Validation of the Spanish version of the Multidimensional State Boredom Scale (MSBS)

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

Javier Garcia-Campayo³  Mayte Navarro-Gil⁴  Paola Herrera-Mercadal⁴  Marta Puebla-Guedea⁴  Margalida Gili¹  Jesús Montero-Marin⁵  Joaquin Minguez²  Marta Alda³ 

[1] Institut Universitari d’Investigació en Ciències de la Salut (IUNICS), University of Balearic Islands, Mallorca, Spain;University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain;Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud, Miguel Servet Hospital and University of Zaragoza, Primary Care Prevention and Health Promotion Research Network (RedIAPP), Zaragoza, Spain;Primary Care Prevention and Health Promotion Research Network (RedIAPP), Zaragoza, Spain;Faculty of Health and Sport Sciences, Huesca, Spain

关键词: Multidimensional State Boredom Scale;    Validation;    Questionnaire;    Boredom;   

Others  :  1209246
DOI  :  10.1186/s12955-015-0252-2

 received in 2015-01-19, accepted in 2015-04-30,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Boredom, which is a common problem in the general population, has been associated with several psychiatric disorders. The Multidimensional State Boredom Scale (MSBS) was developed, based on a theoretically and empirically grounded definition of boredom, to assess this construct. The aim of the present study was to assess the psychometric properties of the Spanish validated version of the MSBS in a multi-age sample recruited from the general population.

Methods

The patients (N = 303) were recruited from primary care settings. In addition to the sociodemographic variables and the MSBS, the General Health Questionnaire 28 items (GHQ-28), Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS), Negative subscale and the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS) were administered. We used confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to analyse the dimensionality of the MSBS. Cronbach’s α coefficient was used to analyse the internal consistency of the scale. The consistency of the MSBS over time (test-retest reliability) was assessed using the intra-class correlation coefficient. The construct validity was examined by calculating Pearson’s r correlations between the MSBS with theoretically related and unrelated constructs. Cronbach’s α for MSBS was 0.89 (95 % CI, 0.87–0.92), ranging from 0.75 to 0.83 for the 5 subscales.

Results

The characteristics of the final sample (N = 303) were that the participants were primarily female (66.77 %) with a mean age of 49.32 years (SD, 11.46) and primarily European (94.71 %). The CFA of the MSBS confirmed that the original five-factor model showed good fit indices: CFI = .96; GFI = .94; SRMR = .05; and RMSEA = .06 [.05–.08]. Cronbach’s α for MSBS was 0.89 (95 % CI, 0.87–0.92), ranging from 0.75 to 0.83 for the 5 subscales. The MSBS showed a test-retest coefficient measured with an ICC of 0.90 (95 % CI, 0.88–0.92). The ICC for the 5 subscales ranged from 0.81 to 0.89. The MSBS showed a significant negative correlation with MAAS and a significant positive correlation with the GHQ (total score and subscales) and PANAS-Negative Affect.

Conclusions

The Spanish version of the MSBS has been validated as a reliable instrument for measuring boredom in the general population. This study will facilitate the assessment of boredom for clinical and research purposes in Spanish-speaking populations.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Alda et al.; licensee BioMed Central.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Fallman SA, Mercer-Lynn KB, Flora DB, Eastwood JD. Development and validation of the Multidimensional State Boredom Scale. Assessment. 2013; 20:68-85.
• [2]National survey of American attitudes on substance abuse VIII: Teens and parents. Columbia University, New York, NY; 2003.
• [3]Farmer R, Sundberg ND. Boredom proneness: the development and correlates of a new scale. J Personal Assess. 1986; 50:4-17.
• [4]Sommers J, Vodanovich SJ. Boredom proneness: its relationship to psychological- and physical-health symptoms. J Clin Psychol. 2000; 56:149-55.
• [5]Stickney MI, Miltenberger RG. Evaluating direct and indirect measures for the functional assessment of binge eating. Int J Eat Dis. 1999; 26:195-204.
• [6]Mercer KB, Eastwood JD. Is boredom associated with problema gambling behaviour? It depends on what you mean by “boredom.”. Intern Gambling Studies. 2010; 10:91-104.
• [7]Wiesbeck GA, Wodarz N, Mauerer C, Thome J, Jakob F, Boening J. Sensation seeking, alcoholism and dopamine activity. Eur Psychiatry. 1996; 11:87-92.
• [8]Lee CM, Neighbors C, Woods BA. Marijuana motives: Young adults’ reasons for using marijuana. Addict Behav. 2007; 32:1384-94.
• [9]Fahlman SA, Mercer KB, Gaskovski P, Eastwood AE, Eastwood JD. Does a lack of life meaning cause boredom? Results from psychometric, longitudinal, and experimental analyses. J Soc Clin Psychol. 2009; 28:307-40.
• [10]Kass SJ, Vodanovich SJ, Callender A. State-trait boredom: relationship to absenteeism, tenure, and job satisfaction. J Business Psychol. 2001; 16:317-27.
• [11]Britton A, Shipley MJ. Bored to death? Int J Epidemiol. 2010; 39:370-1.
• [12]Eastwood JD, Frischen A, Fenske MJ, Smilek D. The ungaged mind: defining boredom in terms of attention. Persp Psychol Sci. 2012; 7:482-95.
• [13]López-del-Hoyo Y, Olivan B, Luciano JV, Mayoral F, Roca M, Gili M et al.. Low intensity vs. self-guided internet-delivered psychotherapy for major depression: a multicenter, controlled, randomized study. BMC Psychiatry. 2013; 13:21. BioMed Central Full Text
• [14]Kline RB. Methodology in the social sciences. Principles and practices of structural equation modelling. Kenny DA, editor. The Guilford Press, New York; 1998.
• [15]Goldberg DP, Hillier VF. A scaled version of the General Health Questionnaire. Psychol Med. 1979; 9:139-45.
• [16]Lobo A, Pérez-Echeverría MJ, Artal J. Validity of the scaled version of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-28) in a Spanish population. Psychol Med. 1986; 16:135-40.
• [17]Watson D, Clark LA, Tellegen A. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. J Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 1988; 54:1063-70.
• [18]Sandín B, Chorot P, Lostao L, Joiner TE, Santed MA, Valiente RM. Escala PANAS de afecto positivo y negativo: validación factorial y convergencia transcultural. Psicothema. 1999;11: 37–51.
• [19]Brown K, Ryan RM. The benefits of being present: mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. J Perso Soc Psychol. 2003; 84:822-48.
• [20]Soler J, Tejedor R, Feliu A, Pascual J, Cebolla A, Soriano J et al.. Psychometric proprieties of Spanish version of Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS). Actas Esp Psiquiatr. 2012; 40:19-26.
• [21]LaPera N. Relationships between boredom proneness, mindfulness, anxiety, deoression and substance use. NSchool Psychol Bull. 2011; 8:15-25.
• [22]Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D. Cross-cultural adaptation of health related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993; 46:1417-32.
• [23]Curran PJ, West SG, Finch JF. The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychol Methods. 1996; 1:16-29.
• [24]Bentler PM. Theory and Implementation of EQS: a Structural Equations Program. BMDP Statistical Software, Los Angeles; 1985.
• [25]Hu L, Bentler PM. Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equation Model. 1999; 6:1-55.
• [26]Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951; 16:297-334.
• [27]Ng AH, Liu Y, Chen J, Eastwood JD. Cultural differences in state boredom: a comparison between European Canadians and Chinese. Personal Individ Diff. 2015; 75:13-8.
• [28]Tsai JL, Knutson B, Fung HH. Cultural variation in affect valuation. J Personal Soc Psychol. 2006; 90:288-307.
• [29]DeVellis RF. Scale development: Theory and applica- tions. Sage, London, England; 2003.