Psychometrische Evaluation und Normwerte einer Ultrakurzform der Sense of Coherence Scale “SOC-3”

Zusammenfassung

Kohärenzsinn ist eine psychische Ressource, die maßgeblich zu einem adaptiven Coping im Umgang mit belastenden Situationen beiträgt. In der vorliegenden Studie untersuchen wir eine Ultrakurzform der Sense of Coherence Scale (SOC-3) in einer repräsentativen Stichprobe der deutschen Bevölkerung (N=2.018). Das 3-Item-Modell wies exzellente Gütekriterien sowie eine akzeptable Reliabilität auf. Über Altersgruppen und Geschlecht konnte partielle strikte Messinvarianz des Modells nachgewiesen werden. In Bezug auf Konstruktvalidität demonstrierten unsere Analysen starke Überschneidungen der SOC-3 mit längeren SOC-Versionen (−9 und−29). Analog zu den SOC-Langversionen wurden erwartungsgemäße Zusammenhänge der SOC-3 mit verwandten Konstrukten wie Bindungstypen, körperlicher und mentaler Gesundheit und Lebenszufriedenheit repliziert. Erstmalig werden Normwerte der SOC-3 für die deutsche Bevölkerung präsentiert, um die Einordnung individueller Scores zu ermöglichen. Wir empfehlen die SOC-3 als Screener für angewandte Forschung und insbesondere für Befragungen mit großen Stichproben.

Abstract

Sense of coherence is a psychological resource which contributes substantially to an individual’s ability to cope well with stressful situations. In the present study we investigate an ultra-short form of the Sense of Coherence Scale (SOC-3) in a representative sample of the German general population (N=2.018). The 3-item model evinced excellent model fit qualities and acceptable reliability. We present evidence for partial strict invariance across sex and age groups. In terms of construct validity, our analyses demonstrate strong overlap between the SOC-3 and two longer versions (−9 and −29). In addition, correlations to related constructs such as attachment styles, physical and mental health, as well as quality of life were similar between the SOC versions. For the first time, normative values for the German population are presented to allow for the classification of individual scores. We recommend the SOC-3 as a screener for applied sciences and for large-scale surveys in particular.

Schlüsselwörter

Kohärenzsinn - Psychische Ressourcen - Skalenentwicklung - Screening-Instrument - Normwerte

Key words

normative values - sense of coherence - psychological resources - scale development - screening instrument

• Literatur

• 1 Antonovsky A. The life cycle, mental health and the sense of coherence. Isr J Psychiatry Relat Sci 1985; 22: 273-280
• 2 Wagnild G, Young HM. Resilience among older women. Image J Nurs Sch 1990; 22: 252-255
• 3 Fossion P, Leys C, Kempenaers C. et al. Disentangling sense of coherence and resilience in case of multiple traumas. J Affect Disord 2014; 160: 21-26
• 4 Davydov DM, Stewart R, Ritchie K. et al. Resilience and mental health. Clin Psychol Rev 2010; 30: 479-495
• 5 Eriksson M, Lindström B. Antonovsky’s sense of coherence scale and the relation with health: a systematic review. J Epidemiol Community Health 2006; 60: 376-381
• 6 Antonovsky A. The structure and properties of the sense of coherence scale. Social Science & Medicine 1993; 36: 725-733
• 7 Schumacher J, Wilz G, Gunzelmann T. et al. Die sense of coherence scale von Antonovsky. Psychother Psych Med 2000; 50: 472-482
• 8 Lundberg O, Peck MN. A simplified way of measuring sense of coherence: experiences from a population survey in Sweden. Eur J Public Health 1995; 5: 56-59
• 9 Schumann A, Hapke U, Meyer C. et al. Measuring sense of coherence with only three items: a useful tool for population surveys. Br J Health Psychol 2003; 8: 409-421
• 10 Togari T, Yamazaki Y, Nakayama K. et al. Development of a short version of the sense of coherence scale for population survey. J Epidemiol Community Health 2007; 61: 921-922
• 11 Chiesi F, Bonacchi A, Primi C. et al. Are Three Items Sufficient to Measure Sense of Coherence?: Evidence From Nonclinical and Clinical Samples. Eur J Psychol Assess 2018; 34: 229-237
• 12 Eriksson M, Lindström B. Antonovsky’s sense of coherence scale and its relation with quality of life: a systematic review. J Epidemiol Community Health 2007; 61: 938-944
• 13 Al-Yagon M, Margalit M. Loneliness, sense of coherence and perception of teachers as a secure base among children with reading difficulties. Eur J Spec Needs Educ 2006; 21: 21-37
• 14 Bauminger N, Finzi-Dottan R, Chason S. et al. Intimacy in adolescent friendship: The roles of attachment, coherence, and self-disclosure. J Soc Pers Relat 2008; 25: 409-428
• 15 Harvey M, Byrd M. Relationships between adolescents' attachment styles and family functioning. Adolescence 2000; 35: 345-356
• 16 Singer S, Brähler E. Die “Sense of Coherence Scale”. Testhandbuch zur deutschen Version. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht; 2007
• 17 Schmidt S, Strauß B, Höger D. et al. Die adult attachment scale (AAS)-teststatistische pruefung und normierung der deutschen version. Psychother Psych Med 2004; 54: 375-382
• 18 Klaghofer R, Brähler E. Konstruktion und Teststatistische Prüfung einer Kurzform der SCL-90–R. Z Klin Psychol Psychopathol Psychother 2001; 49: 115-124
• 19 Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B. et al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993; 85: 365-376
• 20 Jorgensen TD, Pornprasertmanit S, Schoemann AM et al. semTools: Useful tools for structural equation modeling. R package version0.5-0. 2018. Im Internet https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=semTools Stand 02.04.2018
• 21 Rosseel Y. lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling. Journal of Statistical Software 2012; 48: 1-36 Im Internet http://www.jstatsoft.org/v48/i02/ Stand 10.04.2018
• 22 Yuan KH, Bentler PM. Three likelihood-based methods for mean and covariance structure analysis with nonnormal missing data. Sociol Methodol 2000; 30: 165-200
• 23 Schermelleh-Engel K, Moosbrugger H, Müller H. Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. MPR-online 2003; 8: 23-74
• 24 Brosseau-Liard PE, Savalei V. Adjusting incremental fit indices for nonnormality. Multivariate Behav Res 2014; 49: 460-470
• 25 Brosseau-Liard PE, Savalei V, Li L. An investigation of the sample performance of two nonnormality corrections for RMSEA. Multivariate Behav Res 2012; 47: 904-930
• 26 Milfont TL, Fischer R. Testing measurement invariance across groups Applications in crosscultural research. Int J Psychol Res 2010; 3: 111-130
• 27 Berger U. Interne Konsistenz von Fragebogen-Skalen: Alpha oder Omega? Psychother Psych Med 2019; 69: in press
• 28 Nunnally JC, Bernstein ICH. Psychological Theory. New York, NY: MacGraw-Hill; 1994
• 29 Ziegler M, Kemper CJ, Kruyen P. Short scales – Five misunderstandings and ways to overcome them. J Individ Differ 2014; 35: 185-189