4.6 Article

The Temporal Experience of Pleasure Scale (TEPS): Exploration and Confirmation of Factor Structure in a Healthy Chinese Sample

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0035352

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Key Technologies RD Programme [2012BAI36B01]
  2. National Science Fund China [81088001, 91132701]
  3. Chinese Academy of Sciences [KSCX2-EW-J-8]
  4. Key Laboratory of Mental Health, Institute of Psychology

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The Temporal Experience of Pleasure Scale (TEPS) is a measure specifically designed to capture the anticipatory and consummatory facets of pleasure. However, few studies have examined the structure of the measure in non-Western samples. The current study aimed to evaluate the factor structure and psychometric properties of the TEPS in a Chinese sample. Methods: We administered the Chinese version of the TEPS to 2275 healthy Chinese college students. They were randomly split into two sub-samples. The first sub-sample was used for exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to examine the structure of the TEPS in a Chinese sample. The second sub-sample was used as a validation sample for the identified structure from the EFA and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was adopted. Results: Results of the EFA suggested a four-factor model (consummatory contextual, consummatory abstract, anticipatory contextual, and anticipatory abstract factors) instead of the original two-factor model (consummatory and anticipatory factors) ascertained from Western samples in the United States. The CFA results confirmed these results in the second sub-sample. Internal consistency and test-retest stability of the TEPS factors were good. Conclusions: The TEPS has four factors among Chinese participants. Possible reasons for cultural difference and potential applications of the TEPS for cross-cultural comparison are discussed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available