The Emotion Awareness Questionnaire (Eaq30): A Call for Revision
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
IntroductionThe Emotion Awareness Questionnaire (EAQ30; Rieffe, Oosterveld, Miers, Meerum Terwogt, & Ly, 2008) is a self-report instrument measuring emotion awareness (EA) as a multi-dimensional construct in children and adolescents aged between 9 and 16 years old. The dimensions of EA are drawn from the theory surrounding alexithymia, expanded to contain more than difficulties in identifying and describing emotions and preference for analyzing external rather than internal information (Rieffe et al., 2007). Consequently, EA, the opposite of alexithymia, is defined as an attention and attitudinal process comprising the monitoring and differentiation of emotions, of their causes, and of their physiological correspondents as well as the evaluation of emotions as positive or negative, private or interpersonal (Rieffe et al., 2007, 2008).Nevertheless, the six dimensions of the EAQ30 originate (Rieffe et al., 2007) rather from an already existing measure of alexithymia (Toronto Alexithymia Scale - child form; Rieffe, Oosterveld, & Terwogt, 2006) than on the proposed conceptualization of EA. Specifically, the Differentiating Emotions subscale (7 items; e.g., often don't know why I am angry), measuring the ability to differentiate emotions and understand their causes, was based on the emotion identification dimension of alexithymia. The Bodily Awareness subscale (5 items; e.g., When I am sad my body feels weak), measuring the identification of emotions related to physiological phenomena, was added to compensate for the non-inclusion of somatic complaint items from the identification dimension of the Toronto Alexithymia Scale. The score on this subscale is reversed, even though low awareness of emotion-related bodily sensations is specific to alexithymia (Haviland & Reise, 1996), and thus could not adequately represent its opposing construct. Next, the Verbal Sharing subscale (3 items; e.g., can easily explain to a friend how I feel inside) referring to disclosure of one's own emotions to others directly originated from the expression of emotions' dimension of alexithymia. The Not Hiding subscale (5 items; e.g., When I am upset, I try not to show it) was added to distinguish between an unwillingness to hide and unwillingness to share emotions. Finally, the Analyses of Emotions subscale (5 items; e.g., It is important to understand how I am feeling), measuring the tendency to analyze internal emotional information, was developed in opposition to the preference for analyzing the external information dimension of alexithymia. Additionally, the Attending to Others subscale (5 items; e.g., It is important to know how my friends are feeling) was added to assess the willingness to analyze other peoples' emotions.As a result of the low focus on the proposed definition of EA, the aspect referring to the evaluation of emotions as positive or negative (Rieffe et al., 2007, 2008) was left unmeasured. Additionally, the reliability, validity and factor structure problems indicated in all previous validation studies (Camodeca & Rieffe, 2013; Lahaye et al., 2011; Lahaye, Luminet, Van Broeck, Bodart, & Mikolajczak, 2010; Rieffe et al., 2008) raise doubts regarding the contribution of each dimension to the construct of EA. Therefore, further analysis of the psychometric properties of EAQ30 may help to gain a better understanding of the construct.Review of psychometric problems based on previous validation studiesThe psychometric properties of the EAQ30 were analyzed in Dutch (Rieffe et al., 2008), Spanish (Rieffe, Villanueva, Adrian, & Gorriz, 2009), Belgian (Lahaye et al., 2010) and Italian (Camodeca & Rieffe, 2013) samples. All these studies concluded that EAQ30 is a valid instrument despite some obvious issues with the reliability, stability, structure and validity of the construct.Namely, the EAQ30 subscales showed low internal consistencies, Cronbach's a ranging from . …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,012 | 0,044 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,031 | 0,014 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».