4.7 Article

Psychometric Properties of the Persian Version of the Teasing Questionnaire 23

Journal

FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY
Volume 12, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.664736

Keywords

internal consistency; factor structure; persian version; teasing questionnaire; TQ-R

Funding

  1. Mental Health Research Center, School of Behavioral Sciences and Mental Health (Tehran Institute of Psychiatry), Iran University of Medical Sciences [27889]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study translated and validated the Persian version of the Teasing Questionnaire-Revised in terms of its structure, consistency, and validity, demonstrating good psychometric properties for the questionnaire in Persian.
The current study was a cross-sectional research and aimed to investigate the factor structure, internal consistency, and validities of the Persian version of the Teasing Questionnaire-Revised (TQ-R). Forward and backward translations of the TQ-R were performed; face and content validities were determined based on comments by a sample of psychology students and specialists. Using the cluster sampling method, 290 participants were recruited, and 201 valid data (M-age = 23.53, SD = 3.53, 64.2% men) were analyzed. The factor structure was assessed by confirmatory and exploratory factor analysis (EFA). The result of the confirmatory factor analysis(es) did not confirm the proposed three, four, and five-factor models. EFA revealed four factors with 23 items, explaining 52.03% of the total variance. The internal consistency of the Persian version of Teasing Questionnaire 23 was in the excellent range (alpha = 0.92), and its expected associations with external correlates (e.g., depression and anxiety) supported the measure's convergent validity. The findings indicated that the Persian version of the TQ-R has sound psychometric properties and can be used as a valid and reliable tool in research and clinical outcomes.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available