ویژگی‌های روان‌سنجی نسخه فارسی مقیاس عدم بخشش

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 کارشناسی‌ارشد روانشناسی بالینی، دانشکدۀ علوم تربیتی و روان‌شناسی، دانشگاه شهید چمران اهواز، اهواز، ایران

2 استادیار، گروه روانشناسی، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روانشناسی، دانشگاه شهید چمران اهواز، اهواز، ایران

3 استاد گروه روان‌شناسی، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روانشناسی، دانشگاه شهید چمران اهواز، اهواز، ایران

چکیده

زمینه :هدف این مطالعه ساختار عاملی، پایایی و روایی نسخة فارسی مقیاس عدم‌بخشش در میان دانشجویان ایرانی بود. روش : پژوهش حاضر، از نظر هدف، کاربردی و از نظر شیوة گردآوری داده‌ها روش این پژوهش توصیفی- همبستگی بود؛ به این منظور ۴۵۰ نفر از دانشجویان دانشگاه علوم پزشکی جندی‌شاپور شهر اهواز از طریق نمونه‌گیری تصادفی خوشه‌ای چندمرحله‌ای در سال تحصیلی ۱۴۰۲-۱۴۰۳ انتخاب شدند و به مقیاس عدم بخشش پاسخ دادند. ساختار عاملی مقیاس از طریق تحلیل عاملی اکتشافی و تأییدی، همسانی درونی ابزار توسط آلفای کرونباخ و روایی آن به روش همگرا و واگرا به ترتیب با استفاده از ابزار پرسشنامه کینه‌توزی و مقیاس صفت گذشت مورد تحلیل و بررسی قرار گرفت. یافته‌ها: هر یک از شاخص‌های تحلیل عاملی تأییدی، ازجمله CFI، NFI، IFI و TLI مقدار مطلوب و مناسبی برای این مقیاس داشتند. ضریب آلفای کل مقیاس نیز 0/93به دست آمد که حاکی از همسانی درونی مطلوب مقیاس است. از نظر آماری بارهای عاملی تمام آیتم‌ها بالاتر از 0/55در سطح 0/001 معنادار بود. همبستگی پیرسون بین نمره کل این مقیاس با مقیاس کینه‌توزی 0/65و مقیاس صفت گذشت به مقدار 0/59- در سطح 0/001 معنادار گزارش شد که حاکی از روایی همگرا و واگرای مطلوب مقیاس است. نتیجه‌گیری: بنابراین باتوجه‌به برازش مطلوب مدل، روایی و پایایی مناسب و اعتبار بالای مقیاس عدم‌بخشش، می‌توان ازآن‌جهت بررسی و سنجش عدم‌بخشش بین‌فردی در جامعة ایرانی استفاده کرد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Examining the psychometric properties of the Persian version of the Unforgiveness Scale

نویسندگان [English]

  • fateme Arastoo 1
  • Bahram Peymannia 2
  • Kioumars Beshlideh 3
1 M.A in clinical Psychology, Department of Psychology, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Ahvaz, Iran
2 Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Educational Sciences and Psychology, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Ahvaz, Iran
3 Professor, Department of Psychology, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Ahvaz, Iran
چکیده [English]

Introduction: The aim of this study was to examine the factor structure, reliability, and validity of the Persian version of the Unforgiveness Scale among Iranian university students. Method: The present study was applied in terms of its objective and employed a descriptive-correlational design for data collection. To this end, 450 students from Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences in Ahvaz were selected using a multistage cluster sampling method during the 2023–2024 academic year and responded to the Unforgiveness Scale. The factor structure of the scale was analyzed using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Internal consistency was assessed through Cronbach’s alpha, and validity was examined using convergent and divergent validity methods, employing the Resentment Questionnaire and the Trait Forgiveness Scale, respectively. Results: All confirmatory factor analysis indices, including CFI, NFI, IFI, and TLI, indicated an acceptable and appropriate fit for the scale. The overall Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the scale was 0.93, demonstrating high internal consistency. Statistically, all factor loadings were above 0.55 and significant at the 0.001 level. Pearson’s correlation between the total score of this scale and the Resentment Questionnaire was 0.65, while its correlation with the Trait Forgiveness Scale was -0.59, both significant at the 0.001 level, indicating satisfactory convergent and divergent validity. Conclusion: Given the satisfactory model fit, appropriate validity and reliability, and high credibility of the Unforgiveness Scale, it can be utilized for assessing and measuring interpersonal unforgiveness in the Iranian population.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Reliability
  • Validity
  • Unforgiveness
  • Factor Structure
  • Psychometrics
  1. منابع

    1. Ramluggun P. Forgiveness in mental health nursing practice. Mental Health Practice. 2024;27(4).
    2. Mróz J, Kaleta K. Forgive, let go, and stay well! The relationship between forgiveness and physical and mental health in women and men: The mediating role of self-consciousness. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2023;20(13):6229.
    3. Zhang Y, Ma L, Jiang X, Xiang Y. Bidirectional relationship between forgivingness and life satisfaction among Chinese children: A three-wave cross-lagged study. Current Psychology. 2024;43(32):26581-91.
    4. Kim JJ, Payne ES, Tracy EL. Indirect effects of forgiveness on psychological health through anger and hope: A parallel mediation analysis. Journal of religion and health. 2022;61(5):3729-46.
    5. Byra S. Forgiveness and well-being in mothers of children with disabilities. Journal of Pediatric Nursing. 2024;77:e531-e7.
    6. Witvliet CV, Root Luna L, Worthington EL, Tsang J-A. Apology and restitution: The psychophysiology of forgiveness after accountable relational repair responses. Frontiers in psychology. 2020;11:499550.
    7. Skalski-Bednarz SB, Toussaint LL, Konaszewski K, Surzykiewicz J. Personality traits as predictors of forgiveness and gratitude/awe: a two-wave longitudinal study. Current Psychology. 2024;43(41):32374-87.
    8. Maharani W, Yundianto D. Forgive, not forget: Exploring the influence of perception of dating infidelity to forgiveness behaviour in women. Jurnal Ilmiah Psikologi Terapan. 2024;12(1):1-7.
    9. Kaleta K, Jaśkiewicz A. Forgiveness in marriage: From incidents to marital satisfaction. Journal of Family Issues. 2024;45(7):1764-88.
    10. Long KN, Worthington EL, VanderWeele TJ, Chen Y. Forgiveness of others and subsequent health and well-being in mid-life: a longitudinal study on female nurses. BMC psychology. 2020;8:1-11.
    11. Harris AH, Thoresen CE. Forgiveness, unforgiveness, health, and disease. Handbook of forgiveness: Routledge; 2007. p. 345-58.
    12. Worthington Jr EL, Witvliet CVO, Pietrini P, Miller AJ. Forgiveness, health, and well-being: A review of evidence for emotional versus decisional forgiveness, dispositional forgivingness, and reduced unforgiveness. Journal of behavioral medicine. 2007;30(4):291-302.
    13. Worthington EL. Unforgiveness, forgiveness, and reconciliation and their implications for societal interventions. Forgiveness and reconciliation. 2001:161-82.
    14. Wade NG, Worthington Jr EL. Overcoming interpersonal offenses: Is forgiveness the only way to deal with unforgiveness? Journal of Counseling & Development. 2003;81(3):343-53.
    15. Stackhouse MR, Jones Ross RW, Boon SD. Unforgiveness: Refining theory and measurement of an understudied construct. British Journal of Social Psychology. 2018;57(1):130-53.
    16. Mazlum M, Atalay A. Developing the fear of missing out (FoMO) scale for university students: The validity and reliability study. Journal of Pedagogical Research. 2022;6(4).
    17. Meyers LS, Gamst G, Guarino AJ. Applied multivariate research: Design and interpretation: Sage publications; 2016.
    18. Berry JW, Worthington Jr EL, O'Connor LE, Parrott III L, Wade NG. Forgivingness, vengeful rumination, and affective traits. Journal of personality. 2005;73(1):183-226.
    19. Moshagen M, Hilbig BE, Zettler I. The dark core of personality. Psychological review. 2018;125(5):656.
    20. Ebrahimi Ghavam S. Psychometric Properties of the Mushagen, Hilbig, and Zetler Nine Dark Characteristics Questionnaire, 2018. Psychological Models and Methods. 2020;11(41):141-58. [Persian]
    21. Li H, Wade NG, Worthington Jr EL. Understanding the processes associated with forgiveness. Frontiers Media SA; 2020. p. 628185.
    22. Toussaint LL, Shields GS, Slavich GM. Forgiveness, stress, and health: A 5-week dynamic parallel process study. Annals of Behavioral Medicine. 2016;50(5):727-35.
    23. Yan S, Wang W, Kuang S, Wu Y, Zhang Y, Li H. The relationships between trait anger, forgiveness, and subjective well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic: a moderated mediating model under lockdown situation. Current Psychology. 2023;42(23):20124-33.