Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:33:00.106Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Short Version of the Metacognitive Anger Processing Scale (MAP-SV) – initial psychometric testing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 June 2021

Stine Bjerrum Moeller Open the ORCID record for Stine Bjerrum Moeller [Opens in a new window] ,
Sophie Juul  and
Ida-Marie T. P. Arendt Open the ORCID record for Ida-Marie T. P. Arendt [Opens in a new window]
Stine Bjerrum Moeller*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Southern Denmark, Denmark
Sophie Juul
Affiliation:
Mental Health Services, Capital Region of Denmark Department of Psychology, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Ida-Marie T. P. Arendt
Affiliation:
Mental Health Services, Capital Region of Denmark
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background:

The 26-item version of the Metacognitive Anger Processing Scale (MAP) has shown good psychometric properties in previous studies. However, there is a need for a shorter version of the scale.

Aims:

The aim of the present study is to psychometrically evaluate the 9-item Metacognitive Anger Processing Scale – Short Version (MAP-SV) in comparison with the original, 26-item version.

Method:

The 26-item MAP includes three subscales: rumination, positive beliefs and negative beliefs. Three items from each subscale were selected based on clinical validity to constitute the 9-item MAP-SV. A previous sample used for validation of the 26-item MAP was used for clinimetric testing. The sample included psychiatric patients (n = 88) and male forensic inpatients (n = 54). The MAP-SV was assessed according to scalability, convergent validity with general metacognition, and concurrent validity with anger measures.

Results:

The scalability of the 9-item MAP-SV was comparable to that of the original 26-item MAP in most psychometric tests. The Loevinger’s coefficient of homogeneity for the total score of the MAP-SV items was 0.29 for the combined sample compared with 0.36 in the original MAP, indicating close to acceptable scalability. The alpha coefficient for the MAP-SV total score was 0.79. For the combined sample, Pearson inter-correlations between the subscales of the MAP-SV were highly correlated with the MAP-SV total score (ranging from .66 to .84).

Conclusions:

The 9-item MAP-SV showed good psychometric properties and can be used as a reliable tool for assessing self-reported metacognitive anger processing.

Keywords

angerassessment toolmetacognitive anger processingmetacognitive beliefsruminationshort version
Type
Brief Clinical Report
Information
Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy , Volume 50 , Issue 1 , January 2022 , pp. 117 - 121
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the British Association for Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bech, P. (2012). Clinical Psychometrics. John Wiley & Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cella, D., Hahn, E. A., Jensen, S. E., Butt, Z., Nowinski, C. J., & Rothrock, N. (2013). Methodological issues in the selection, administration and use of patient-reported outcomes in performance measurement in health care settings. Paper presented at the National Quality Forum (NQF): Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs) in Performance Measurement.Google Scholar
Fava, G. A., Carrozzino, D., Lindberg, L., & Tomba, E. (2018). The clinimetric approach to psychological assessment: a tribute to Per Bech, MD (1942–2018). Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 87, 321–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moeller, S. B. (2016). The metacognitive anger processing (MAP) scale: preliminary testing. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 44, 504.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moeller, S. B., & Bech, P. (2019). The Metacognitive Anger Processing (MAP) Scale – validation in a mixed clinical and a forensic in-patient sample. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 47, 67–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norton, S., Cosco, T., Doyle, F., Done, J., & Sacker, A. (2013). The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: a meta confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 74, 74–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wells, A. (2002). Emotional Disorders and Metacognition: Innovative Cognitive Therapy. John Wiley & Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, A. (2013). Advances in metacognitive therapy. International Journal of Cognitive Therapy, 6, 186–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Moeller et al. supplementary material

Moeller et al. supplementary material 1

Download Moeller et al. supplementary material(File)
File 28.9 KB
Supplementary material: File

Moeller et al. supplementary material

Moeller et al. supplementary material 2

Download Moeller et al. supplementary material(File)
File 18.6 KB
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.