Standardizing a Questionnaire of Metacognitive Resources of Human Behavior Regulation in Difficult Circumstances
https://doi.org/10.21603/sibscript-2024-26-5-685-700
Abstract
Modern psychology focuses on personal resources that help to overcome difficult circumstances accompanied by anxiety and stress. However, psychological diagnosis in this sphere remains understudied. The present research was an attempt to standardize a questionnaire of metacognitive regulation of human behavior in difficult circumstances. The study involved 559 participants from Tomsk (24.8% men, average age – 22.1). The exploratory factor analysis identified four factors (45.6% variance): self-control of behavior (six items, Cronbach’s alpha, α = 0.780; composite reliability = 0.863); anxiety control (four items, α = 0.823; composite reliability = 0.866); memory efficiency (three items, α = 0.817; composite reliability = 0.832); intuitive cognition of people (four items, α = 0.709; composite reliability = 0.757). Confirmation factor analysis showed high values of the model fitness indices: RMSEA = 0.044; SRMR = 0.059; CFI = 0.991; GFI = 0.986. The scales of the new questionnaire demonstrated the required external convergent validity and were found consistent with similar constructs. The study involved the following methods: D. V. Lyusin’s Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire; Subjective Risk Intelligence Scale developed by G. Craparo et al. and adapted by T. V. Kornilova and E. M. Pavlova, E. Yu. Mandrikova’s Activity Self-Organization Questionnaire, C. D. Spielberger’s Anxiety Test adapted by V. N. Karandashev, C. D. Spielberger’s Questionnaire of Personal Anxiety adapted by Yu. L. Khanin, and the Academic Motivation Scale developed by T. O. Gordeeva, O. A. Sychev, and E. N. Osin. The following scales demonstrated a good discriminative ability associated with statistically significant gender differences: self-control of behavior (p = 0.002); anxiety control (p < 0.001), and memory efficiency (p < 0.001). The questionnaire proved to be an efficient tool of studying human resources related to overcoming difficult circumstances.
About the Authors
Igor A. Filenko
Tomsk State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Scopus Author ID: 57296247700
Tomsk
Sergey A. Bogomaz
Tomsk State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Scopus Author ID: 6603772587
Tomsk
References
1. Antsiferova L. I. Personality in difficult circumstances: Reinterpretation, transformation of situations, and psychological protection. Psikhologicheskii Zhurnal, 1994, 15(1): 3–18. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/safdiz
2. Barabanshchikov V. A., Golovina E. V. Russian psychophysics on the way to integration. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 2007, 4(1): 158–165. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/jwmcbx
3. Belinskaya E. P., Dzhuraeva M. R. K. The relationship between proactive coping with difficult life situations and the level of mindfulness: A cross-cultural analysis. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Psychology, 2021, 11(1): 48–62. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu16.2021.103
4. Bityutskaya E. V., Korneev A. A. Diagnostics of perception of life events: The situational version of the questionnaire "Types of orientations in difficult situations". Vestnik Moskovskogo gosudarstvennogo oblastnogo universiteta, 2020, (4): 141–163. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.18384/2224-0209-2020-4-1047
5. Gordeeva T. O., Sychev O. A., Osin E. N. "Academic motivation scales" questionnaire. Psikhologicheskii Zhurnal, 2014, 35(4): 96–107. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/sjvwln
6. Kahneman D. Maps of bounded rationality: A perspective on intuitive judgment and choice. Ecowest, 2004, 4(4): 540–592. (In Russ.)
7. Karandashev V. N., Lebedeva M. S., Spilberger C. Study of evaluative anxiety: Guidelines. St. Petersburg: Rech, 2004, 80. (In Russ.)
8. Kitaev-Smyk L. A. Psychology of stress. Psychological anthropology of stress. Moscow: Akad. proekt, 2009, 943. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/qxxjvh
9. Kornilova T. V., Pavlova E. M. Risk intelligence scale and its relationship with risk readiness and emotional intelligence. Counseling Psychology and Psychotherapy, 2020, 28(4): 59–78. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17759/cpp.2020280404
10. Kuvaeva I. O., Strelnikova A. M. The features of coping with a specifi c challenging situation (COVID-19 pandemic). Izvestiia Uralskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Ser. 1: Problemy obrazovaniia, nauki i kultury, 2021, 27(2): 84–91. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.15826/izv1.2021.27.2.032
11. Lewin K. Field theory in social sciences. St. Petersburg: Sensor, 2000, 368. (In Russ.)
12. Lyusin D. V. EMIN Questionnaire of emotional intelligence: New psychometric data. Social and emotional intelligence: From processes to dimensions, eds. Lyusin D. V., Ushakov D. V. Moscow: IP RAS, 2009, 264–278. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/slanqv
13. Mandrikova E. Yu. Developing a questionnaire of self-control. Psikhologicheskaia diagnostika, 2010, (2): 87–111. (In Russ.)
14. Morozova I. S., Medovikova E. A., Morodenko E. V., Grinenko D. N., Kargina A. E. Ensuring safety in the workplace for employees using various strategies to overcome difficult life situations. Izvestiia Baltiiskoi gosudarstvennoi akademii rybopromyslovogo flota: psikhologo-pedagogicheskie nauki, 2021, (2): 161–168. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/vsbpte
15. Pervichko E. I., Mitina O. V., Koniukhovskaia Ju. E., Stepanova O. B. Verification of the psychometric characteristics of the Nijmegen questionnaire for the diagnosis of dysfunctional breathing during the COVID-19 pandemic on a Russian sample. Clinical Psychology and Special Education, 2022, 11(3): 262–302. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17759/cpse.2022110311
16. Perikova E. I., Byzova V. M., Lovyagina A. E. Mental self-regulation of students in difficult situations. Herald of Vyatka State University, 2019, (2): 99–106. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.25730/VSU.7606.19.024
17. Prokhorov A. O., Valiullina M. E., Yusupov M. G. Features of mental regulation of emotional states in different stress situations. Bulletin of Udmurt University. Series Philosophy. Psychology. Pedagogy, 2023, 33(2): 113–126. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/dtwmgw
18. Rubinshtein S. L. Problems of general psychology. Moscow: Pedagogika, 1973, 424. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/yxelju
19. Filenko I. A., Bogomaz S. A., Galazhinsky E. V., Buravleva N. A., Levitskaya T. E., Chalimova A. A. Features of psychological health of students from the perspective of personal resources development: Basic beliefs, resilience, and personal regulatory characteristics. Sibirskiy Psikhologicheskiy Zhurnal, 2023, (88): 38–63. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17223/17267080/88/3
20. Khanin Yu. L. A brief guide to reactive and personal anxiety scale by C. D. Spielberger. Leningrad: LNIITEK, 1976, 40. (In Russ.)
21. Shereshkova E. A., Spitsyna O. A. Distance learning at a university as a difficult life situation for correspondence students. Kazan Pedagogical Journal, 2021, (2): 205–211. (In Russ.) https://www.elibrary.ru/plixbb
22. Bokhan T. G., Galazhinsky E. V., Leontiev D. A., Rasskazova E. I., Terekhina O. V., Ulyanich A. L., Shabalovskaya M. V., Bogomaz S. A., Vidyakina T. A. COVID-19 and subjective well-being: Perceived impact, positive psychological resources and protective behavior. Psychology. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 2021, 18(2): 259–275. https://doi.org/10.17323/1813-8918-2021-2-259-275
23. Capobianco L., Faija C., Husain Z., Wells A. Metacognitive beliefs and their relationship with anxiety and depression in physical illnesses: A systematic review. PLoS ONE, 2020, 15(9). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238457
24. Craparo G., Magnano P., Paolillo A., Costantino V. The Subjective Risk Intelligence Scale. The development of a new scale to measure a new construct. Current Psychology, 2018, 37(4): 966–981. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-017-9673-x
25. Duckworth A. L., Gendler T. S., Gross J. J. Self-control in school-age children. Educational Psychologist, 2014, 49(3): 199–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.926225
26. Elling L., Schupp H., Bayer J., Bröckelmann A.-K., Steinberg C., Dobel C., Junghofer M. The impact of acute psychosocial stress on magnetoencephalographic correlates of emotional attention and exogenous visual attention. PLoS One, 2012, 7(6). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0035767
27. Fernie B., Aoun A., Kollmann J., Spada M. M., Nikčević A. V. Transcultural, transdiagnostic, and concurrent validity of a revised metacognitions about symptoms control scale. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 2019, 26(4): 471–482. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.2367
28. Fornell C., Larcker D. F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 1981, 18(1): 39–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312
29. Hammond K. R. Judgments Under Stress. NY: Oxford University Press Inc., 2000, 242.
30. Henseler J., Ringle C. M., Sinkovics R. R. The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. New challenges to international marketing, eds. Sinkovics R. R., Ghauri P. N. Bingley, 2009, 277–320. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1474-7979(2009)0000020014
31. Herten N., Otto T., Wolf O. T. The role of eye fixation in memory enhancement under stress – An eye tracking study. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 2020, 140: 134–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nlm.2017.02.016
32. Nogas E. M., Pόvoa A. C. S., Pech W. Decision-making under stress: The hiding behind a small cake effect. Journal of Contemporary Administration, 2023, 27(6). https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-7849rac2023230023.en
33. Petrovskiy V. A., Shmelev I. M. Personology of difficult life situations: At the intersection of three cultures. Psychology. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 2019, 16(3): 408–433. https://doi.org/10.17323/1813-8918-2019-3-408-433
34. Quaedflieg C. W. E. M., Schneider T. R., Daume J., Engel A. K., Schwabe L. Stress impairs intentional memory control through altered theta oscillations in lateral parietal cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 2020, 40(40): 7739–7748. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.2906-19.2020
35. Ross L. The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. Advances in experimental social psychology, 1977, 10: 173–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60357-3
36. Schermelleh-Engel K., Moosbrugger H., Müller H. Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 2003, 8(2): 23–74. https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.12784
37. Spielberger C. D., Reheiser E. C. Measuring anxiety, anger, depression, and curiosity as emotional states and personality traits with the STAI, STAXI and STPI. Comprehensive handbook of psychological assessment. Vol. 2. Personality assessment, eds. Hilsenroth M. J., Segal D. L. Hoboken, N.J., US: John Wiley & Sons Inc., 2004, 70–86.
38. Taleyarkhan M. R., Lucietto A. M., Hobson N. L. F., Azevedo T. M. Approach to problem solving and use of intuition by engineering technology students. Journal of Global Education and Research, 2023, 7(1): 81–98. https://www.doi.org/10.5038/2577-509X.7.1.1174
39. Thomas A. K., Wulff A. N. What the acute stress response suggests about memory. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12664
40. Werts C. E., Linn R. L., Joreskog K. G. Intraclass reliability estimates: Testing structural assumptions. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1974, 34(1): 25–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447403400104
41. Yu R. Stress potentiates decision biases: A stress induced deliberation-to-intuition (SIDI) model. Neurobiology of Stress, 2016, 3: 83–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ynstr.2015.12.006
Review
For citations:
Filenko I.A., Bogomaz S.A. Standardizing a Questionnaire of Metacognitive Resources of Human Behavior Regulation in Difficult Circumstances. SibScript. 2024;26(5):685-700. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21603/sibscript-2024-26-5-685-700
Views:
242
Email this article 