Korean Validation of the Temperament Evaluation of Memphis, Pisa, Paris, and San Diego Autoquestionnaire
Rattachement africain : kr. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
OBJECTIVE: The Temperament Evaluation of Memphis, Pisa, Paris, and San Diego Autoquestionnaire (TEMPS-A) has been validated in more than 30 languages and is noted for its broad application in research and clinical settings. This study presents the first attempt to examine the reliability and validity of the TEMPS-A in Korea. METHODS: A total of 540 non-clinical participants completed the Korean TEMPS-A, which was adapted from the original English version via a comprehensive translation procedure. Reliability was assessed using Cronbach's α, and associations between temperaments were examined using Spearman's correlation coefficient. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed, and differences in TEMPS-A scores between the gender- and age-based groups were examined using Kruskal-Wallis analysis. RESULTS: The Korean TEMPS-A exhibited excellent internal consistency (0.70-0.91) and significant correlations between subscales. EFA resulted in a two-factor structure: Factor I (depressive, cyclothymic, irritable, and anxious) and Factor II (hyperthymic). Gender and age group differences were observed. CONCLUSION: Overall, our results suggest that TEMPS-A is a reliable and valid measure of affective temperaments for the Korean population. This study opens new possibilities for further research on affective temperaments and their related traits.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Korean Validation of the Temperament Evaluation of Memphis, Pisa, Paris, and San Diego Autoquestionnaire
- Date Crossref
- 25/09/2022
- Éditeur
- Korean Neuropsychiatric Association
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.