medigraphic.com

2023, Number 1

<< Back Next >>

Rev Elec Psic Izt 2023; 26 (1)

Psychometric properties of the rational experiential inventory in Argentina

García SHD, Sapino BME, Zárate TEC, Riberi ZSM

Language: Spanish
References: 26
Page: 168-189
PDF size: 519.25 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Cognitive-Experiential Self-Theory (CEST), (Epstein, 2014), refers to a dual processing of information by two systems, the Experiential system and the Rational System. Based on this approach, Epstein et al. (1996), developed the Rational-Experiential Inventory (REI) aiming at assessing dominance of one system over the other at processing information, meaning whether there is preference by processing rationally or intuitively. With a descriptive-instrumental design, this study aims at analyzing the psychometric properties of the REI (Pacini y Epstein, 1999) in a sample of 300 Argentinians aged 18 to 74 years. The polychoric-matrix-based exploratory factor analysis, performed on the translation of the original version, showed difficulties in differentiating the four factors robustly, nor the two main dimensions. The engagement and ability subscales weren’t differentiated statistically, and factor loadings were insufficient in some items or some of them did not fit in the factor they were intended to measure, and so they were eliminated. This resulted in a shortened version of 20 items. This 20 item - Rational- Experiential Inventory presents auspicious psychometric properties. However, the imbalance between the scales, in relation to negatively and positively worded items, requires a solution in future research.


REFERENCES

  1. Björklund, F., y Bäckström, M. (2008). Individual differences in processing styles:Validity of the Rational-Experiential Inventory. Scandinavian Journal ofPsychology, 49(5), 439–446. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2008.00652.x

  2. Cacioppo, J. T., y Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 42(1), 116–131.

  3. Carretero-Dios H. y Pérez C. (2007). Normas para el desarrollo y revisión deestudios instrumentales: consideraciones sobre la selección de tests en lainvestigación psicológica. International Journal of Clinical and HealthPsychology, 7(3), 863-882.

  4. 4.Dominguez-Lara, S. A. (2014). ¿Matrices Policóricas/Tetracóricas o MatricesPearson? Un estudio metodológico. Revista Argentina de Ciencias delComportamiento, 6(1), 39-48.https://doi.org/10.32348/1852.4206.v6.n1.6357

  5. Elosua, P. y Zumbo, B. (2008). Coeficientes de fiabilidad para escalas derespuesta ordenada. Psicothema, 20(4), 896-901.

  6. Epstein, S. (1993). Implications of cognitive-experiential self-theory for personalityand developmental psychology. En D. Funder, R. Parke, C. Tomlinson-Keasey, y K. Widaman (Eds.), Studying lives through time: Personality anddevelopment (pp. 399-438). Washington, DC: American PsychologicalAssociation. https://doi.org/10.1037/10127-033

  7. Epstein, S. (1994). Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamicunconscious. American Psychologist, 49, 709-724.https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.49.8.709

  8. Epstein, S. (2014). Cognitive-experiential Theory: an Integrative Theory ofPersonality. Oxford University Press.https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199927555.001.0001

  9. Epstein, S., Pacini, R., Denes-Raj, V. y Heier, H. (1996). Individual differences inintuitive–experiential and analytical–rational thinking styles. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 71(2), 390-405.https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.390

  10. Ferrando, P. J., Lorenzo-Seva, U., Hernández-Dorado, A. y Muñiz, J. (2022).Decálogo para el Análisis Factorial de los Ítems de un Test. Psicothema, 34,7-17. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2021.456

  11. Galindo-Domínguez, H. (2020). Estadística para no estadísticos: una guía básicasobre la metodología cuantitativa de trabajos académicos. Alicante:3Ciencias. https://doi.org/10.17993/EcoOrgyCso.2020.59

  12. George, D., y Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guideand reference. 11.0 update (4 ed.). Allyn y Bacon

  13. Handley, S. J., Newstead, S. E., y Wright, H. (2000). Pensamiento racional yexperiencial: Un estudio del REI. En R. J. Riding, y S. G. Rayner (Eds.)Perspectivas internacionales sobre las diferencias individuales. Stanford:Ablex.

  14. Keaton, S. A. (2017). Rational􀇦Experiential Inventory-40 (REI􀇦40). En D. L.Worthington y G. D. Bodie (Eds.) The sourcebook of listening research:Methodology and measures. Nueva York:John Wiley y Sons.https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119102991.ch59

  15. Lorenzo-Seva, U. y Ferrando, P. J. (2021). MSA: el índice olvidado para identificarelementos inapropiados antes de calcular el análisis factorial de elementosexploratorios. Metodología, 17(4), 296–306.https://doi.org/10.5964/meth.7185

  16. Marks, A. D. G., Hine, D. W., Blore, R. L., y Phillips, W. J. (2008). Assessingindividual differences in adolescents preference for rational and experientialcognition. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(1), 42-52.https://10.1016/j.paid.2007.07.006

  17. Montero, I. y León, G. O. (2007). A guide for naming research studies inPsychology. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 7(3),847-862.

  18. Naito, M., Suzuki, K. y Sakamoto, A. (2004). Development of Rational and IntuitiveInformation-Processing Style Inventory. The Japanese Journal ofPersonality, 13, 67-78. https://doi.org/10.2132/personality.13.67.

  19. Namakforoosh, M. (2008). Metodología de la investigación. Limusa: México

  20. Pacini, R. y Epstein, S. (1999). The Relation of Rational and ExperientialInformation Processing Styles to Personality, Basic Beliefs, and the Ratio-Bias Phenomenon. Journal of personality and social psychology, 76, 972-87. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.6.972

  21. Reyna, C. y Ortiz, M. V. (2016). Psychometric study of the Rational ExperientialInventory among undergraduate Argentinean students. Revista dePsicología, 34(2), 337-355. https://doi.org/10.18800/psico.201602.005

  22. Sánchez, E., Fernández-Berrocal, P., Alonso, D., y Tubau, E. (2012) Measuringboth systems of reasoning: a study of the predictive capacity of a newversion of the Rational-Experiential Inventory. European Journal ofEducation and Psychology, 5(2), 121-132.https://doi.org/10.1989/ejep.v5i2.96

  23. Shiloh, S., Salton, E. y Sharabi, D. (2002). Individual differences in rational andintuitive thinking styles as predictors of heuristic responses and framingeffects. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 415-429.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00034-4

  24. Shirzadifard, M., Shahghasemi, E., Hejazi, E., Naghsh, Z. y Ranjbar, G. (2018).Psychometric Properties of Rational-Experiential Inventory for Adolescents.SAGE Open, 8, 1-11. https://doi.org/215824401876721.10.1177/2158244018767219.

  25. Türk Eylem, G. y Artar, M. (2014). Adaptation of the Rational ExperientialInventory: Study of Reliability and Validity. Ankara University Journal ofFaculty of Educational Sciences (JFES), 47(1), 1-18.https://doi.org/10.1501/Egifak_0000001314

  26. Witteman, C., Bercken, J., Claes, L., y Avila, A. (2009). Assessing Rational andIntuitive Thinking Styles. European Journal of Psychological Assessment,25, 39-47. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.25.1.39




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com