4.7 Article

Spanish and cross-cultural validation of the mind excessively wandering scale

期刊

FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY
卷 14, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1181294

关键词

mind wandering; task-unrelated thoughts; MEWS; attention; daydreaming

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to re-examine the factor structure of the Mind Excessively Wandering Scale (MEWS), validate the Spanish version of the MEWS, and conduct a cross-cultural validation of the MEWS in Spanish and UK samples. Results showed that the revised MEWS-v2.0 is a valid instrument to assess mind wandering, with two interrelated dimensions (uncontrolled thoughts and mental overactivity). The MEWS-v2.0 captured the same construct in both UK and Spanish samples.
IntroductionOver the last decade, excessive spontaneous mind wandering (MW) has been consistently associated with emotional disorders. The main aims of the present study were (1) to re-examine the factor structure of the Mind Excessively Wandering Scale (MEWS); (2) to validate the Spanish version of the MEWS; and (3) to conduct a cross-cultural validation of the MEWS in Spanish and UK samples. MethodsA forward/backward translation to Spanish was conducted. Data of 391 Spanish and 713 British non-clinical individuals were analysed. ResultsA revised 10-item version of the MEWS (MEWS-v2.0) demonstrated to be a valid instrument to assess MW. A 2-correlated factor structure properly captured the MEWS-v2.0 variance, accounting for two specific but interrelated dimensions (Uncontrolled thoughts and Mental Overactivity). DiscussionThe Spanish MEWS-v2.0 showed adequate internal consistency and construct validity, as well as appropriate convergent/divergent validity. Cross-cultural analyses showed that MEWS-v2.0 captured the same construct in both UK and Spanish samples. In conclusion, both Spanish and English MEWS-v2.0 demonstrated to be reliable measures to capture spontaneous MW phenomenon in non-clinical adult populations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据