4.3 Review

A systematic review of the psychometric properties of death anxiety self-report measures

期刊

DEATH STUDIES
卷 46, 期 2, 页码 257-279

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/07481187.2019.1699203

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent research suggests that death anxiety, a transdiagnostic construct, may underlie a range of anxiety disorders. This systematic review evaluated the psychometric properties of self-report death anxiety measures. The findings highlight the need for further research to establish the adequacy of these instruments.
Recent research suggests that the transdiagnostic construct of death anxiety may be a basic fear underlying a range of anxiety disorders. Although the investigation of death anxiety in clinical populations is relatively recent, the death anxiety literature as a whole has a longer history evidenced by the number of instruments developed to measure this construct. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the evidence supporting the psychometric properties of self-report death anxiety measures. Relevant studies were identified via a systematic search of four electronic databases in addition to reference list searches. Two independent reviewers evaluated relevant studies using the established Terwee et al. quality appraisal tool. Of the 1831 studies identified, 89 met inclusion criteria. These studies investigated the psychometric properties of 21 self-report scales of death anxiety as well as six subscales. No measure was found to possess evidence of adequacy on all evaluated quality criteria. The Templer Death Anxiety Scale, Concerns about Dying Instrument and Death Concern Scale were found to possess the most evidence supporting their validity and reliability. Overall findings suggest that additional research is needed to establish the psychometric adequacy of death anxiety instruments, especially given increased utilization of these measures in both clinical and research settings.

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

4.3
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