RESUMEN
Objective To revise looming maladaptive style questionnaire(LMSQ-R) and examine its reliability and validity.Methods 284 undergraduates were measured preparedly with LMSQ-R,281 university students participated in a retest,using LMSQ-R,fear of negative evaluation scale (FNE),Beck anxiety inventory (BAI),Beck depression inventory (BDI).Results ①The item distinguish analysis was acceptable.②Reliability analysis confirmed that Cronbach α coefficient of LMSQ-R was 0.736,Cronbach α coefficient of the two subscales were 0.593 and 0.636.The test-retest reliability of LMSQ-R ranged from 0.564 to 0.700.③Confirmatory factor analysis suggested that the first order six factor-second order two factor model was perfect according to the evaluation criteria.The correlation coefficient between the two subscales was 0.527,the correlation coefficients among the two subscales and the total score ranged from 0.872 to 0.875.The correlation coefficients among the LMSQ-R and FNE,BAI,BDI ranged from 0.872 to 0.875,the results had statistical significance.Conclusion The revised LMSQ-R shows the satisfactory reliability and validity in university students.It can be used as a useful testing tool of LCS in psychological research.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The goal of the present study was to replicate and extend previous research on the relationship between stress generation and two well-documented anxiety related cognitive vulnerabilities, Looming Cognitive Style (LCS) and Anxiety Sensitivity (AS). We first sought to replicate findings that LCS and AS augment each other's stress generation effect. Next, we expanded upon these findings by conducting fine grained analyses not possible in the prior study, by using the third edition of the Anxiety Sensitivity Index (Taylor et al., 2007) and examined the individual facets of AS, which includes: Mental Incapacitation (fear of mental impairment), Physical (fear of catastrophic outcomes such as death), and Social (fear of being noticed for trembling, blushing) facets. METHODS: We followed 99 female undergraduates who were assessed twice over a six-week interval. RESULTS: First, the results replicated a previous study and showed that LCS and AS magnified each other's impact on stress generation. Second, analyses using the individual subscales of AS indicated significant interactions between LCS and the Mental Incapacitation and Physical facets of AS but not the Social facet. LIMITATIONS: Limitations of the present study include reliance on self-report measures and the use of a female only sample. Using such a sample is consistent with previous literature, but limits generalizability to males. CONCLUSIONS: The present findings are consistent with the emerging view that stress generation is an active, transactional process and that anxiety-related cognitive styles (much like depressive styles) contribute to stress generation.