Article

Study of the psychometric qualities of the Brief Social Phobia Scale (BSPS) in Brazilian university students.

Department of Neurosciences and Behavior, Medical School of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo, Avenida dos Bandeirantes, 3900, CEP 14048-900, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo, Brazil.
European Psychiatry (Impact Factor: 3.29). 11/2009; 25(3):178-88. DOI: 10.1016/j.eurpsy.2009.08.002
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To perform a psychometric analysis of the Brazilian version of the Brief Social Phobia Scale (BSPS).
Hundred and seventy-eight university students of both genders aged on average 21.2 years and identified as Social Anxiety Disorder (SAD) cases and non-cases was studied, with the structured clinical interview for DSM-IV being used as a parameter. The different instruments were applied in an individual manner in the presence of a rater and of an observer.
The BSPS showed adequate internal consistency (0.48-0.88) and concurrent and divergent validity with the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) (0.21-0.62), Social Phobia Inventory (0.24-0.82) and Self Statements During Public Speaking Scale (SSPS) (0.23-0.31). Discriminative validity revealed a sensitivity of 0.88-0.90 and a specificity of 0.81(0.83 for cut-off notes of 18/19. Factorial analysis demonstrated the presence of six factors that jointly explained 71.79% of data variance. Construct validity indicated some limits of the scale regarding the diagnosis of SAD. Inter-rater reliability was strong (0.86-1.00, p<0.001).
The BSPS is adequate for use with university students, although further studies in different cultures, samples and contexts are still necessary.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
119 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Social Anxiety Disorder (SAD) is prevalent and rarely diagnosed due to the difficulty in recognizing its symptoms as belonging to a disorder. Therefore, the evaluation/screening scales are of great importance for its detection, with the most used being the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale (LSAS). Thus, this study proposed to evaluate the psychometric properties of internal consistency and convergent validity, as well as the confirmatory factorial analysis and reliability of the self-reported version of the LSAS (LSAS-SR), translated into Brazilian Portuguese, in a sample of the general population (N = 413) and in a SAD clinical sample (N = 252). The convergent validity with specific scales for the evaluation of SAD and a general anxiety scale presented correlations ranging from 0.21 to 0.84. The confirmatory factorial analysis did not replicate the previously indicated findings of the literature, with the difficulty being in obtaining a consensus factorial structure common to the diverse cultures in which the instrument was studied. The LSAS-SR presented excellent internal consistency (α = 0.90-0.96) and test-retest reliability (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient = 0.81; Pearson's = 0.82). The present findings support those of international studies that attest to the excellent psychometric properties of the LSAS-SR, endorsing its status as the gold standard.
    PLoS ONE 01/2013; 8(7):e70235. · 3.53 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Recent work on comorbidity finds evidence for hierarchical structure of mood and anxiety disorders and symptoms. This study tests whether a higher-order internalizing factor accounts for variation in depression and anxiety symptom severity and change over time in a sample experiencing a period of major life stress. Data on symptoms of depression, chronic worry, and social anxiety were collected five times across seven months from 426 individuals who had recently lost jobs. Growth models for each type of symptom found significant variation in individual trajectories. Slopes were highly correlated across symptom type, as were intercepts. Multilevel confirmatory factor analyses found evidence for a higher-order internalizing factor for both slopes and intercepts, reflective of comorbidity of depression and anxiety, with the internalizing factor accounting for 54% to 91% of the variance in slopes and intercepts of specific symptom sets, providing evidence for both a general common factor and domain-specific factors characterizing level and change in symptoms. Loadings on the higher order factors differed modestly for men and women, and when comparing African American and White participants, but did not differ by age, education, or history of depression. More distal factors including gender and history of depression were strongly associated with internalizing in the early weeks after job loss, but rates of change in internalizing were associated most strongly with reemployment. Findings suggest that stressors may contribute in different ways to the common internalizing factor as compared to variance in anxiety and depression that is independent of that factor.
    Journal of Abnormal Psychology 11/2011; 121(2):325-38. · 4.86 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective. The objectives of the present study were to adapt the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale from the clinician administered to the self-report version (LSAS-SR) and to perform the initial psychometric studies concerning internal consistency and item analysis. Methods. The phase of adaptation was performed by two specialists in the Mental Health area and the face validity was tested by a group of 30 university students. As part of the psychometric study of the LSAS-SR, the internal consistency was assessed and the items were analyzed by applying the scale to 682 university students. Results. The LSAS-SR proved to be easy to understand by the group studied, with no need to make any changes in the instructions for application. The scale showed adequate internal consistency (α = 0.96) as well as an acceptable correlation between items and total score (0.38-0.72). Conclusions. The initial psychometric studies of the LSAS-SR presented adequate indicators, stimulating the continuation of studies involving the validation and reliability of the scale not only when applied to a sample of the general population, but also when applied to clinical groups.
    International Journal of Psychiatry in Clinical Practice 07/2012; · 1.31 Impact Factor