Logotipo del repositorio
Logotipo del repositorio
 

Validación de la escala de bienestar psicológico para jóvenes de Casullo en adolescentes montevideanos

Vista sencilla de ítem
datacite.rightshttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2eng
dc.contributor.authorGarcía Álvarez, Diego
dc.contributor.authorHernández-Lalinde, Juan
dc.contributor.authorEspinosa-Castro, Jhon-Franklin
dc.contributor.authorSoler, María José
dc.date.accessioned2021-11-04T12:19:57Z
dc.date.available2021-11-04T12:19:57Z
dc.date.issued2020
dc.description.abstractAntecedentes: la escala de bienestar psicológico para jóvenes (BIEPS-J) propuesta por Casullo está basada en la teoría multidimensional de Ryff y está conformada por 13 ítems y cuatro dimensiones: control, vínculos, proyectos y aceptación. Es un instrumento que presenta evidencias de validez convergente y divergente, así como índices de confiabilidad adecuados a nivel global, encontrados en países como Argentina y Perú. Objetivo: determinar la validez de constructo y la confiabilidad de esta escala en adolescentes de Montevideo. Materiales y métodos: la validación del instrumento se realizó con base en dos muestras de adolescentes montevideanos seleccionadas en instituciones educativas públicas y privadas de la ciudad, una conformada por 473 sujetos; la otra integrada por 188 individuos. Para la recolección de los datos se emplearon, además de la BIEPS-J, las escalas de autoestima y malestar psicológico de Rosenberg y Kessler, respectivamente. Resultados: el análisis factorial confirmatorio permitió validar la estructura de cuatro dimensiones, encontrándose medidas adecuadas de ajuste. La consistencia interna global del instrumento fue apropiada, aunque la fiabilidad de las dimensiones fue baja. También se encontraron deficiencias internas de validez convergente y discriminante, aunque la escala correlacionó apropiadamente con las medidas externas mencionadas. Discusión y conclusión: se concluye que la escala BIEPS-J puede ser utilizada como herramienta de cribado para posibles diagnósticos en el tema del bienestar psicológico.spa
dc.description.abstractBackground: The Scale of Psychological Well-Being for Young People (BIEPS-J) proposed by Casullo is based on Ryff’s Multidimensional Theory and consists of 13 items and four dimensions: Control, Links, Projects and Acceptance. It is an instrument that presents evidence of convergent and discriminant validity, as well as adequate reliability indices at a global level, found in countries such as Argentina and Peru. Objective: to determine the construct validity and reliability of this scale in adolescents from Montevideo. Materials and methods: the validation of the instrument was based on two samples of Montevideo adolescents selected in public and private educational institutions of the city. One sample consisted of 473 subjects; the other of 188 individuals. In addition to BIEPS-J, the Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem and Kessler’s Psychological Distress Scales were used to collect the data. Results: the confirmatory factorial analysis allows validated the fourdimensional structure, finding adequate adjustment measures. The overall internal consistency of the instrument was appropriate, although the reliability of the dimensions was low. Convergent and discriminant internal validity deficiencies were also found, although the scale correlated appropriately with the external measures mentioned above. Discussion and conclusion: it is concluded that the BIEPS-J scale can be used as a screening tool for possible diagnoses on the subject of psychological well-being.eng
dc.format.mimetypepdfspa
dc.identifier.doihttp://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4487296
dc.identifier.issn26107996
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12442/8897
dc.language.isospaspa
dc.publisherSaber UCV, Universidad Central de Venezuelaspa
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internacional*
dc.rights.accessrightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesseng
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/*
dc.sourceRevista Latinoamericana de Hipertensiónspa
dc.sourceVol. 15, No. 5 (2020)
dc.subjectBienestar psicológicospa
dc.subjectAdolescenciaspa
dc.subjectValidezspa
dc.subjectConfiabilidadspa
dc.subjectMontevideospa
dc.subjectPsychological well-beingeng
dc.subjectAdolescenceeng
dc.subjectValidityeng
dc.subjectReliabilityeng
dc.titleValidación de la escala de bienestar psicológico para jóvenes de Casullo en adolescentes montevideanosspa
dc.title.translatedValidation of Casullo’s young people psychological well-being scale in montevidean adolescentseng
dc.type.driverinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleeng
dc.type.spaArtículo científicospa
dcterms.referencesCassaretto-Bardales M, Martínez-Uribe P. Validation of the scales of well-being of flourishing and feelings. Pensam Psicológico. 2017;15(1):19-31. DOI: 10.11144/Javerianacali.PPSI15-1.VEFA.eng
dcterms.referencesRyff CD. Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1989;57(6):1069-81. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1069.eng
dcterms.referencesRyff CD, Keyes CLM. The structure of psychological well-being revisited. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1995;69(4):719-27. DOI: 10.1037//0022- 3514.69.4.719.eng
dcterms.referencesRyff CD, Singer BH. Know thyself and become what you are: a eudaimonic approach to psychological well-being. J Happiness Stud. 2008;9(1):13-39. DOI: 10.1007/s10902-006-9019-0.eng
dcterms.referencesRyff CD. Psychological well-being revisited: advances in the science and practice of eudaimonia. Psychother Psychosom. 2014;83(1):10- 28. DOI: 10.1159/000353263.eng
dcterms.referencesSeligman MEP. Flourish: a visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being. 1.a ed. New York, NY: Free Pr; 2012. 349 p.eng
dcterms.referencesSeligman MEP. Authentic happiness: using the new positive psychology to realize your Potential for lasting fulfillment. 1.a ed. New York, NY: Simon + Schuster Inc.; 2011. 336 p.eng
dcterms.referencesDiener E, Wirtz D, Tov W, Kim-Prieto C, Choi D, Oishi S, et al. New wellbeing measures: short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Soc Indic Res. 2010;97(2):143-56. DOI: 10.1007/ s11205-009-9493-y.eng
dcterms.referencesRyff CD, Singer BH. Best news yet on the six-factor model of wellbeing. Soc Sci Res. 2006;35(4):1103-19. DOI: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2006.01.002.eng
dcterms.referencesDierendonck D, Díaz D, Rodríguez-Carvajal R, Blanco A, Moreno-Jiménez B. Ryff’s six-factor model of psychological well-being. A spanish exploration. Soc Indic Res. 2008;87(3):473-9. DOI: 10.1007/s11205- 007-9174-7.eng
dcterms.referencesRyff CD. Well-being with soul: science in pursuit of human potential. Perspect Psychol Sci. marzo de 2018;13(2):242-8. DOI: 10.1177/1745691617699836.eng
dcterms.referencesRyff CD. Eudaimonic well-being, inequality, and health: Recent findings and future directions. Int Rev Econ. junio de 2017;64(2):159-78.DOI: 10.1007/s12232-017-0277-4eng
dcterms.referencesDíaz D, Rodríguez-Carvajal R, Blanco A, Moreno-Jiménez B, Gallardo I, Valle C, et al. Adaptación española de las escalas de bienestar psicológico de Ryff. Psicothema. 2006;18(3):572-7.spa
dcterms.referencesGallardo Cuadra I, Moyano-Díaz E. Análisis psicométrico de las escalas Ryff (versión española) en una muestra de adolescentes chilenos. Univ Psychol. 2012;11(3):931-9.spa
dcterms.referencesGao J, McLellan R. Using Ryff’s scales of psychological well-being in adolescents in mainland China. BMC Psychol. 2018;6(1):17. DOI: 10.1186/s40359-018-0231-6.eng
dcterms.referencesSpringer KW, Hauser RM. An assessment of the construct validity of Ryff’s scales of psychological well-being: method, mode, and measurement effects. Soc Sci Res. 2006;35(4):1080-102. DOI: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2005.07.004.eng
dcterms.referencesFreire C, Ferradás M del M, Núñez JC, Valle A. Estructura factorial de las escalas de bienestar psicológico de Ryff en estudiantes universitarios. Eur J Educ Psychol. 2017;10(1):1-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejeps.2016.10.001.spa
dcterms.referencesMariñelarena-Dondena L. De la epidemiología psiquiátrica a la psicología positiva. Historia de la trayectoria científica de María Martina Casullo. Univ Psychol. 17 de julio de 2014;13(5):1893. DOI: 10.11144/ Javeriana.upsy13-5.eppp.spa
dcterms.referencesCasullo MM. Evaluación del bienestar psicológico. En: M. Casullo. Evaluación del bienestar psicológico en Iberoamérica. (pp. 11-29). Buenos Aires: Paidós. Paidós; 2002.spa
dcterms.referencesMartínez P, Morote R. El bienestar psicológico en adolescentes escolares de Lima Metropolitana. En: M. Casullo. Evaluación del bienestar psicológico en Iberoamérica. (pp. 55-64). Buenos Aires: Paidós. 2002.spa
dcterms.referencesVidal MC. Propiedades psicométricas de la escala de bienestar psicológico de Martina Casullo en adolescentes de Trujillo. Rev Cienc Tecnol. 2017;12(4):101-12.spa
dcterms.referencesCasullo MM, Solano AC. Evaluación del bienestar psicológico en estudiantes adolescentes argentinos. Rev Psicol. 29 de julio de 2000;18(1):35-68.spa
dcterms.referencesAranguren M, Irrazabal NC. Estudio de las propiedades psicométricas de las escalas de bienestar psicológico de Ryff en una muestra de estudiantes argentinos. Cienc Psicológicas. 2015;9(1):73-83.spa
dcterms.referencesLara D, Alexis S. Análisis psicométrico de la escala de bienestar psicológico para adultos en estudiantes universitarios de Lima: un enfoque de ecuaciones estructurales. Psychol Av Discip. 2014;8(1):23-31.spa
dcterms.referencesMels C, Trías D. Características psicométricas preliminares del HSCLA adaptado para adolescentes uruguayos en contexto de violencia. Cienc Psicológicas. 2014;8(2):139-49.spa
dcterms.referencesRodríguez YR, Quiñones A. El bienestar psicológico en el proceso de ayuda con estudiantes universitarios. Rev Griot. 2012;5(1):7-17.spa
dcterms.referencesMontero I. A guide for naming research studies in Psychology. Int J Clin Health Phsycology. 2007;7(3):847-62.eng
dcterms.referencesCasullo MM, Brenla ME, Castro Solano A, Cruz MS, Gonzáles R, Maganto C, et al. Evaluación del bienestar psicológico en Iberoamérica. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Paidós; 2002. (Cuadernos de evaluación psicológica).spa
dcterms.referencesRyff CD. Psychological well-being in adult life. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 1995;4(4):99-104. DOI: 10.1111/1467-8721.ep10772395.eng
dcterms.referencesRosenberg M. Society and the adolescent self-image. 1.a ed. New York, NY: Princeton University Press; 2015. 339 p. adecuado del coeficiente de correlación de Pearson: verificación de supuestos mediante un ejemplo aplicado a las ciencias de la salud. Arch Venez Farmacol Ter. 2018;37(5):452-61.eng
dcterms.referencesRosenberg M. Self-concept from middle childhood through adolescence. Psychol Perspect Self. 1986;3(2):107-35.eng
dcterms.referencesOliva Delgado A, Antolín Suárez L, Pertegal Vega MÁ, Ríos Bermúdez M, Parra Jiménez Á, Hernando Gómez Á, et al. Instrumentos para la evaluación de la salud mental y el desarrollo positivo adolescente y los activos que lo promueven. Junta de Andalucía, Consejería de Salud; 2011.spa
dcterms.referencesKessler RC, Barker PR, Colpe LJ, Epstein JF, Gfroerer JC, Hiripi E, et al. Screening for serious mental illness in the general population. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2003;60(2):184-9. DOI: 10.1001/archpsyc.60.2.184.eng
dcterms.referencesKessler RC, Andrews G, Colpe LJ, Hiripi E, Mroczek DK, Normand SLT, et al. Short screening scales to monitor population prevalences and trends in non-specific psychological distress. Psychol Med. 2002;32(6):959-76. DOI: 10.1017/s0033291702006074eng
dcterms.referencesBrenlla ME, Aranguren M. Adaptación argentina de la escala de malestar psicológico de Kessler (K10). Rev Psicol. 2010;28(2):308-40.spa
dcterms.referencesVargas Terrez BE, Villamil Salcedo V, Rodríguez Estrada C, Pérez Romero J, Cortés Sotres J. Validación de la escala Kessler 10 (K-10) en la detección de depresión y ansiedad en el primer nivel de atención. Propiedades psicométricas. Salud Ment. 2011;34(4):323-31.spa
dcterms.referencesSlade T, Grove R, Burgess P. Kessler psychological distress scale: normative data from the 2007 Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Well-being. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2011;45(4):308-16. DOI: 10.3109/00048674.2010.543653.eng
dcterms.referencesEaston SD, Safadi NS, Wang Y, Hasson RG. The Kessler psychological distress scale: translation and validation of an Arabic version. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017;15. DOI: 10.1186/s12955-017-0783-9.eng
dcterms.referencesBhaskaran K, Smeeth L. What is the difference between missing completely at random and missing at random? Int J Epidemiol. 2014;43(4):1336-9. DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyu080.eng
dcterms.referencesHeitjan DF, Basu S. Distinguishing “missing at random” and “missing completely at random”. Am Stat. 1996;50(3):207-13. DOI: 10.1080/00031305.1996.10474381.eng
dcterms.referencesLi C. Little’s test of missing completely at random. Stata J. 2013;13(4):795-809. DOI: 10.1177/1536867X1301300407.eng
dcterms.referencesLittle RJA. A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. J Am Stat Assoc. 1998;83(404):1198-202. DOI: 10.1080/01621459.1988.10478722.eng
dcterms.referencesMardia KV. Measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis with applications. Biometrika. 1970;57(3):519. DOI: 10.2307/2334770.eng
dcterms.referencesKankainen A, Taskinen S, Oja H. On Mardia’s tests of multinormality. En: Hubert M, Pison G, Struyf A, Van Aelst S, editores. Theory and Applications of Recent Robust Methods. Basel: Birkhäuser Basel; 2004. p. 153-64.eng
dcterms.referencesCabana E, Laniado H, Lillo RE. Multivariate outlier detection based on a robust Mahalanobis distance with shrinkage estimators. 2017;17(10):1-80.eng
dcterms.referencesDe Maesschalck R, Jouan-Rimbaud D, Massart DL. The Mahalanobis distance. Chemom Intell Lab Syst. 2000;50(1):1-18. DOI: 10.1016/ S0169-7439(99)00047-7.eng
dcterms.referencesHernández-Lalinde JD, Espinosa-Castro J-F, Fernández González JE, Chacón Rangel JG, Carrillo-Sierra S-M, Bermúdez-Pirela V. Sobre el uso adecuado del coeficiente de correlación de Pearson: definición, propiedades y suposiciones. Arch Venez Farmacol Ter. 2018;37(5):587-95.eng
dcterms.referencesHernández-Lalinde J, Espinosa-Castro J-F, Díaz-Camargo É, BautistaSandoval M, Riaño-Garzón ME, García Álvarez D, et al. Sobre el uso adecuado del coeficiente de correlación de Pearson: verificación de supuestos mediante un ejemplo aplicado a las ciencias de la salud. Arch Venez Farmacol Ter. 2018;37(5):452-61.spa
dcterms.referencesMukaka M. A guide to appropriate use of correlation coefficient in medical research. Malawi Med J J Med Assoc Malawi. 2012;24(3):69- 71.eng
dcterms.referencesAsuero AG, Sayago A, González AG. The correlation coefficient: an overview. Crit Rev Anal Chem. 2006;36(1):41-59. DOI: 10.1080/10408340500526766.eng
dcterms.referencesRodgers JL, Nicewander WA. Thirteen ways to look at the correlation coefficient. Am Stat. 1988;42(1):59. DOI: 10.2307/2685263.eng
dcterms.referencesTreiblmaier H, Filzmoser P. Exploratory factor analysis revisited: How robust methods support the detection of hidden multivariate data structures in IS research. Inf Manage. mayo de 2010;47(4):197-207. DOI: 10.1016/j.im.2010.02.002.eng
dcterms.referencesZygmont C, Smith MR. Robust factor analysis in the presence of normality violations, missing data, and outliers: empirical questions and possible solutions. Quant Methods Psychol. 2014;10(1):40-55. DOI: 10.20982/tqmp.10.1.p040.eng
dcterms.referencesPison G, Rousseeuw PJ, Filzmoser P, Croux C. Robust factor analysis. J Multivar Anal. 2003;84(1):145-72. DOI: 10.1016/S0047- 259X(02)00007-6.eng
dcterms.referencesConway JM, Huffcutt AI. A review and evaluation of exploratory factor analysis practices in organizational research. Organ Res Methods. 2003;6(2):147-68. DOI: 10.1177/1094428103251541.eng
dcterms.referencesPreacher KJ, MacCallum RC. Repairing Tom Swift’s electric factor analysis machine. Underst Stat. 2003;2(1):13-43. DOI: 10.1207/ S15328031US0201_02.eng
dcterms.referencesWidaman KF. Common factor analysis versus principal component analysis: Differential bias in representing model parameters? Multivar Behav Res. 1993;28(3):263-311. DOI: 10.1207/s15327906mbr2803_1.eng
dcterms.referencesHoward MC. A review of exploratory factor analysis decisions and overview of current practices: what we are doing and how can we improve? Int J Human–Computer Interact. 2016;32(1):51-62. DOI: 10.1080/10447318.2015.1087664.eng
dcterms.referencesReio TG, Shuck B. Exploratory factor analysis: implications for theory, research, and practice. Adv Dev Hum Resour. 2015;17(1):12-25. DOI: 10.1177/1523422314559804.eng
dcterms.referencesSakaluk JK, Short SD. A methodological review of exploratory factor analysis in sexuality research: used practices, best practices, and data analysis resources. J Sex Res. 2017;54(1):1-9. DOI: 10.1080/00224499.2015.1137538.eng
dcterms.referencesFlora DB, Curran PJ. An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. Psychol Methods. 2004;9(4):466-91. DOI: 10.1037/1082-989X.9.4.466.eng
dcterms.referencesRhemtulla M, Brosseau-Liard PÉ, Savalei V. When can categorical variables be treated as continuous? A comparison of robust continuous and categorical SEM estimation methods under suboptimal conditions. Psychol Methods. 2012;17(3):354-73. DOI: 10.1037/a0029315.eng
dcterms.referencesMuthén B, Du SH, Spisic D, Muthén BO, du Toit SHC. Robust inference using weighted least squares and quadratic estimating equations in latent variable modeling with categorical and continuous outcomes. 1997;18(3):1-22.eng
dcterms.referencesLi C-H. Confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data: comparing robust maximum likelihood and diagonally weighted least squares. Behav Res Methods. 2016;48(3):936-49. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-015- 0619-7.eng
dcterms.referencesDiStefano C, Morgan GB. A Comparison of Diagonal Weighted Least Squares Robust Estimation Techniques for Ordinal Data. Struct Equ Model Multidiscip J. 2014;21(3):425-38. DOI: 10.1080/10705511.2014.915373.eng
dcterms.referencesMîndrilă D. Maximum likelihood (ML) and diagonally weighted least squares (DWLS) estimation procedures: a comparison of estimation bias with ordinal and multivariate non-normal data. Int J Digit Soc. 2010;1(1):60-6. DOI: 10.20533/ijds.2040.2570.2010.0010.eng
dcterms.referencesBandalos DL. Relative performance of categorical diagonally weighted least squares and robust maximum likelihood estimation. Struct Equ Model Multidiscip J. 2014;21(1):102-16. DOI: 10.1080/10705511.2014.859510eng
dcterms.referencesBatista-Foguet JM, Coenders G, Alonso J. Análisis factorial confirmatorio. Su utilidad en la validación de cuestionarios relacionados con la salud. Med Clínica. 2004;122(1):21-7. DOI: 10.1157/13057542.spa
dcterms.referencesHooper D, Coughlan J, Mullen MR. Structural equation modelling: guidelines for determining model fit. 2008;6(1):8.eng
dcterms.referencesHooper D, Coughlan J, Mullen MR. Structural equation modelling: guidelines for determining model fit. 2008;6(1):8.eng
dcterms.referencesEscobedo Portillo MT, Hernández Gómez JA, Estebané Ortega V, Martínez Moreno G. Modelos de ecuaciones estructurales: características, fases, construcción, aplicación y resultados. Cienc Trab. 2016;18(55):16-22. DOI: 10.4067/S0718-24492016000100004.spa
dcterms.referencesJöreskog KG, Sörbom D. LISREL 8: structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Scientific Software International; 1993. 262 p.eng
dcterms.referencesJöreskog KG, Sörbom D. Recent developments in structural equation modeling. J Mark Res. 1982;19(4):404-16. DOI: 10.2307/3151714.eng
dcterms.referencesBentler PM, Bonett DG. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychol Bull. 1980;88(3):588-606. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588eng
dcterms.referencesBentler PM, Bonett DG. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychol Bull. 1980;88(3):588-606. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588eng
dcterms.referencesSchermelleh-Engel K, Moosbrugger H, Müller H. Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods Psychol Res. 2003;8(2):23-74.eng
dcterms.referencesWheaton B, Muthén B, Alwin DF, Summers GF. Assessing reliability and stability in panel models. Sociol Methodol. 1977;8(3):84-136. DOI: 10.2307/270754eng
dcterms.referencesTabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using multivariate statistics. 5.a ed. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon/Pearson Education; 2007. 980 p.eng
dcterms.referencesByrne BM. Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers; 1998. 412 p.eng
dcterms.referencesBrowne MW, Cudeck R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociol Methods Res. 2016;21(2):230-58. DOI: 10.1177/0049124192021002005.eng
dcterms.referencesHu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model. 1999;6(1):1-55. DOI: 10.1080/10705519909540118.eng
dcterms.referencesSteiger JH. Understanding the limitations of global fit assessment in structural equation modeling. Personal Individ Differ. 2007;42(5):893- 8. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.017.eng
dcterms.referencesMulaik SA, James LR, Van Alstine J, Bennett N, Lind S, Stilwell CD. Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models. Psychol Bull. 1989;105(3):430-45. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.105.3.430.eng
dcterms.referencesBentler PM. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol Bull. 1990;107(2):238-46. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238.eng
dcterms.referencesShevlin M, Miles JNV. Effects of sample size, model specification and factor loadings on the GFI in confirmatory factor analysis. Personal Individ Differ. 1998;25(1):85-90. DOI: 10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00055- 5.eng
dcterms.referencesCampbell DT, Fiske DW. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychol Bull. 1959;56(2):81-105. DOI: 10.1037/h0046016.eng
dcterms.referencesBagozzi RP, Yi Y, Phillips LW. Assessing construct validity in organizational research. Adm Sci Q. 1991;36(3):421-58. DOI: 10.2307/2393203.eng
dcterms.referencesHair J, Ringle C, Starstedt M. PLS-SEM: indeed, a silver bullet. J Mark Theory Pract. 2011;19(2):139-51. DOI: 10.2753/MTP1069- 6679190202.eng
dcterms.referencesFornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res. 1981;18(1):39- 50. DOI: 10.2307/3151312.eng
dcterms.referencesSijtsma K. On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach’s alpha. Psychometrika. 2009;74(1):107-20. DOI: 10.1007/ s11336-008-9101-0.eng
dcterms.referencesAgbo AA. Cronbach’s alpha: Review of limitations and associated recommendations. J Psychol Afr. 2010;20(2):233-40.eng
dcterms.referencesAl-Osail AM, Al-Sheikh MH, Al-Osail EM, Al-Ghamdi MA, Al-Hawas AM, Al-Bahussain AS, et al. Is Cronbach’s alpha sufficient for assessing the reliability of the OSCE for an internal medicine course? BMC Res Notes. 2015;8(1):582. DOI: 10.1186/s13104-015-1533-x.eng
dcterms.referencesTrizano-Hermosilla I, Alvarado JM. Best alternatives to Cronbach’s alpha reliability in realistic conditions: congeneric and asymmetrical measurements. Front Psychol. 2016;7(769):1-8. DOI: 10.3389/ fpsyg.2016.00769.eng
dcterms.referencesCrutzen R, Peters G-JY. Scale quality: alpha is an inadequate estimate and factor-analytic evidence is needed first of all. Health Psychol Rev. 2017;11(3):242-7. DOI: 10.1080/17437199.2015.1124240.eng
dcterms.referencesŞimşek GG, Noyan F. McDonald’s ωt, Cronbach’s α, and generalized θ for composite reliability of common factors structures. Commun Stat. 2013;42(9):2008-25. DOI: 10.1080/03610918.2012.689062.eng
dcterms.referencesWatkins MW. The reliability of multidimensional neuropsychological measures: from alpha to omega. Clin Neuropsychol. 2017;31(6- 7):1113-26. DOI: 10.1080/13854046.2017.1317364.eng
dcterms.referencesDunn TJ, Baguley T, Brunsden V. From alpha to omega: a practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. Br J Psychol. 2014;105(3):399-412. DOI: 10.1111/bjop.12046.eng
dcterms.referencesGallardo Cuadra I, Moyano-Díaz E. Análisis psicométrico de las escalas Ryff (versión española) en una muestra de adolescentes chilenos. Univ Psychol. 2011;11(3):940.eng
dcterms.referencesMeier LK, Oros LB. Adaptación y análisis psicométrico de las escalas de bienestar psicológico de Ryff en adolescentes argentinos. Psykhe. 2018;28(1). DOI: 10.7764/psykhe.27.2.1169.spa
oaire.versioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioneng

Archivos

Bloque original
Mostrando 1 - 1 de 1
Miniatura
Nombre:
2020_Validación-de-la-escala-de-bienestar.pdf
Tamaño:
408.26 KB
Formato:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Descripción:
PDF
Descargar
Bloque de licencias
Mostrando 1 - 1 de 1
No hay miniatura disponible
Nombre:
license.txt
Tamaño:
381 B
Formato:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Descripción:
Descargar

Colecciones

Artículos

Universidad Simón Bolívar: Todos los derechos reservados / Sistema de biblioteca