Authors:
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
, and
Sándor Rózsa
rozsa.sandor@kre.hu
Sándor Rózsa
Department of Psychiatry, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, USA
Károli Gáspár Református Egyetem, Bölcsészet és Társadalomtudományi Kar, Pszichológiai Intézet, Budapest
Search for other papers by Sándor Rózsa in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Károli Gáspár Református Egyetem, Bölcsészet és Társadalomtudományi Kar, Pszichológiai Intézet, Budapest
Search for other papers by Sándor Rózsa in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Gábor Vincze
Gábor Vincze
Békés Megyei Központi Kórház Pándy Kálmán Tagkórháza, Pszichiátriai Osztály, Gyula
Search for other papers by Gábor Vincze in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Gábor Vincze in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Imre András Török
Imre András Török
Békés Megyei Központi Kórház Pándy Kálmán Tagkórháza, Pszichiátriai Osztály, Gyula
Search for other papers by Imre András Török in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Imre András Török in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Ernő Hupuczi
Ernő Hupuczi
Pécsi Tudományegyetem, Általános Orvostudományi Kar, Magatartástudományi Intézet, Pécs
Search for other papers by Ernő Hupuczi in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Ernő Hupuczi in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Rita Hargitai
Rita Hargitai
Pázmány Péter Katolikus Egyetem Pszichológiai Intézet, Budapest
Search for other papers by Rita Hargitai in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Rita Hargitai in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
László Martin
László Martin
Kaposvári Egyetem, Pedagógiai és Pszichológiai Intézet, Kaposvár
Search for other papers by László Martin in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by László Martin in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
István Hartung
István Hartung
Pécsi Tudományegyetem, Általános Orvostudományi Kar, Magatartástudományi Intézet, Pécs
Search for other papers by István Hartung in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by István Hartung in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
István Tiringer
István Tiringer
Pécsi Tudományegyetem, Általános Orvostudományi Kar, Magatartástudományi Intézet, Pécs
Search for other papers by István Tiringer in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by István Tiringer in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Mária Simon
Mária Simon
Pécsi Tudományegyetem, Pszichiátriai és Pszichoterápiás Klinika, Pécs
Search for other papers by Mária Simon in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Mária Simon in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
János Kállai
János Kállai
Pécsi Tudományegyetem, Általános Orvostudományi Kar, Magatartástudományi Intézet, Pécs
Pécsi Tudományegyetem, Bölcsészettudományi Kar, Pszichológiai Intézet, Pécs
Search for other papers by János Kállai in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Pécsi Tudományegyetem, Bölcsészettudományi Kar, Pszichológiai Intézet, Pécs
Search for other papers by János Kállai in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Háttér: A pszichózisra való sérülékenység feltárása és a korai intervenció a klinikai gyakorlat és a kutatások fontos részét képezik. A Mágikus Fogalomképzés Skála az egyik leggyakrabban alkalmazott önjellemző kérdőív, amelyet a pszichózisra való hajlam feltárására dolgoztak ki. Meglepő azonban, hogy a Mágikus Fogalomképzés Skála pszicho metriai jellemzőit klinikai mintán szinte alig vizsgálták. Célkitűzés: A tanulmány fő célja a Mágikus Fogalomképzés Skála faktorszerkezetének feltárása nagy elemszámú egyetemi hallgatói mintán (n = 1730) és pszichiátriai betegek (n = 319) körében. Módszerek: A kérdőív faktorszerkezetét megerősítő (egydimenziós, többdimenziós szerkezet, bifaktoros elrendezés) és feltáró faktorelemzések, valamint parallelelemzések segítségével vizsgáltuk. A skálák megbízhatóságát a hagyományos módszerek mellett (pl. Cronbachα) modellalapú megbízhatósági becslésekkel (hierarchikus ómega) is jellemeztük. A faktorszerkezet elemzését követően a valószínűségi tesztelméleti alapokon nyugvó Tételválasz elmélet (Item Response Theory, IRT) segítségével az itemparaméterek becslését (nehézség és diszkrimináció) és az eltérő tételműködést is megvizsgáltuk, majd egy rövid, 15 tételes változatot alakítottunk ki, amelynek a kritériumvaliditását más mérőeszközök felhaszná- lásával teszteltük (pl. Szkizotípia Személyiség Kérdőív rövid változat; Davisféle Empátia Kérdőív). Eredmények: A parallelelemzés a hallgatói mintán 3 faktort, míg a klinikai mintán 2 dimenziót valószínűsített. Mindkét minta esetében a negatív tételek önálló dimen ziót alkottak, amit járulékos faktornak tekintetve a későbbiekben nem elemeztünk. A megerősítő faktorelemzés a normatív hallgatói mintán a bifaktoros struktúrát támasztotta alá, ahol az általános faktor mellett két speciális dimenzió jelent meg: paranormális hiedelmek és mágikus okság/spiritualitás (RMSEA = 0,052; CFI = 0,993; TLI = 0,990). A klinikai mintán az egydimenziós szerkezet adta a legjobb illeszkedési mutatókat (RMSEA = 0,032; CFI = 0,970; TLI = 0,965). A 15 tételre rövidített skála jó pszichometriai jellemzőkkel rendelkezett, bár az IRT elemzés rávilágított arra, hogy néhány tétel eltérő jelentést hordoz a nemek (nők vs. férfiak) vagy a vizsgálati minta típusa (normatív vs. klinikai) szerinti összevetéskor. Következtetések: Eredményeink megerősítik, hogy a mágikus fogalomalkotás a klinikai mintán egydimenziós modellel ragadható meg leginkább, ezzel szemben a normatív hallgatói mintán már inkább egy bifaktoros struktúra valószínűsíthető, amelynek két speciális dimenziója az adaptív (mágikus okság/spiritulaitás) és maladaptív (paranormális hiedelmek) sajátosságok mentén különül el.
Background: Study of vulnerability to psychosis and early intervention is an area of great clinical impact and research. The Magical Ideation Scale (MIS) is among the most widely used instruments for the assessment of psychosis proneness. However, there has been little research on the psychometric properties of the MIS in clinical sample. Aims: The main goal of the present work was to study the dimensional structure underlying the MIS in a large sample of students (n = 1.730) and clinical subjects (n = 319). Methods: The structures of the MIS were examined by confirmatory (e.g., single-factor model, model with second-order factor, bifactor model) and exploratory factor analysis and parallel-analysis. The internal consistencies were calculated not only in the conventional way (e.g. Cronbach’s α) but also in the controlling of the general factor (hierarchical omega, explained common variance). After initial testing, we used Item Response Theory (IRT) to shorten and further refine the instrument, and criterion validity was evaluated by other questionnaires (e.g. Schizotypy Personality Questionnaire – Brief Revised; Interpersonal Reactivity Index). Results: To determine the number of factors that can be applied, parallel-analysis provided a good estimation of the three dimensional structure of MIS in student sample and two dimensions in clinical subjects. However, the reversed worded items caused a method factor that does not appear to be substantively meaningful. Confirmatory factor analysis identified a bifactor solution (general scale and two specific scales: paranormal beliefs and magical reasoning/spirituality) for the MIS in student sample (RMSEA = 0.052, CFI = 0.993, TLI = 0.990), and a unidimensional factor structure in clinical sample (RMSEA = 0.032, CFI = 0.970, TLI = 0.965). The shortened 15-item version of the MIS has good psychometric properties, but few of the items displayed DIF across gender or type of sample (normative or clinical). Conclusions: Our results confirm that magical ideation can be considered as a single latent psychological variable on clinical sample, and a bifactorial structure in normative sample where the adaptive (magical reasoning/spirituality) and maladaptive (paranormal beliefs) functions separated.
ProCite
RefWorks
Reference Manager
BibTeX
Zotero
EndNote
-
Acar, S., & Sen, S. (2013). A multilevel meta-analysis of the relationship between creativity and schizotypy. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 7(3), 214–228.
-
Anderson, J.C., & Gerbing, D.W. (1984). The effect of sampling error on convergence, improper solutions, and goodnessoffit indices for maximum likelihood confirmatory factoranalysis. Psychometrika, 49, 155–173.
-
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association
-
Baker, F.B. (1985). The basics of item response theory. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann
-
Bentler, P.M. (1990). Comparative fit indeces in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606.
-
Bentler, P.M., & Bonnet, D. C. (1980). Significance Tests and Goodness of Fit in the Analysis of Covariance Structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588–606.
-
Brouwer, D., Meijer, R.R., & Zevalkink, J. (2013). On the factor structure of the Beck Depression Inventory-II: G is the key. Psychological Assessment, 25, 136–145.
-
Browne, M.W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K.A. Bollen & J.S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
-
Cai, L., Thissen, D., & du Toit, S.H.C. (2011). IRTPRO for Windows. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International
-
Çam, Z., Seydooğulları, S., & Artar, M. (2014). Psychometric properties of the magical ideation scale in high school adolescents. Dusunen Adam: The Journal of Psychiatry and Neurological Sciences, 27, 34–42.
-
Chapman, L.J., & Chapman, J.P. (1987). The search for symptoms predictive of schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 13, 497–503.
-
Chapman, J.P., Chapman, L.J., & Kwapil, T.R. (1995). Scales for the measurement of schizotypy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press
-
Chapman, L.J., Chapman, J.P., Kwapil, T.R., Eckblad, M., & Zinser, M.C. (1994). Putatively psychosis-prone subjects 10 years later. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103(2), 171–183.
-
Chapman, L.J., Chapman, J.P., & Miller, E.N. (1982). Reliabilities and intercorrelations of eight measures of proneness to psychosis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50, 187–195.
-
Chapman, L.J., Chapman, J.P., & Raulin, M.L. (1976). Scales for physical and social anhedonia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 85, 74–82.
-
Chapman, L.J., Chapman, J.P., & Raulin, M.L. (1978). Body-image aberration in schizophrenia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87, 399–407.
-
Chou, C., & Bentler, P.M. (1995). Estimates and tests in structural equation modeling. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (37–55). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
-
Cicero, D.C., Martin, E.A., & Krieg, A. (2019). Differential item functioning of the full and brief Wisconsin Schizotypy Scales in Asian, white, Hispanic, and multiethnic samples and between sexes. Assessment, 26(6), 1001–1013.
-
Claridge, G. (1997). Schizotypy: implication for illness and heath. New York, Oxford University Press.
-
Cohen, A.S., Matthewa, R., Najolia, G., & Brown, L.A. (2010). Toward a more psychometrically-sound brief measure of schizotypy improving the SPQ-B. Journal of Personality Disorders, 24, 516–537.
-
Cole, D.A. (1987). Utility of confirmatory factor analysis in test validation researh. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 584–594.
-
Curran, P.J., West, S.G., & Finch, J. F. (1996). The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 1, 16–29.
-
Davis, M.H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113–126.
-
Drasgow, F., & Parsons, C.K. (1983). Application of unidimensional item response theory models to multidimensional data. Applied Psychological Measurement, 7, 189–199.
-
Dumas, P., Bouafia, S., Gutknecht, C., Saoud, M., Daléry, J., & d’Amato, T. (2000). Validations des versions françaises des questionnaires d’idéation magique (MIS) et d’aberrations perceptives (PAS) [Magical Ideation Scale (MIS) and Perceptual Aberration Scale (PAS): Validations of the French translations in a sample of 233 French students]. L’Encéphale: Revue de psychiatrie clinique biologique et thérapeutique, 26(4), 42–46.
-
Eckblad, M., Chapman, L.J., Chapman, J.P., & Mishlove, M. (1982). The Revised Social Anhedonia Scale. Unpublished manuscript. Madison: University of Wisconsin
-
Eckblad, M., & Chapman, L.J. (1983). Magical ideation as an indicator of schizotypy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51(2), 215–225.
-
Edell, W.S. (1995). The psychometric measurement of schizotypy using the Wisconsin scales of psychosis proneness. In: Miller GA, editor. Behavioral highrisk paradigm psychopathology (3–46). New York, NY: Springer Publishing
-
Einstein, D.A., & Menzies, R.G. (2004). The presence of magical thinking in obsessive compulsive disorder. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 42(5), 539–549.
-
Elek, Zs., Rónai, Zs., Hargitai, R., Hartung, I., Réthelyi, J., Arndt, B., et al. (in press). Magical thinking and social anxiety as a bio-psychological developmental disposition for cognitive and affective symptom intensity in schizotypy: traits and genetic associations. PeerJ.
-
Fejes, N.É., Rózsa, S., & Must, A. (2018). Szkizotíp személyiségvonások és a nyelvi kreativitás összefüggéseinek vizsgálata. Ideggyógyászati Szemle, 71(3–4), 113–125.
-
Flückiger, R., Ruhrmann, S., Debbané, M., Michel, C., Hubl, D., Schimmelmann, B.G., & Schultze-Lutter, F. (2016). Psychosis-predictive value of self-reported schizotypy in a clinical high-risk sample. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 125(7), 923–932.
-
FonsecaPedrero, E., Paíno, M., LemosGiráldez,S., GarcíaCueto, E., CampilloÁlvarez, Á., VillazónGarcía, Ú., et al. (2008). Schizotypy assessment: state of the art and future prospects. Clinical Health Psychology, 8, 577–593.
-
FonsecaPedrero, E., Paino, M., LemosGiráldez, S., GarcíaCueto, E., VillazónGarcía, Ú., & Muñiz, J. (2009). Psychometric properties of the Perceptual Aberration Scale and the Magical Ideation Scale in Spanish college students. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 9(2), 299–312.
-
GarcíaBatista, Z.E., GuerraPeña, K., CanoVindel, A., HerreraMartínez, S.X., & Medrano, L.A. (2018). Validity and reliability of the Beck depression inventory (BDI-II) in general and hospital population of Dominican Republic. PloS One, 13(6). e0199750. doi:
-
Garzitto, M., Picardi, A., Fornasari, L., Gigantesco, A., Sala, M., Fagnani, C., et al. (2016). Normative data of the Magical Ideation Scale from childhood to adulthood in an Italian cohort. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 69, 78–87.
-
Gignac, G.E., & Watkins, M.W. (2013). Bifactor modeling and the estimation of model-based reliability in the WAIS-IV. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 48(5), 639–662.
-
Gooding, D.C., Tallent, K.A., & Matts, C.W. (2005). Clinical status of at-risk individuals 5 years later: Futher validation of the psychometric high-risk strategy. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 114, 170–175.
-
Grant, P., Green, M.J., & Mason, O.J. (2018). Models of schizotypy: the importance of conceptual clarity. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 44(S2), 556–563.
-
Graves, R.E., & Weinstein, S. (2004). A rasch analysis of three of the Wisconsin scales of psychosis proneness: measurement of schizotypy. Journal of Applied Measurement, 5, 160–171.
-
Hanssen, M., Peeters, F., Krabbendam, L., Radstake, S., Verdoux, H., & van Os, J. (2003). How psychotic are individuals with non-psychotic disorders? Social Psychiatry, Psychiatric Epidemiology, 38, 149–154.
-
Harvey, R.J., Billings, R.S., & Nilan, K.J. (1985). Confirmatory factor analysis of the job diagnostic survey: Good news and bad news. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 461–468.
-
Horan, W.P., Blanchard, J.J., Gangestad, S.W., & Kwapil, T.R. (2004). The psychometric detection of schizotypy: do putative schizotypy indicators identify the same latent class? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 113(3), 339–357.
-
IBM Corp. (2013). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 22.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
-
Idaszak, J., & Drasgow, F. (1987). A revision of the job diagnostic survey: Elimination of a measurement artifact. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 69–74.
-
Johnston, L.A. (1991). The use of the magical ideation scale to measure magical thinking. Doctoral thesis. Carleton University. Letöltve: 2019. 09. 22-én: https://curve.carleton.ca/75144633-0022-436a-a3ea-6641feb77497
-
Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural Equation Modeling with the SIMPLIS Command Language. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International Inc.
-
Kállai, J., Rózsa, S., Hupuczi, E., Hargitai, R., Birkás, B., Hartung, I., et al. (2018). A Szkizotípia Személyiség Kérdőív rövid, módosított változatának (SPQBR) magyar adaptációja és faktorainak értelmezése. Psychiatria Hungarica, 33(3), 205–221.
-
Kelleher, I., Keeley, H., Corcoran, P., Lynch, F., Fitzpatrick, C., Devlin, N., et al. (2012). Clinicopathological significance of psychotic experiences in nonpsychotic young people: evidence from four population-based studies. British Journal of Psychiatry, 201(1), 26–32.
-
Khoshouei, M.S. (2008). Psychometric properties of the Persian Version of the Magical Ideation Scale (MIS) in university students. International Journal of Psychology, 2(1), 49–60.
-
Kihlstrom, J.F., Register, P.A., Hoyt, I.P., Albright, J.S., Grigorian, E.M., & Heindel, W.C. (1989). Dispositional correlates of hypnosis: A phenomenological approach. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 37, 249–263.
-
Kingdon, B.L., Egan, S.J., & Rees, C.S. (2011). The Illusory Beliefs Inventory: A new measure of magical thinking and its relationship with obsessive compulsive disorder. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 40(1), 39–53.
-
Kulcsár, Zs. (2002). Egészségpszichológia. Budapest: ELTE Eötvös Kiadó
-
Kwapil, T.R., Barrantes-Vidal, N., & Silvia, P.J. (2008). The dimensional structure of the Wisconsin schizotypy scales: factor identification and construct validity. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 34, 444–457.
-
Kwapil, T.R., Gross, G.M., Silvia, P.J., & Barrantes-Vidal, N. (2013). Prediction of psychopathology and functional impairment by positive and negative schizotypy in the Chapmans’ tenyear longitudinal study. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 122, 807–815.
-
Kwapil, T.R. (1998). Social Anhedonia as a predictor of the development of schizophrenia-spectrum disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 107, 558–565.
-
Lavender, A., Shubert, I., Silva, P., & Treasure, J. (2006). Obsessive-compulsive beliefs and magical ideation in eating disorders. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 45(3), 331–342.
-
Lewandowski, K.E., Barrantes-Vidal, N., Nelson-Gray, R.O., Clancy, C., Kepley, H.O., & Kwapil, T.R. (2006). Anxiety and depression symptoms in psychometrically identified schizotypy. Schizophrenia Research, 83, 225–235.
-
Lorenzo-Seva, U., & Ferrando, P.J. (2006). FACTOR: A computer program to fit the exploratory factor analysis model. Behavior Research Methods, 38(1), 88–91.
-
LorenzoSeva, U., & Ferrando, P.J. (2013). FACTOR 9.2 A comprehensive program for fitting exploratory and semiconfirmatory factor analysis and IRT models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 37(6), 497–498.
-
Lyons, M.J., Toomey, R., Faraone, S.V., Kremen, W.S., Yeung, A.S., Tsuang, & M.T. (1995). Correlates of psychosis proneness in relatives of schizophrenic patients. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 104(2), 390–394.
-
Marsh, H.W., Balla, J.R., & McDonald, R.P. (1988). Goodnessoffit indexes in confirmatory factoranalysis: The effects of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 305–312.
-
McDonald, R.P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
-
McIntosh, C. (2006). Rethinking fit assessment in structural equation modeling: A commentary and elaboration on Barrett (2007), Personality and Individual Differences, 42 (5), 859–67.
-
Meehl, P.E. (1962). Schizotaxia, schizotypy, schizophrenia. American Psychologist, 17(12), 827–838.
-
Meehl P.E. (1964). Manual for use with Checklist of Schizotypic Signs (No. PR-73–5). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Research Laboratories of the Department of Psychiatry
-
Miettunen, J., Veijola, J., Isohanni, M., Paunio, T., Freimer, N., Jääskeläinen, E., et al. (2011). Identifying schizophrenia and other psychoses with psychological scales in the general population. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 199(4), 230–238.
-
Miller, A., & Ellen-Miller, A. (1989). From rituals to the repertoire. CognitiveDevelopmental systems approach with behavioraldisordered children. New York: Willey and Sons
-
Morizot, J., Ainsworth, A.T., & Reise, S.P. (2009). Toward modern psychometrics: application of item response theory models in Personlaity research. In R.W. Robins, R.C. Fraley, & R.F. Krueger (Eds.), Handbook of Research Methods in Personality Psychology (407–421). New York, NY: Guilford Press
-
Muthén, L.K., & Muthén, B.O. (1998–2017). Mplus User’s Guide. Eighth Edition. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén
-
Muthén, B.O., & Kaplan, D. (1985). A comparison of some methodologies for the factor analysis of nonnormal Likert variables. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 38, 171–189.
-
Niemyjska, A. (2015). How does love magic work? The regulation of closeness and affect by magical thinking. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 32(1), 57–77.
-
Piaget, J. (1957). Construction of reality in the child. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul
-
Polner, B., Simor, P., Kéri, S. (2018). Insomnia and intellect mask the positive link between schizotypal traits and creativity. Peer Journal, 6:e5615. Doi:
-
Rado, S. (1953). Dynamics and classification of disordered behavior. American Journal of Psychiatry, 110, 406–416.
-
Reise, S.P. (2012). The rediscovery of bifactor measurement models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47, 667–696.
-
Ross, S.R., Lutz, C.J., & Bailley, S.E. (2002). Positive and negative symptoms of schizotypy and the Five-Factor Model: A domain and facet level analysis. Journal of Personality Assessment, 79, 53–72.
-
Rózsa, S., Hupuczi, E., Martin, L., Birkás, B., Hartung, I., Hargitai, R., et al. (2019). A Tellegen Abszorpciós Skála részletes pszichometriai elemzése. Mentalhigiéné és Pszichoszomatika, 20(1), 35–77.
-
Ropovik, I. (2015). A cautionary note on testing latent variable models. Frontiers in Psychology, 6:1715. Doi:
-
Scherbarth-Roschmann, P., & Hautzinger, M. (1991). Zur psychometrischen Erfassung von Schizo typie: Methodische Überprüfung und erste Validierung von zwei Skalen zur Erfassung von Risikomerkmalen. Zeitschrift für Klinische Psychologie, 20, 238–250.
-
Schmitt, N., & Stults, D.M. (1986). Methodology review: Analysis of multitrait–multimethod matrices. Applied Psychological Measurement, 10, 1–22.
-
Shafran, R., & Rachman, S., 2004. Thought–action fusion: a review. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 35, 87–107.
-
Shah, J., Eack, S.M., Montrose, D.M., Tandon, N., Miewald, J.M., Prasad, K.M., et al. (2012). Multivariate prediction of emerging psychosis in adolescents at high risk for schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Research, 141(2–3), 189–196.
-
Simor, P., Köteles, F., & Bódizs, R. (2011). Elmerülés az élményben: a Tellegen-féle Abszorpció Skála vizsgálata egyetemista mintán. Mentálhigiéné és Pszichoszomatika, 12(2), 101–123.
-
Smith, A. (2006). Cognitive empathy and emotional empathy in human behavior and evolution. Psychological Record, 56, 3–21.
-
Steiger, J.H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(2), 173–180.
-
Stip, E., Corbière, M., Boulay, L. J., Lesage, A., Lecomte, T., Leclerc, C., et al. (2007). Intrusion errors in explicit memory: Their differential relationship with clinical and social outcome in chronic schizophrenia. Cognitive Neuropsychiatry, 12(2), 112–127.
-
Stucky, B.D., & Edelen, M.O. (2014). Using hierarchical IRT models to create unidimensional measures from multidimensional data. In S.P. Reise & D.A. Revicki (Eds.), Handbook of item response theory modeling: Applications to typical performance assessment (183–206). London, UK: Taylor & Francis
-
Subbotsky, E. (2010). Magic and the Mind: mechanisms, functions and development of magical thinking and behavior. Oxford: Oxford University Press
-
Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). New York: Allyn and Bacon
-
Tanaka, J.S. (1993). Multifaceted conceptions of fit in structural equations models. In K.A. Bollen & J.S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (10–39). Newbury Park, CA: Sage
-
Te Wildt, B.T., & Schultz-Venrath, U. (2004). Magical ideation–defense mechanism or neuropathology? Psychopathology, 37(3), 141–144.
-
Tellegen, A. (1982). Content categories: Absorption items (revised). Unpublished manuscript. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
-
Tellegen, A., & Atkinson, G. (1974). Openness to absorbing and self-altering experiences („absorption”), a trait related to hypnotic susceptibility. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 83(3), 268–277.
-
Tucker, L.R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38(1), 1–10.
-
Urbán, R., Kun, B., Farkas, J., Paksi, B., Kökönyei, G., Unoka, Z., et al. (2014). Bifactor structural model of symptom checklists: SCL-90-R and Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI) in a non-clinical community sample. Psychiatry Research, 216(1), 146–154.
-
Utināns, A. (2015). Change of ratio of magical thinking, paranormal beliefs and critical thinking disposition in medical study process. Doctoral Thesis. Riga: Rigas Stradina Universitate
-
Vieira, P.G., Villemor-Amaral, A.E., & Pianowski, G. (2016). Tradução, Adaptação e Evidências Iniciais de Validade da Magical Ideation Scale, Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa, 32(4), 1–7.
-
Watkins, M.W. (2010). Structure of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children—Fourth Edition among a national sample of referred students. Psychological Assessment, 22, 782–787.
-
Werner, H. (1948). Comparative psychology and mental development. Oxford: Follett Pub. Co.
-
West, B., & Willner, P. (2011). Magical thinking in obsessive-compulsive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 39(4), 399–411.
-
Wheaton, B., Muthen, B., Alwin, D.F., & Summers, G. (1977). Assessing reliability and stability in panel models, Sociological Methodology, 8(1), 84–136.
-
Winterstein, B.P., Ackerman, T.A., Silvia, P.J., & Kwapil, T.R. (2011a). Psychometric properties of the Wisconsin Schizotypy Scales in an undergraduate sample: classical test theory, item response theory, and differential item functioning. Journal of Psycho pathology and Behavioral Assessment, 33(4), 480–490.
-
Winterstein, B.P., Silvia, P.J., Kwapil, T.R., Kaufman, J.C., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Wigert, B. (2011b). Brief assessment of schizotypy: Developing short forms of the Wisconsin Schizotypy Scales. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(8), 920–924.
-
Winterstein, B.P., Willse, J.T., Kwapil, T.R., Silvia, P.J. (2010). Assessment of score dependability of the Wisconsin schizotypy scales using generalizability analysis. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 32, 575–585,
-
Woods, C.M. (2006). Careless responding to reverse-worded items: Implications for confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 28(3), 186–191.
-
Woolley, J.D. (2000). The development of beliefs about direct mental-physical causality in imagination, magic, and religion. In K.S. Rosengren, C.N. Johnson, & P.L. Harris (Eds.), Imagining the impossible: Magical, scientific, and religious thinking in children (99–129). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
-
Zhong, W., Krueger, F., Wilson, M., Bulbulia, J., & Grafman, J. (2018). Prefrontal brain lesions reveal magical ideation arises from enhanced religious experiences. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 24(2), 245–249.
Editorial Correspondence: Czeglédi, Edit
Institute of Behavioural Sciences
Semmelweis University
Nagyvárad tér 4.
H-1089 Budapest, Hungary
Phone: (36 1) 210 2930 ext. 56151 ---- Fax: (36 1) 210 2955
E-mail: mentalhigiene.pszichoszomatika@gmail.com
Indexing and Abstracting Services:
- PsychInfo
- SCOPUS
- CABELLS Journalytics
| 2023 | |
|---|---|
| Scopus | |
| CiteScore | 0.6 |
| CiteScore rank | Q4 (Psychiatry and Mental Health) |
| SNIP | 0.149 |
| Scimago | |
| SJR index | 0.141 |
| SJR Q rank | Q4 |
| Mentálhigiéné és Pszichoszomatika | |
|---|---|
| Publication Model | Online Only Hybrid |
| Submission Fee | none |
| Article Processing Charge | 900 EUR/article |
| Printed Color Illustrations | 40 EUR (or 10 000 HUF) + VAT / piece |
| Regional discounts on country of the funding agency | World Bank Lower-middle-income economies: 50% World Bank Low-income economies: 100% |
| Further Discounts | Editorial Board / Advisory Board members: 50% Corresponding authors, affiliated to an EISZ member institution subscribing to the journal package of Akadémiai Kiadó: 100% |
| Subscription fee 2025 | Online subsscription: 120 EUR / 132 USD |
| Subscription Information | Online subscribers are entitled access to all back issues published by Akadémiai Kiadó for each title for the duration of the subscription, as well as Online First content for the subscribed content. |
| Purchase per Title | Individual articles are sold on the displayed price. |
| Mentálhigiéné és Pszichoszomatika | |
|---|---|
| Language | English Hungarian |
| Size | B5 |
| Year of Foundation |
2000 |
| Volumes per Year |
1 |
| Issues per Year |
4 |
| Founder | Végeken Egészséglélektani Alapítvány |
| Founder's Address |
H-1089 Budapest, Hungary Nagyvárad tér 4. |
| Publisher | Akadémiai Kiadó |
| Publisher's Address |
H-1117 Budapest, Hungary 1516 Budapest, PO Box 245. |
| Responsible Publisher |
Chief Executive Officer, Akadémiai Kiadó |
| ISSN | 1419-8126 (Print) |
| ISSN | 1786-3759 (Online) |
Monthly Content Usage
| Abstract Views | Full Text Views | PDF Downloads | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 2024 | 0 | 25 | 7 |
| Jul 2024 | 0 | 38 | 24 |
| Aug 2024 | 0 | 35 | 11 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 53 | 10 |
| Oct 2024 | 0 | 343 | 8 |
| Nov 2024 | 0 | 312 | 9 |
| Dec 2024 | 0 | 52 | 0 |
Authors:
, , , , , and
Authors:
, , , , , and
Authors:
, , , , , , , and
Copyright Akadémiai Kiadó AKJournals is the trademark of Akadémiai Kiadó's journal publishing business branch.
Powered by PubFactory