Health
Psychol 12:376-380, 1993.
Porter
LS, Stone AA, Schwartz JE: Anger expression and ambulatory blood pressure:
A
comparison of state and trait measures. Psychosom Med 61:454-463,
1999.
Waldstein
SR et al: Relationship of cardiovascular reactivity and anger expression
to serum
lipid
concentrations in healthy young men. J Psychosom Res 37:249-256,
1993.
Wenneberg
SR et al: Anger expression correlates with platelet aggregation.
Behav
Med 22:174-177, 1997.
Big Five Personality
Factors
Title:
Goldberg’s Adjective Scale
Primary
Reference:
Goldberg
LR: The development of markers for the big-five factor structure.
Psychol Assess 4:26-42,
1992.
Type
of Measure: Modified from original. To reduce respondent
burden, a 25-item version rather than the original 100-item scale was employed.
The five highest loading items from each factor were used. In addition,
modifications of the scaling technique were also adopted (see below).
Role
in Center Model: Chronic/Stable Burdens and Resources:
Personal Attributes
Purpose:
To assess standing along five major dimensions of personality: (1) extraversion,
(2) agreeableness, (3) conscientiousness,
(4) neuroticism, and (5) openness. There is a growing
consensus that these five
traits provide the fundamental underpinnings of human personality.
Several of these traits
have been shown to have health consequences or to be related to underlying
physiological responses.
Description:
Subjects are instructed to rate how accurately various single-word traits
describe
themselves. There
are specific instructions to “describe yourself as you see yourself at
the present
time, not as you wish to
be in the future. Describe yourself as you are GENERALLY or TYPICALLY,
as compared with other persons
you know of the same sex and roughly the same age.”
Scaling:
Original:
1 = extremely inaccurate, 2 = very inaccurate, 3 = quite inaccurate,
4
= slightly inaccurate, 5 = neither inaccurate nor accurate, 6 = slightly
accurate,
7
= quite accurate, 8 = very accurate, 9 = extremely accurate
Modified:
0 = Not at all accurate, 1 = A little accurate, 2 = Moderately accurate,
3
= Quite a bit accurate, 5 = Extremely accurate
#
items: 25 (5 for each of the five dimensions).
Sample
items: “bashful” (reversed), “talkative” (extraversion)
“pleasant”
“unkind” (reversed) (agreeableness)
“organized”
“careless” (reversed) (conscientiousness)
“irritable”
“nervous” (neuroticism)
“innovative”
“unimaginative” (reversed) (openness)
Original
Psychometric Data: college students (n = 320)
Reliability:
extraversion, alpha = .90; agreeableness = .84; conscientiousness = .88;
neuroticism
= .83; openness = .82
Validity:
High correlations with scales based on larger numbers of items.
High
to moderate correlations (.46 to .69) with McCrae & Costa’s NEO
Personality
Inventory.
Additional
References:
Cohen
S, Doyle WJ, Skoner DP, Rabin BS, Gwaltney JM: Social ties and susceptibility
to
the
common cold. JAMA 277:1940-1944, 1997.
Friedman
LC et al: Predictors of psychosocial adjustment to breast cancer.
J Psychosoc
Oncol
6:75-94, 1988.
Miller
GE, Cohen S, Rabin BS, Skoner DP, Doyle WJ: Personality and tonic cardiovascular,
neuroendocrine,
and immune parameters. Brain Behav Immunol 13:109-123, 1999.
Rothbart
MK, Ahadi SA, Evans DE: Temperament and personality: Origins and
outcomes.
J
Pers Soc Psychol 78:122-135, 2000.
Hostility
Title:
The Cook-Medley Hostility Scale (Ho)
Primary
Reference:
Cook WW, Medley DM: Proposed
hostility and pharisaic-virtue scales for the MMPI.
J Appl Psychol 38:414-418,
1954.
Type
of Measure: Modified from original. The modified 20-item version
of the scale consists of
three sub-scales which were
found to be better predictors of health outcomes than the whole 50-item
scale. These subscales are:
Cynicism, Hostile Affect and Aggressive Responding (Barefoot, Dodge,
Peterson, Dahlstrom, &
Williams, 1989).
Role
in Center Model: Chronic/Stable Burdens and Resources:
Personal Attributes
Purpose:
To assess people’s cynical, mistrustful and aggressive attitudes toward
others.
Hostility has been linked
to all-cause mortality, CHD, and a number of cardiovascular risk factors.
Description:
Subjects indicate by using “True/False” options whether each of the 20
statements
describes them correctly.
No time frame or referent period is used.
Scaling:
1 = True, 2 = False
#
items: 20 (6 Cynicism, 5 Hostile Affect, and 9 Aggressive
Responding)
Sample
items: “I would certainly enjoy beating a crook at his or her
own game”
(Aggressive
Responding) “People often disappoint me” (Hostile Affect)
“I
think most people would lie to get ahead” (Cynicism)
Original
Psychometric Data: graduate students (n=200)
Reliability:
Whole sample, alpha = .84
Validity:
Correlates with Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory (MTAI) (Cook &
Medley, 1954)
Correlates
with trait anger and relevant hostility subscales of Buss and Durkee
Hostility
Inventory in expected ways (Smith & Frohm, 1985);
Correlates
negatively with Rotter Trust Scale, Social Desirability, and Hardiness
(Smith
& Frohm, 1985).
Additional
References:
Barefoot
KC, Dahlstrom WG, Williams RB Jr: Hostility, CHD incidence, and total mortality:
A
25-year follow-up study of 255 physicians. Psychosom Med 45:59-63, 1983.
Barefoot
KC, Dodge KA, Peterson BL, Dahlstrom WG, Williams RB: The Cook-Medley
Hostility
Scale: Item content and ability to predict survival. Psychosom Med 51:46-57,
1989.
Davis
MC, Matthews KA, McGrath CE: Hostile attitudes predict elevated vascular
resistance
during
interpersonal stress in men and women. Psychosom Med 62:17-25, 2000.
Lahad
A, Heckbert SR, Koepsell TD, Psaty BM, Patrick DL: Hostility, aggression
and
the
risk of nonfatal myocardial infarction in postmenopausal women. J Psychosom
Res
43:183-195,
1997.
Niaura
R, Banks SM, Ward KD, Stoney CM, Spiro A 3rd, Aldwin CM, Landsberg L,
Weiss
ST: Hostility and the metabolic syndrome in older males: The normative
aging study.
Psychosom
Med 62:7-16, 2000.
Smith
TW, Frohm KD: What’s so unhealthy about hostility: Construct validity and
psychosocial
correlates of the Cook and Medley Ho scale. Health Psychol 4:503-520, 1985.
Suarez
EC, Bates MP, Harralson TL: The relation of hostility to lipids and lipoproteins
in
women:
evidence for the role of antagonistic hostility. Ann Behav Med 20:59-63,
1998.
Suarez
EC, Shiller AD, Kuhn CM, Schanberg S, Williams RB Jr, Zimmermann EA:
The
relationship between hostility and beta-adrenergic receptor physiology
in health young
males.
Psychosom Med 59:481-487, 1997.
Vogele
C: Serum lipid concentrations, hostility and cardiovascular reactions to
mental stress.
Int
J Psychophysiol 28:167-179, 1998.
Mastery
Title:
The Mastery Scale
Primary
Reference:
Pearlin LI, Schooler C:
The structure of coping. J Health Soc Behav 19:2-21, 1978.
Type
of Measure: Used without modification.
Role
in Center Model: Chronic/Stable Burdens and Resources:
Personal Attributes
Purpose:
To assesses the extent to which the individuals generally feel as though
they manifest
personal mastery over important
life outcomes. Mastery has been linked to depressive symptoms.
Description:
Subjects are asked to rate how much they agree or disagree with self-descriptive
sentences. No time frame
or referent period is used.
Scaling:
1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Agree, 4 = Strongly Agree
#
items: 7
Sample
items: “There is really no way I can solve some of the problems
I have”
(reversed)
“What happens to me in the future mostly depends on me”
“I
can do just about anything I really set my mind to do”
Original
Psychometric Data: people from the Census-defined urbanized area
of Chicago
ages
18-65 (n=2300)
Reliability:
Whole sample, alpha = not reported
Validity:
Plays important role in coping with stress.
Correlates
with optimism in expected direction, but predicts levels of depressive
symptoms
independent of optimism (Marshall & Lang, 1990).
Additional
References:
Dew
MA, Ragni MV, Nimorwicz P: Infection with human immunodeficiency virus
and
vulnerability
to psychiatric distress. A study of men with hemophilia. Arch Gen Psychiatry
47:737-44,
1990.
Folkman
S, Lazarus RS: Stress process and depressive symptomatology. J Abnorm
Psychol
95:107-113, 1986.
Kaplan
L, Boss P: Depressive symptoms among spousal caregivers of institutionalized
mates
with Alzheimer’s: boundary ambiguity and mastery as predictors. Fam Process
38:85-103,
1999.
Marshall
GN, Lange EL: Optimism, self-mastery, and symptoms of depression in women
professionals.
J Pers Soc Psychol 59:132-139, 1990.
Life Orientation
Title:
Revised Life Orientation Test (LOT-R)
Primary
Reference:
Scheier MF, Carver CS, Bridges
MW: Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait
anxiety,self-mastery, and
self-esteem): A re-evaluation of the Life Orientation Test.
J Pers Soc Psychol 67:1063-1078,
1994.
Type
of Measure: Used without modification.
Role
in Center Model: Chronic/Stable Burdens and Resources:
Personal Attributes
Purpose:
To measure dispositional optimism. Dispositional optimism is considered
beneficial for
psychological and physical
well-being. It is related to faster recovery after coronary artery bypass
surgery (Scheier, et al.
1989) and lower rates of re-hospitalization following angioplasty
(Helgeson & Fritz, 1999).
Description:
Respondents indicate the extent to which they agree with statements describing
optimism about life. No
time frame or referent period is used.
Scaling:
0 = Strongly Disagree, 1 = Disagree, 2 = Neutral, 3 = Agree,
4
= Strongly Agree
#
items: 10 (6 scale items + 4 filler items)
Sample
items: “If something can go wrong for me, it will” (reversed)
“In
uncertain times, I usually expect the best”
“I
am always optimistic about my future”
Original
Psychometric Data: undergraduate students (n=2055)
Reliability:
Whole sample, alpha = .78
Test-Retest
Reliability (28 months) = .79
Validity:
Correlates with related constructs like self-mastery;
Additional
References:
Helgeson
VS, Fritz HL: Cognitive adaptation as a predictor of new coronary events
following
percutaneous
transluminal coronary angioplasty. Psychosom Med 61:488-495, 1999.
Marshall
GN, Lange EL: Optimism, self-mastery, and symptoms of depression in women
professionals.
J Pers Soc Psychol 59:132-139, 1990.
Raikkonnen
K, Matthews KA, Flory JD, Owens JF, Gump BB: Effects of optimism,
pessimism,
and trait anxiety on ambulatory blood pressure and mood during everyday
life.
J
Pers Soc Psychol 76:104-113, 1999.
Scheier
MF, Matthews KA, Owens J, Magovern GJ Sr, Lefebvre RC, Abbott RA, Carver
CS:
Dispositional
optimism and recovery from coronary artery bypass surgery: The beneficial
effects
on physical and psychological well-being. J Pers Soc Psychol 57:1024-1040,
1989.
Scheier
MF, Matthews KA, Owens J: Optimism and re-hospitalization following coronary
artery
bypass graft surgery. Arch Intern Med 59:829-835, 1999.
Self-Esteem
Title:
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale
Primary
Reference:
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society
and adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Type
of Measure: Modified from original. Four items were chosen out
of the original ten items
(Krause, 1995).
Role
in Center Model: Chronic/Stable Burdens and Resources:
Personal Attributes
Purpose:
To measure self-esteem. Self-esteem, in conjunction with mastery and optimism,
predicted low rates of re-hospitalization
following angioplasty (Helgeson & Fritz, 1999).
Description:
Respondents indicate the extent to which they agree with sentences describing
attitudes about themselves.
No time frame or referent period is used.
Scaling:
1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Agree, 4 = Strongly Agree
#
items: 4
Sample
items: “I feel that I have a number of good qualities” “I take
a positive
attitude
toward myself”
Original
Psychometric Data: undergraduate students (n=1103) (Krause, 1995).
Reliability:
Whole sample, alpha = .89. It has demonstrated internal consistency
and
high test-retest reliability in numerous studies.
Validity:
One of the most widely used instruments to measure self-esteem,
it
consistently demonstrates a unidimensional nature.
Additional
References:
Helgeson
VS, Fritz HL: Cognitive adaptation as a predictor of new coronary events
following
percutaneous
transluminal coronary angioplasty. Psychosom Med 61:488-495, 1999.
Johnson
SL, Meyer B, Winett C, Small J: Social support and self-esteem predict
changes in
bipolar
depression but not mania. J Affect Disorders 58:79-86, 2000.
Krause
N: Religiosity and self-esteem among older adults. J Gerontol: Psychol
Sci
50B:236-246,
1995.
Vohs
KD, Bardone AM, Joiner TE Jr, Abramson LY, Heatherton TF: Perfectionism,
perceived
weight status, and self-esteem interact to predict bulimic symptoms: a
model
of
bulimic symptom development. J Abnorm Psychol 108:695-700, 1999.
Physical Co-morbidity
(Sub-core measure)
Title:
Physical Comorbidity Index
Primary
Reference:
Katz JN, Chang LC, Sangha
O, Fossel AH, Bates DW: Can comorbidity be measured by
questionnaire rather than
medical record review? Medical Care 34:73-84, 1996.
Type
of Measure: Modified from original. A number of health problems
not included in the original
questionnaire were added.
Questions related to illness severity were excluded in order to create
a
simple count of health problems.
Role
in Center Model: Chronic/Stable Burdens and Resources:
Personal Attributes
Purpose:
To assess the number of health problems experienced by the participant.
Description:
Respondents indicate by Yes/No whether they have had a particular health
problem.
Scaling:
N/A
#
items: 23
Sample
items: “Have you ever had a heart attack?” “Have you ever had
a stroke?”
“Do
you have diabetes?”
Original
Psychometric Data: patients over 50 years old (N=170)
Reliability:
Test/Retest reliability (24 hours) intraclass correlation coeff. =.91
Validity:
Correlated strongly with Charlson comorbidity index
(Spearman
correlation coeff. =.63).
Correlated
positively with health care utilization among patients.
Additional
References:
Westhoff
G, Listing J, Zink A: Loss of physical independence in rheumatoid arthritis:
Interview
data from a representative sample of patients in rheumatologic care.
Arthritis
Care Res 13:11-22, 2000.
PMBC-I
Psychosocial and Health Behavior Measures Main-PageCore-C
Main |
