‫‪٢٧‬‬ ‫‪  

     ‬اﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ و رﻓﺘﺎر‬ ‫‪Thought & Behavior in Clinical Psychology‬‬

‫‪            ‬دوره ي ﻫﺸﺘﻢ‪ ،‬ﺷﻤﺎره ي ‪ ،32‬ﺗﺎﺑﺴﺘﺎن ‪1393‬‬ ‫‪  ‬‬ ‫‪2014, Volume 8, Number 32‬‬
‫‪ ‬‬

‫ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎر ﻋﺎﻣﻠﻲ و وﻳﮋﮔﻲﻫﺎي روانﺳﻨﺠﻲ ﻓﺮم ﻛﻮﺗﺎه )‪ 18‬ﺳﻮاﻟﻲ( ﻣﻘﻴﺎس ﺑﻬﺰﻳﺴﺘﻲ روان‬
‫ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻲ رﻳﻒ در داﻧﺸﺠﻮﻳﺎن دﺧﺘﺮ و ﭘﺴﺮ*‬

‫‪4‬‬
‫ﻣﻬﺪي ﺧﺎﻧﺠﺎﻧﻲ‪ ،1‬ﺷﻬﺮﻳﺎر ﺷﻬﻴﺪي‪ ،2‬ﺟﻠﻴﻞ ﻓﺘﺢآﺑﺎدي‪ ، 3‬ﻣﺤﻤﺪﻋﻠﻲ ﻣﻈﺎﻫﺮي‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫و اﻣﻴﺪ ﺷﻜﺮي‬

‫ﺑﻬﺰﻳﺴﺘﻲ روانﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻲ‪ ،‬ﺗﻼش ﺑﺮاي ﺷﻜﻮﻓﺎ ﻛﺮدن ﻗﺎﺑﻠﻴﺖﻫﺎي وﺟﻮدي اﻧﺴﺎن اﺳﺖ و ﺗﺎﻛﻨﻮن اﺑﺰارﻫﺎي‬
‫ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﻲ ﺑﺮاي ارزﻳﺎﺑﻲ و ﺑﺮرﺳﻲ ﺑﻬﺰﻳﺴﺘﻲ روان ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻲ اراﻳﻪ ﺷﺪه اﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﻫﺪف ﭘﮋوﻫﺶ ﺣﺎﺿﺮ‪ ،‬ﺑﺮرﺳﻲ‬
‫ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎر ﻋﺎﻣﻠﻲ و وﻳﮋﮔﻲﻫﺎي روانﺳﻨﺠﻲ ﻓﺮم ﻛﻮﺗﺎه )‪ 18‬ﺳﻮاﻟﻲ( ﻣﻘﻴﺎس ﺑﻬﺰﻳﺴﺘﻲ روانﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻲ رﻳﻒ ﺑﻮد‪.‬‬
‫ﺑﺪﻳﻦ ﻣﻨﻈﻮر‪ ،‬ﻃﻲ ﻳﻚ ﭘﮋوﻫﺶ ﺗﻮﺻﻴﻔﻲ از ﻧﻮع ﻫﻤﺒﺴﺘﮕﻲ‪ 976 ،‬ﻧﻔﺮ ) ‪ 647‬دﺧﺘﺮ و ‪ 329‬ﭘﺴﺮ( از ﺑﻴﻦ‬
‫داﻧﺸﺠﻮﻳﺎن داﻧﺸﮕﺎه ﺷﻬﻴﺪ ﺑﻬﺸﺘﻲ اﻧﺘﺨﺎب و ﺑﺎ ﻧﺴﺨﻪ ي ﻛﻮﺗﺎه ﻣﻘﻴﺎس ﺑﻬﺰﻳﺴﺘﻲ روانﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻲ رﻳﻒ‪ ،‬ﺳﻴﺎﻫﻪ‬
‫ي رواندرﻣﺎﻧﻲ ﻣﺜﺒﺖﻧﮕﺮ و ﻣﻘﻴﺎس اﻓﺴﺮدﮔﻲ‪ ،‬اﺿﻄﺮاب و اﺳﺘﺮس ﻣﻮرد آزﻣﻮن ﻗﺮار ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﻧﺘﺎﻳﺞ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ‬
‫ﻋﺎﻣﻠﻲ ﺗﺎﻳﻴﺪي ﺗﻚﮔﺮوﻫﻲ ﻧﺸﺎن داد ﻛﻪ در ﻛﻞ ﻧﻤﻮﻧﻪ و در دو ﺟﻨﺲ‪ ،‬اﻟﮕﻮي ﺷﺶ ﻋﺎﻣﻠﻲ اﻳﻦ‬
‫ﻣﻘﻴﺎس)ﭘﺬﻳﺮشﺧﻮد‪ ،‬ﺗﺴﻠﻂﻣﺤﻴﻄﻲ‪ ،‬راﺑﻄﻪ ي ﻣﺜﺒﺖ ﺑﺎ دﻳﮕﺮان‪ ،‬داﺷﺘﻦ ﻫﺪف در زﻧﺪﮔﻲ‪ ،‬رﺷﺪﺷﺨﺼﻲ و‬
‫اﺳﺘﻘﻼل( از ﺑﺮازش ﺧﻮﺑﻲ ﺑﺮﺧﻮردار اﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﻫﻤﺴﺎﻧﻲ دروﻧﻲ اﻳﻦ ﻣﻘﻴﺎس ﺑﺎ اﺳﺘﻔﺎده از آﻟﻔﺎي ﻛﺮوﻧﺒﺎخ در ‪6‬‬
‫ﻋﺎﻣﻞ ﭘﺬﻳﺮشﺧﻮد‪ ،‬ﺗﺴﻠﻂﻣﺤﻴﻄﻲ‪ ،‬راﺑﻄﻪ ي ﻣﺜﺒﺖ ﺑﺎ دﻳﮕﺮان‪ ،‬داﺷﺘﻦ ﻫﺪف در زﻧﺪﮔﻲ‪ ،‬رﺷﺪﺷﺨﺼﻲ و‬
‫اﺳﺘﻘﻼل ﺑﻪ ﺗﺮﺗﻴﺐ ﺑﺮاﺑﺮ ﺑﺎ ‪ 0/72 ،0/73 ،0/52 ،0/75 ،0/76 ،0/51‬و ﺑﺮاي ﻛﻞ ﻣﻘﻴﺎس ‪ 0/71‬ﺑﻪ دﺳﺖ آﻣﺪ‪.‬‬
‫در ﻣﺠﻤﻮع‪ ،‬ﻧﺘﺎﻳﺞ ﺑﻴﺎﻧﮕﺮ آن اﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﻓﺮم ‪ 18‬ﺳﻮاﻟﻲ ﻣﻘﻴﺎس ﺑﻬﺰﻳﺴﺘﻲ روانﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻲ رﻳﻒ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻨﻈﻮر‬
‫ﺳﻨﺠﺶ ﺑﻬﺰﻳﺴﺘﻲ روانﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻲ در دﺧﺘﺮان و ﭘﺴﺮان در ﻧﻤﻮﻧﻪ ي اﻳﺮاﻧﻲ‪ ،‬اﺑﺰاري ﻣﻔﻴﺪ و ﻛﺎرﺑﺮدي اﺳﺖ‪.‬‬
‫واژهﻫﺎي ﻛﻠﻴﺪي‪ :‬ﺑﻬﺰﻳﺴﺘﻲ روانﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻲ‪ ،‬ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎر ﻋﺎﻣﻠﻲ‪ ،‬روانﺳﻨﺠﻲ‬

‫ﻣﻘﺪﻣﻪ‬
‫اﻣﺮوزه‪ ،‬ﺑﻬﺰﻳﺴﺘﻲ روانﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻲ ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮر ﻓﺰاﻳﻨﺪهاي ﻣﻮرد ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﻣﺘﺨﺼﺼﺎن روانﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ و ﻋﻠﻮم اﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ‬
‫ﻗﺮار ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ و در ﻓﺮﻫﻨﮓﻫﺎ و ﻧﻤﻮﻧﻪﻫﺎي ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ‪ ،‬ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﺎت ﮔﺴﺘﺮدهاي روي اﺑﻌﺎد‪ ،‬ﻣﻮﻟﻔﻪﻫﺎ و ﻫﻤﺒﺴﺘﻪﻫﺎي‬

‫‪                                                        ‬‬
‫‪ .1‬دﭘﺎرﺗﻤﺎن روانﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ داﻧﺸﮕﺎه ﺷﻬﻴﺪ ﺑﻬﺸﺘﻲ‪ ،‬ﺗﻬﺮان‪ ،‬اﻳﺮان‬
‫‪ .2‬دﭘﺎرﺗﻤﺎن روانﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ داﻧﺸﮕﺎه ﺷﻬﻴﺪ ﺑﻬﺸﺘﻲ‪ ،‬ﺗﻬﺮان‪ ،‬اﻳﺮان )ﻧﻮﻳﺴﻨﺪه ي ﻣﺴﻮول( ‪shahriarshahidi@hotmail.com‬‬
‫‪ .3‬دﭘﺎرﺗﻤﺎن روانﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ داﻧﺸﮕﺎه ﺷﻬﻴﺪ ﺑﻬﺸﺘﻲ‪ ،‬ﺗﻬﺮان‪ ،‬اﻳﺮان‬
‫‪ .4‬دﭘﺎرﺗﻤﺎن روانﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ داﻧﺸﮕﺎه ﺷﻬﻴﺪ ﺑﻬﺸﺘﻲ‪ ،‬ﺗﻬﺮان‪ ،‬اﻳﺮان‬
‫‪ .5‬دﭘﺎرﺗﻤﺎن روانﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ داﻧﺸﮕﺎه ﺷﻬﻴﺪ ﺑﻬﺸﺘﻲ‪ ،‬ﺗﻬﺮان‪ ،‬اﻳﺮان‬
 ‫‪       ‬اﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ و رﻓﺘﺎر‬ ‫‪  Thought & Behavior in Clinical Psychology‬‬ ‫‪٢٨‬‬

‫‪            ‬دوره ي ﻫﺸﺘﻢ‪ ،‬ﺷﻤﺎره ي ‪ ،32‬ﺗﺎﺑﺴﺘﺎن ‪1393‬‬ ‫‪  ‬‬ ‫‪2014, Volume 8, Number 32‬‬
‫‪ ‬‬

‫آن اﻧﺠﺎم ﺷﺪه اﺳﺖ ) ﺑﺮاي ﻧﻤﻮﻧﻪ‪ :‬آﺑﻮت‪ ،‬ﭘﻮﻟﻮﺑﻴﺪﻳﺲ‪ ،‬ﻫﺎﭘﺮت‪ ،‬ﻛﻮ و ﻛﺮوداس‪2010 ،‬؛ ﺑﻮرﻧﺰ و ﻣﺎﭼﻴﻦ‪،‬‬
‫‪2010‬؛ ﻓﺮﻧﺎﻧﺪز‪ ،‬واﺳﻜﻮﻧﺴﻠﻮس و ﺗﺨﻴﺮا‪2010 ،‬؛ ﻟﻮاﺳﺎﻧﻲ‪ ،‬ﺑﺰرگزاده‪ ،‬اﻓﻀﻠﻲ و ﺣﺠﺎزي‪2011 ،‬؛ روﻳﻴﻨﻲ‪،‬‬
‫اوﺗﻮﻟﻴﻨﻲ‪ ،‬راﻓﺎﻧﻠﻲ‪ ،‬رﻳﻒ و ﻓﺎوا‪2003 ،‬؛ اﺳﭙﺮﻳﻨﮕﺮ‪ ،‬ﭘﻮدروﺳﻜﺎ و ﻫﺎوﺳﺮ‪2011 ،‬؛ ونداﻳﺮﻧﺪوك‪ ،‬داز‪،‬‬
‫رودرﻳﮕﺰ‪ ،‬ﺑﻼﻧﻜﻮ و ﻣﻮرﻧﻮ‪ .(2008 ،‬در اواﺧﺮ دﻫﻪ ي ‪ 80‬ﻣﻴﻼدي‪ ،‬رﻳﻒ )‪ (1989‬ﻣﺪﻟﻲ ﭼﻨﺪ ﺑﻌﺪي از‬
‫ﺑﻬﺰﻳﺴﺘﻲ روانﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻲ را ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮان ﺗﻼش ﺑﺮاي ﺷﻜﻮﻓﺎ ﻛﺮدن ﻗﺎﺑﻠﻴﺖﻫﺎي وﺟﻮدي اﻧﺴﺎن ﮔﺴﺘﺮش داد‪ .‬اﻳﻦ‬
‫ﻣﺪل‪ ،‬ﺑﻬﺰﻳﺴﺘﻲ روانﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻲ را ﻓﺮاﻳﻨﺪ رﺷﺪ ﻫﻤﻪ ﺟﺎﻧﺒﻪاي ﻣﻲداﻧﺪ ﻛﻪ در ﻃﻮل ﻋﻤﺮ ﮔﺴﺘﺮده اﺳﺖ و ﺷﺶ‬
‫ﺑﻌﺪ اﺳﺘﻘﻼل‪1‬؛ ﺗﺴﻠﻂ ﻣﺤﻴﻄﻲ‪2‬؛ رﺷﺪ ﺷﺨﺼﻲ‪3‬؛ رواﺑﻂ ﻣﺜﺒﺖ ﺑﺎ دﻳﮕﺮان‪4‬؛ ﻫﺪفﻣﻨﺪي در زﻧﺪﮔﻲ‪ 5‬و‬
‫ﭘﺬﻳﺮشﺧﻮد‪ 6‬را اﻧﺪازهﮔﻴﺮي ﻣﻲﻛﻨﺪ‪.‬‬
‫رﻳﻒ و ﻛﻴﺰ )‪ (1995‬ﺑﺮ ﭘﺎﻳﻪ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻣﻲ اﺑﻌﺎد ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ اﻳﻦ ﻣﺪل‪ ،‬ﻣﻘﻴﺎﺳﻲ را ﺑﻪ ﻣﻨﻈﻮر اﻧﺪازهﮔﻴﺮي و‬
‫ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺎﺗﻲ ﻧﻤﻮدن ﻫﺮ ﻳﻚ از اﻳﻦ اﺑﻌﺎد ﺑﻪ ﺻﻮرت ﻓﺮم ﺧﻮدﮔﺰارشدﻫﻲ ﻃﺮاﺣﻲ ﻧﻤﻮدﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﻧﺴﺨﻪ ي اوﻟﻴﻪ ي‬
‫اﻳﻦ ﻣﻘﻴﺎس‪ ،‬داراي ‪ 120‬آﻳﺘﻢ اﺳﺖ‪ .‬در ﺑﺮرﺳﻲﻫﺎي ﺑﻌﺪي ﻛﻪ در ﻣﻮرد وﻳﮋﮔﻲﻫﺎي روانﺳﻨﺠﻲ اﻳﻦ‬
‫ﻣﻘﻴﺎس اﻧﺠﺎم ﮔﺮﻓﺖ‪ ،‬ﻓﺮمﻫﺎي ﻛﻮﺗﺎهﺗﺮ اﻳﻦ ﻣﻘﻴﺎس )‪ 42 ،54 ،84‬و ‪ 18‬ﺳﻮاﻟﻲ( ﻧﻴﺰ ﺗﺪوﻳﻦ ﺷﺪ‪ .‬ﻣﺮور‬
‫ﺷﻮاﻫﺪ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﭘﮋوﻫﺸﻲ )ﻛﻼرك‪ ،‬ﻣﺎرﺷﺎل‪ ،‬رﻳﻒ و وﻳﺘﻮن‪2001 ،‬؛ ﻟﻴﻨﺪﻓﻮرس‪ ،‬ﺑﺮﻧﺘﺴﻮن‪ ،‬ﻻﻧﺪﺑﺮگ‪،‬‬
‫‪2006‬؛ رﻳﻒ و ﻛﻴﻴﺲ‪1995 ،‬؛ ﻛﻴﻴﺲ‪ ،‬اﺷﻤﻮﺗﻜﻴﻦ و رﻳﻒ‪2002 ،‬؛ اﺳﭙﺮﻳﻨﮕﺮ و ﻫﺎوﺳﺮ‪2006 ،‬؛‬
‫ﺳﻴﺮﻳﮕﺎﺗﻲ‪ ،‬ﭘﻨﺰو‪ ،‬ﻻﻧﻲ‪ ،‬ﻣﺎزﭼﻲ‪ ،‬ﻫﺎﺗﺎﻟﺴﻜﺎﺟﺎ‪ ،‬ﮔﻴﺎﻧﺘﻲ و اﺳﻔﺎﻧﻴﻞ‪ (2012 ،‬ﻧﺸﺎن داد ﻛﻪ ﺑﺎ وﺟﻮد ﺗﺪوﻳﻦ‬
‫ﻓﺮمﻫﺎي ﻣﺘﻔﺎوت ﻣﻘﻴﺎس ﺑﻬﺰﻳﺴﺘﻲ روانﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻲ‪ ،‬ﻓﺮم ﻛﻮﺗﺎه ‪ 18‬ﺳﻮاﻟﻲ ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮﻳﻦ اﺳﺘﻔﺎده و ﻛﺎرﺑﺮد را در‬
‫ﭘﮋوﻫﺶﻫﺎي ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ داﺷﺘﻪ اﺳﺖ )ﺑﻮرﻧﺰ و ﻣﺎﭼﻴﻦ‪.(2010 ،‬‬
‫ﻧﺘﺎﻳﺞ ﺑﻪ دﺳﺖ آﻣﺪه از ﺑﺮرﺳﻲ ﻧﺴﺨﻪ ‪ 18‬ﺳﻮاﻟﻲ‪ ،‬ﺣﺎﻛﻲ از ﻫﻤﺒﺴﺘﮕﻲ ﻧﺴﺒﺘﺎ ﺑﺎﻻي )از ‪ 0/70‬ﺗﺎ ‪(0/89‬‬
‫ﻋﺎﻣﻞﻫﺎي ﻫﺮ دو ﻧﺴﺨﻪ ﺑﺎ ﻫﻢ ﺑﻮد‪ .‬ﻛﻼرك‪ ،‬ﻣﺎرﺷﺎل‪ ،‬رﻳﻒ و وﻳﺘﻮن )‪ (2001‬ﺑﻪ ﻣﻨﻈﻮر ﺑﺮرﺳﻲ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎر‬
‫ﻋﺎﻣﻠﻲ ﻣﻘﻴﺎس ‪ 18‬ﺳﻮاﻟﻲ رﻳﻒ روي ﺗﻌﺪادي از اﻓﺮاد ﺑﺰرﮔﺴﺎل‪ ،‬ﻧﺸﺎن دادﻧﺪ ﻛﻪ اﻟﮕﻮي ﺷﺶ ﻋﺎﻣﻠﻲ‬
‫ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮﻳﻦ ﺑﺮازش را ﺑﺎ دادهﻫﺎ دارد‪ .‬ﺑﺎ وﺟﻮد ﺷﻮاﻫﺪ ﺗﺎﻳﻴﺪﻛﻨﻨﺪه ي اﻋﺘﺒﺎر ﻧﺴﺨﻪ ي ‪ 18‬ﺳﻮاﻟﻲ‪ ،‬ﺷﻮاﻫﺪي ﻫﻢ‬
‫در ﻋﺪم ﺗﺎﻳﻴﺪ اﻳﻦ ﻧﺴﺨﻪ وﺟﻮد دارد؛ ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮر ﻣﺜﺎل ونداﻳﻨﺮدوك )‪ (2004‬ﺑﻪ اﻳﻦ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﻪ رﺳﻴﺪ ﻛﻪ در ﻫﻤﻪ‬
‫ﻧﺴﺨﻪﻫﺎ اﻟﮕﻮي ﺷﺶ ﻋﺎﻣﻞ ﺑﻬﺘﺮﻳﻦ ﺑﺮازش را دارد وﻟﻴﻜﻦ در ﻧﺴﺨﻪ ي ‪ 18‬ﺳﻮاﻟﻲ‪ ،‬در ﻣﻘﺎﻳﺴﻪ ﺑﺎ ﻧﺴﺨﻪﻫﺎي‬
‫دﻳﮕﺮ‪ ،‬ﻫﻤﺴﺎﻧﻲ دروﻧﻲ ﻧﺴﺒﺘﺎ ﭘﺎﻳﻴﻨﻲ دارد‪ .‬در اﻳﺮان ﻧﻴﺰ‪ ،‬ﻓﺮمﻫﺎي ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﻣﻘﻴﺎس ﺑﻬﺰﻳﺴﺘﻲ روانﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻲ‬

‫‪                                                        ‬‬
‫‪1. Autonomy‬‬ ‫‪3. Personal Growth‬‬ ‫‪5. Purpose in Life‬‬
‫‪2. Environmental Mastery‬‬ ‫‪4. Positive Relation with others‬‬ ‫‪6. Self-Acceptance‬‬
 ‫‪٢٩‬‬ ‫‪       ‬اﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ و رﻓﺘﺎر‬ ‫‪Thought & Behavior in Clinical Psychology‬‬

‫‪            ‬دوره ي ﻫﺸﺘﻢ‪ ،‬ﺷﻤﺎره ي ‪ ،32‬ﺗﺎﺑﺴﺘﺎن ‪1393‬‬ ‫‪  ‬‬ ‫‪2014, Volume 8, Number 32‬‬
‫‪ ‬‬

‫ﻣﻮرد اﺳﺘﻔﺎده ﻗﺮار ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ اﺳﺖ؛ ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮر ﻣﺜﺎل‪ ،‬در ﭘﮋوﻫﺶ ﺳﻔﻴﺪي و ﻓﺮزاد )‪ (2012‬ﻛﻪ ﺑﺎ ﻫﺪف ﺑﺮرﺳﻲ‬
‫رواﻳﻲ ﻧﺴﺨﻪ ‪ 18‬ﺳﻮاﻟﻲ ﺑﻬﺰﻳﺴﺘﻲ روانﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻲ رﻳﻒ در داﻧﺸﺠﻮﻳﺎن داﻧﺸﮕﺎه ﻋﻠﻮم ﭘﺰﺷﻜﻲ ﻗﺰوﻳﻦ اﻧﺠﺎم‬
‫ﮔﺮﻓﺖ‪ ،‬ﻧﺸﺎن داد اﻳﻦ ﻣﻘﻴﺎس در ﻧﻤﻮﻧﻪ ي ﻣﺬﻛﻮر از ‪ 4‬ﻋﺎﻣﻞ ﺗﺸﻜﻴﻞ ﺷﺪه‪ ،‬ﺷﻜﺮي‪ ،‬ﻛﺪﻳﻮر‪ ،‬ﻓﺮزاد‪،‬‬
‫داﻧﺸﭙﻮر‪ ،‬دﺳﺘﺠﺮدي و ﭘﺎﻳﻴﺰي )‪ (2008‬در ﭘﮋوﻫﺸﻲ ﺑﺎ ﻫﺪف ﺑﺮﺳﻲ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎر ﻋﺎﻣﻠﻲ ﻧﺴﺨﻪﻫﺎي ‪ 54 ،18‬و‬
‫‪ 84‬ﺳﻮاﻟﻲ ﻣﻘﻴﺎس ﺑﻬﺰﻳﺴﺘﻲ روانﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻲ رﻳﻒ در ﺑﻴﻦ داﻧﺸﺠﻮﻳﺎن‪ ،‬ﻧﺸﺎن دادﻧﺪ ﻛﻪ اﻟﮕﻮي ﺳﻠﺴﻠﻪ ﻣﺮاﺗﺒﻲ‬
‫اﻳﻦ ﻣﻘﻴﺎسﻫﺎ ﺑﺮازش ﺑﻬﺘﺮي ﺑﺎ دادهﻫﺎ دارد و ﺑﻪ ﻏﻴﺮ از ﻓﺮم ‪ 18‬ﺳﻮاﻟﻲ اﻳﻦ ﻣﻘﻴﺎس‪ ،‬ﻓﺮمﻫﺎي ‪ 54‬و ‪84‬‬
‫ﺳﻮاﻟﻲ از ﻫﻤﺴﺎﻧﻲ دروﻧﻲ ﺑﺎﻻﺗﺮي ﺑﺮﺧﻮردارﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺑﺎﻫﻢﻧﮕﺮي ﺷﻮاﻫﺪ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﭘﮋوﻫﺸﻲ‪ ،‬ﺣﻜﺎﻳﺖ از‬
‫ﻛﺎرﺑﺮدﭘﺬﻳﺮي ﻣﻘﻴﺎس ﺑﻬﺰﻳﺴﺘﻲ روانﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻲ رﻳﻒ در ﻧﻤﻮﻧﻪﻫﺎي ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ دارد‪ .‬در اﻳﻦ ﭘﮋوﻫﺶ ﺑﻪ دﻧﺒﺎل‬
‫آن ﺑﻮدﻳﻢ ﻛﻪ آﻳﺎ ﻣﻲﺗﻮان از ﻓﺮم ‪ 18‬ﺳﻮاﻟﻲ ﻣﻘﻴﺎس ﺑﻬﺰﻳﺴﺘﻲ روانﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻲ رﻳﻒ در داﻧﺸﺠﻮﻳﺎن اﻳﺮاﻧﻲ‬
‫اﺳﺘﻔﺎده ﻧﻤﻮد؟ ﻫﻤﭽﻨﻴﻦ آﻳﺎ دﺧﺘﺮان و ﭘﺴﺮان در ﻣﻮﻟﻔﻪﻫﺎي ﺑﻬﺰﻳﺴﺘﻲ ﺑﺎ ﻫﻢ ﺗﻔﺎوت دارﻧﺪ؟‬

‫روش‬
‫روش ﭘﮋوﻫﺶ ﺣﺎﺿﺮ‪ ،‬ﺗﻮﺻﻴﻔﻲ از ﻧﻮع ﻫﻤﺒﺴﺘﮕﻲ اﺳﺖ و ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪ ي آﻣﺎري اﻳﻦ ﭘﮋوﻫﺶ را داﻧﺸﺠﻮﻳﺎن‬
‫ﺟﺪﻳﺪاﻟﻮرود ﺳﺎل ‪ 2014‬ﻛﺎرﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ داﻧﺸﮕﺎه ﺷﻬﻴﺪ ﺑﻬﺸﺘﻲ ﺗﺸﻜﻴﻞ ﻣﻲ داد‪ .‬از ﺑﻴﻦ ‪ 1100‬ﻧﻔﺮ ﻛﻪ ﺑﺮاي‬
‫ﺛﺒﺖ ﻧﺎم در دوره ي ﻛﺎرﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﺑﻪ داﻧﺸﮕﺎه ﺷﻬﻴﺪﺑﻬﺸﺘﻲ ﻣﺮاﺟﻌﻪ ﻛﺮده ﺑﻮدﻧﺪ‪ 976 ،‬داﻧﺸﺠﻮ )‪ 647‬ﻧﻔﺮ‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫دﺧﺘﺮ و ‪ 329‬ﻧﻔﺮ ﭘﺴﺮ(‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ وﺳﻴﻠﻪ ي ﻧﺴﺨﻪ ي ﻛﻮﺗﺎه )‪ 18‬ﺳﻮاﻟﻲ( ﻣﻘﻴﺎس ﺑﻬﺰﻳﺴﺘﻲ روانﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻲ رﻳﻒ‬
‫)‪ ،(1989‬ﺳﻴﺎﻫﻪ ي رواندرﻣﺎﻧﻲ ﻣﺜﺒﺖﻧﮕﺮ‪ 2‬و ﻣﻘﻴﺎس اﻓﺴﺮدﮔﻲ‪ ،‬اﺿﻄﺮاب و اﺳﺘﺮس‪ 3‬ﻣﻮرد آزﻣﻮن ﻗﺮار‬
‫ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺷﺮﻛﺖ ﻛﻨﻨﺪﮔﺎن‪ ،‬ﭘﺲ از ﻣﻌﺮﻓﻲ و اراﻳﻪ ي ﺗﻮﺿﻴﺤﺎت ﻻزم و ﭘﺲ ﺟﻠﺐ رﺿﺎﻳﺖ آﻧﻬﺎ ﺟﻬﺖ‬
‫ﺷﺮﻛﺖ در ﭘﮋوﻫﺶ‪ ،‬ﭘﺮﺳﺸﻨﺎﻣﻪﻫﺎ را ﺗﻜﻤﻴﻞ ﻧﻤﻮدﻧﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﻧﺴﺨﻪ ي ﻛﻮﺗﺎه )‪ 18‬ﺳﻮاﻟﻲ( ﻣﻘﻴﺎس ﺑﻬﺰﻳﺴﺘﻲ روانﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻲ رﻳﻒ‪ ،‬ﺗﻮﺳﻂ رﻳﻒ در ﺳﺎل )‪ (1989‬ﻃﺮاﺣﻲ‬
‫و در ﺳﺎل ‪ 2002‬ﻣﻮرد ﺗﺠﺪﻳﺪ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻗﺮار ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ اﺳﺖ‪ .‬اﻳﻦ ﻧﺴﺨﻪ‪ ،‬ﻣﺸﺘﻤﻞ ﺑﺮ ‪ 6‬ﻋﺎﻣﻞ اﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺳﻮالﻫﺎي ‪،9‬‬
‫‪ 12‬و ‪ ،18‬ﻋﺎﻣﻞ اﺳﺘﻘﻼل؛ ﺳﻮالﻫﺎي ‪ 4 ،1‬و ‪ ،6‬ﻋﺎﻣﻞ ﺗﺴﻠﻂ ﺑﺮ ﻣﺤﻴﻂ؛ ﺳﻮالﻫﺎي ‪ 15 ،7‬و ‪ ،17‬ﻋﺎﻣﻞ‬
‫رﺷﺪﺷﺨﺼﻲ؛ ﺳﻮالﻫﺎي ‪ 11 ،3‬و ‪ ،13‬ﻋﺎﻣﻞ ارﺗﺒﺎط ﻣﺜﺒﺖ ﺑﺎ دﻳﮕﺮان؛ ﺳﻮالﻫﺎي ‪ 14 ،5‬و ‪ ،16‬ﻋﺎﻣﻞ‬
‫ﻫﺪفﻣﻨﺪي در زﻧﺪﮔﻲ و ﺳﻮالﻫﺎي ‪ 8 ،2‬و‪ ، 10‬ﻋﺎﻣﻞ ﭘﺬﻳﺮش ﺧﻮد را ﻣﻲﺳﻨﺠﺪ‪ .‬ﻣﺠﻤﻮع ﻧﻤﺮات اﻳﻦ ‪6‬‬
‫ﻋﺎﻣﻞ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮان ﻧﻤﺮه ي ﻛﻠﻲ ﺑﻬﺰﻳﺴﺘﻲ روانﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻲ ﻣﺤﺎﺳﺒﻪ ﻣﻲﺷﻮد‪ .‬اﻳﻦ آزﻣﻮن ﻧﻮﻋﻲ اﺑﺰار‬

‫‪                                                        ‬‬
‫)‪1. Ryff scale psychological wellbeing (RSPWB‬‬ ‫)‪3. Depression, Anxiety, Stress (DASS‬‬
‫)‪2. Positive Psychotherapy Inventory (PPTI/PERMA‬‬
 ‫‪       ‬اﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ و رﻓﺘﺎر‬ ‫‪  Thought & Behavior in Clinical Psychology‬‬ ‫‪٣٠‬‬

‫‪            ‬دوره ي ﻫﺸﺘﻢ‪ ،‬ﺷﻤﺎره ي ‪ ،32‬ﺗﺎﺑﺴﺘﺎن ‪1393‬‬ ‫‪  ‬‬ ‫‪2014, Volume 8, Number 32‬‬
‫‪ ‬‬

‫ﺧﻮدﺳﻨﺠﻲ اﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ در ﻳﻚ ﭘﻴﻮﺳﺘﺎر ‪ 6‬درﺟﻪ اي از "ﻛﺎﻣﻼ ﻣﻮاﻓﻘﻢ" ﺗﺎ "ﻛﺎﻣﻼ ﻣﺨﺎﻟﻔﻢ" )ﻳﻚ ﺗﺎ‬
‫ﺷﺶ( ﭘﺎﺳﺦ داده ﻣﻲﺷﻮد ﻛﻪ ﻧﻤﺮه ي ﺑﺎﻻﺗﺮ‪ ،‬ﻧﺸﺎندﻫﻨﺪه ي ﺑﻬﺰﻳﺴﺘﻲ روانﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻲ ﺑﻬﺘﺮ اﺳﺖ‪ .‬از ﺑﻴﻦ ﻛﻞ‬
‫ﺳﻮاﻻت‪ 10 ،‬ﺳﻮال ﺑﻪ ﺻﻮرت ﻣﺴﺘﻘﻴﻢ و ‪ 8‬ﺳﻮال ﺑﻪ ﺷﻜﻞ ﻣﻌﻜﻮس ﻧﻤﺮهﮔﺬاري ﻣﻲﺷﻮد ) از ﺳﻔﻴﺪي و‬
‫ﻓﺮزاد‪ .(2012 ،‬ﻫﻤﺒﺴﺘﮕﻲ ﻧﺴﺨﻪ ي ﻛﻮﺗﺎه ﻣﻘﻴﺎس ﺑﻬﺰﻳﺴﺘﻲ روانﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻲ رﻳﻒ ﺑﺎ ﻣﻘﻴﺎس اﺻﻠﻲ از ‪ 0/7‬ﺗﺎ‬
‫‪ 0/89‬در ﻧﻮﺳﺎن ﺑﻮده اﺳﺖ )رﻳﻒ و ﺳﻴﻨﮕﺮ‪.(2006 ،‬‬
‫ﺳﻴﺎﻫﻪ ي رواندرﻣﺎﻧﻲ ﻣﺜﺒﺖﻧﮕﺮ ﺗﻮﺳﻂ رﺷﻴﺪ و ﺳﻠﻴﮕﻤﻦ )‪ (2013‬ﺟﻬﺖ اﻧﺪازهﮔﻴﺮي ﻣﻴﺰان زﻧﺪﮔﻲ ﻛﺎﻣﻞ‬
‫)ﺑﻬﺰﻳﺴﺘﻲ( اﻓﺮاد ﺑﺎ اﺳﺘﻔﺎده از ‪ 5‬ﺧﺮده ﻣﻘﻴﺎس ﻫﻴﺠﺎﻧﺎت ﻣﺜﺒﺖ‪ ،1‬ﺗﻌﻬﺪ )ﻣﺸﻐﻮﻟﻴﺖ(‪ ،2‬ﻣﻌﻨﺎ‪ ،‬رواﺑﻂ و‬
‫ﻣﻮﻓﻘﻴﺖ‪ ،‬ﮔﺴﺘﺮش ﻳﺎﻓﺘﻪ و ﺗﻮﺳﻂ ﺧﺎﻧﺠﺎﻧﻲ‪ ،‬ﺷﻬﻴﺪي‪ ،‬ﻓﺘﺢآﺑﺎدي‪ ،‬ﻣﻈﺎﻫﺮي و ﺷﻜﺮي )‪ (2014‬در ﻧﻤﻮﻧﻪ ي‬
‫اﻳﺮاﻧﻲ ﺗﺮﺟﻤﻪ و ﻫﻨﺠﺎرﻳﺎﺑﻲ ﺷﺪه اﺳﺖ‪ .‬اﻳﻦ ﺳﻴﺎﻫﻪ‪ ،‬ﺷﺎﻣﻞ ‪ 25‬ﺳﻮال در ﻣﻘﻴﺎس ﻟﻴﻜﺮت ﭘﻨﺞ درﺟﻪاي از ‪1‬‬
‫ﺗﺎ ‪ 5‬اﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﻧﻤﺮه ي اﻳﻦ ﺳﻴﺎﻫﻪ در ﻣﺤﺪودهاي ﺑﻴﻦ ‪ 25‬ﺗﺎ ‪ 125‬ﻗﺮار دارد‪ .‬اﻳﻦ ﺳﻴﺎﻫﻪ ﺑﺮ ﭘﺎﻳﻪ ي ﻃﻴﻒ‬
‫ﻟﻴﻜﺮت‪ ،‬از ﻫﻤﻴﺸﻪ=‪ 5‬ﺗﺎ ﻫﻴﭻوﻗﺖ=‪ 1‬ﻧﻤﺮهﮔﺬاري ﻣﻲﺷﻮد‪ .‬ﻫﻤﺴﺎﻧﻲ دروﻧﻲ ﻧﺴﺨﻪ ي اوﻟﻴﻪ در ﭘﮋوﻫﺶ‬
‫رﺷﻴﺪ )‪ (2008‬ﺑﺎ اﺳﺘﻔﺎده از ﺿﺮﻳﺐ آﻟﻔﺎي ﻛﺮوﻧﺒﺎخ‪ 0/90 ،‬ﺑﻪ دﺳﺖ آﻣﺪه اﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﮔﻮوﻧﻲ )‪ (2011‬در‬
‫ﺗﺮﻛﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻣﻴﺰان ﻫﻤﺴﺎﻧﻲ دروﻧﻲ ﻧﺴﺨﻪ ي اوﻟﻴﻪ و ‪ 21‬آﻳﺘﻤﻲ ﺳﻴﺎﻫﻪ ي رواندرﻣﺎﻧﻲ ﻣﺜﺒﺖﻧﮕﺮ را ﺑﺎ اﺳﺘﻔﺎده از‬
‫آﻟﻔﺎي ﻛﺮوﻧﺒﺎخ‪ ،‬ﻣﻌﺎدل ‪ 0/80‬ﺑﻪدﺳﺖ آورد‪ .‬در ﭘﮋوﻫﺶ ﺧﺎﻧﺠﺎﻧﻲ و ﻫﻤﻜﺎران )‪ ،(2014‬ﻫﻤﺴﺎﻧﻲ دروﻧﻲ‬
‫ﺳﻴﺎﻫﻪ ﺑﺎ اﺳﺘﻔﺎده از آﻟﻔﺎي ﻛﺮوﻧﺒﺎخ ‪ 0/84‬ﺑﻪ دﺳﺖ آﻣﺪه اﺳﺖ‪.‬‬
‫ﻣﻘﻴﺎس اﻓﺴﺮدﮔﻲ‪ ،‬اﺿﻄﺮاب و اﺳﺘﺮس ﺗﻮﺳﻂ ﻻوﻳﺒﺎﻧﺪ )‪ (1995‬ﻃﺮاﺣﻲ ﺷﺪه و ﺷﺎﻣﻞ ‪ 21‬ﺳﻮال اﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ‬
‫اﻓﺴﺮدﮔﻲ‪ ،‬اﺿﻄﺮاب و اﺳﺘﺮس را ﻣﻲﺳﻨﺠﺪ‪ .‬ﺳﻮالﻫﺎ در ﻳﻚ ﻣﻘﻴﺎس از ﺻﻔﺮ ﺗﺎ ﺳﻪ ﺷﺎﻣﻞ اﺻﻼ)ﺻﻔﺮ(‪،‬‬
‫ﻛﻢ )ﻳﻚ(‪ ،‬زﻳﺎد )دو( و ﺧﻴﻠﻲ زﻳﺎد )ﺳﻪ( ﻧﻤﺮهدﻫﻲ ﻣﻲﺷﻮد‪ .‬ﻧﻤﺮات اﻳﻦ ﺳﻪ ﺧﺮده ﻣﻘﻴﺎس در ‪ 5‬داﻣﻨﻪ ي‬
‫ﻃﺒﻴﻌﻲ‪ ،‬ﺧﻔﻴﻒ‪ ،‬ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ‪ ،‬ﺷﺪﻳﺪ و ﺑﺴﻴﺎر ﺷﺪﻳﺪ ﻃﺒﻘﻪﺑﻨﺪي ﻣﻲﺷﻮد‪ .‬اﻋﺘﺒﺎر اﻳﻦ آزﻣﻮن ﺑﺮاي ﺟﻤﻌﻴﺖ اﻳﺮاﻧﻲ‬
‫ﺗﻮﺳﻂ ﺻﺎﺣﺒﻲ‪ ،‬اﺻﻐﺮي و ﺳﺎﻻري )‪ (2005‬ﻣﻮرد ﺑﺮرﺳﻲ ﻗﺮار ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ اﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺿﺮاﻳﺐ ﻫﻤﺒﺴﺘﮕﻲ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺧﺮده‬
‫ﻣﻘﻴﺎس اﻓﺴﺮدﮔﻲ و آزﻣﻮن اﻓﺴﺮدﮔﻲ ﺑﻚ ‪ ،0/7‬ﻫﻤﺒﺴﺘﮕﻲ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺧﺮده ﻣﻘﻴﺎس اﺿﻄﺮاب و آزﻣﻮن‬
‫اﺿﻄﺮاب زوﻧﮓ ‪ 0/67‬و ﻫﻤﺒﺴﺘﮕﻲ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺧﺮده ﻣﻘﻴﺎس اﺳﺘﺮس و آزﻣﻮن اﺳﺘﺮس ادراك ﺷﺪه ‪ 0/49‬ﺑﻪ‬
‫دﺳﺖ آﻣﺪه اﺳﺖ‪ .‬در اﻳﻦ ﭘﮋوﻫﺶ‪ ،‬ﻣﻴﺰان آﻟﻔﺎي ﻛﺮوﻧﺒﺎخ ﺑﺮاي اﻓﺴﺮدﮔﻲ ‪ 0/77‬ﺑﺮاي اﺿﻄﺮاب ‪ 0/74‬و‬
‫ﺑﺮاي اﺳﺘﺮس ‪ 0/79‬ﺑﻪ دﺳﺖ آﻣﺪه اﺳﺖ‪.‬‬
‫ﺟﻬﺖ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ دادهﻫﺎ از ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﻋﺎﻣﻠﻲ ﺗﺎﻳﻴﺪي ﺑﺎ اﺳﺘﻔﺎده از ﻧﺮم اﻓﺰار ‪ SPSS‬و ‪ AMOS‬و ﺟﻬﺖ ﺑﺮرﺳﻲ‬

‫‪                                                        ‬‬
‫‪1. Positive Emotions‬‬ ‫‪2. Engagement‬‬
 ‫‪٣١‬‬ ‫‪       ‬اﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ و رﻓﺘﺎر‬ ‫‪Thought & Behavior in Clinical Psychology‬‬

‫‪            ‬دوره ي ﻫﺸﺘﻢ‪ ،‬ﺷﻤﺎره ي ‪ ،32‬ﺗﺎﺑﺴﺘﺎن ‪1393‬‬ ‫‪  ‬‬ ‫‪2014, Volume 8, Number 32‬‬
‫‪ ‬‬

‫ﺗﻔﺎوت ﻧﻤﺮات دﺧﺘﺮان و ﭘﺴﺮان از آزﻣﻮن ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ وارﻳﺎﻧﺲ ﭼﻨﺪ ﻣﺘﻐﻴﺮي)ﻣﺎﻧﻮا( اﺳﺘﻔﺎده ﺷﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﭘﺲ از ﺗﺮﺟﻤﻪ ي اوﻟﻴﻪ ﻣﻘﻴﺎس ﺑﻬﺰﻳﺴﺘﻲ روانﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻲ رﻳﻒ‪ ،‬اﻳﻦ ﺗﺮﺟﻤﻪ در اﺧﺘﻴﺎر ﭼﻨﺪ ﻣﺘﺨﺼﺺ‬
‫روانﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ و زﺑﺎن و ادﺑﻴﺎت اﻧﮕﻠﻴﺴﻲ ﻗﺮار ﮔﺮﻓﺖ و ﺻﺤﺖ ﺗﺮﺟﻤﻪ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎ اﺳﺘﻔﺎده از ﺗﺮﺟﻤﻪي دوﺑﺎره از ﻣﺘﻦ‬
‫اﻧﮕﻠﻴﺴﻲ ﺑﻪ ﻓﺎرﺳﻲ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻨﻈﻮر رﻋﺎﻳﺖ ﻣﻼﺣﻈﺎت ﻓﺮﻫﻨﮕﻲ ﻣﻮرد ﺗﺎﻳﻴﺪ ﻗﺮار ﮔﺮﻓﺖ‪.‬‬

‫ﻳﺎﻓﺘﻪ ﻫﺎ‬
‫در اﻳﻦ ﭘﮋوﻫﺶ ﺗﻌﺪاد ‪ 976‬ﻧﻔﺮ داﻧﺸﺠﻮي ورودي ﺟﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﻘﻄﻊ ﻛﺎرﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ داﻧﺸﮕﺎه ﺷﻬﻴﺪ ﺑﻬﺸﺘﻲ در ﺳﺎل‬
‫ﺗﺤﺼﻴﻠﻲ‪ 2013-14‬ﺑﺎ ﻣﻴﺎﻧﮕﻴﻦ ﺳﻨﻲ ‪ 18/87‬و اﻧﺤﺮاف ﻣﻌﻴﺎر ‪ 4/74‬ﺷﺮﻛﺖ داﺷﺘﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺣﺪول ‪ 1‬اﻧﺪازه ﻫﺎي‬
‫ﺗﻮﺻﻴﻔﻲ ﻣﺎده ﻫﺎي ﭘﺮﺳﺸﻨﺎﻣﻪ ي ﺑﻬﺰﻳﺴﺘﻲ روانﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻲ رﻳﻒ را ﻧﺸﺎن ﻣﻲ دﻫﺪ‪.‬‬

‫ﺟﺪول ‪ : 1‬اﻧﺪازه ي ﺗﻮﺻﻴﻔﻲ‪ ،‬ﻣﻴﺎﻧﮕﻴﻦ و اﻧﺤﺮاف اﺳﺘﺎﻧﺪارد ﻣﺎدهﻫﺎي ﭘﺮﺳﺸﻨﺎﻣﻪ ي ﺑﻬﺰﻳﺴﺘﻲ روانﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻲ رﻳﻒ‬
‫دﺧﺘﺮ‬ ‫ﭘﺴﺮ‬ ‫ﻣﺎده ﻫﺎ‬
‫‪sd M‬‬ ‫‪Sd M‬‬
‫‪2/01 4/84 1/31 4/72‬‬ ‫ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮر ﻛﻠﻲ اﺣﺴﺎس ﻣﻲﻛﻨﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺴﻮول وﺿﻊ زﻧﺪﮔﻲ ﻛﻨﻮﻧﻲام ﻫﺴﺘﻢ‪.‬‬
‫‪1/50 5/08 1/31 4/21‬‬ ‫ﻫﻨﮕﺎﻣﻲ ﻛﻪ ﺟﺮﻳﺎن زﻧﺪﮔﻲ ﺧﻮد را ﻣﺮور ﻣﻲﻛﻨﻢ‪ ،‬از آﻧﭽﻪ روي داده ﺧﺸﻨﻮد ﻣﻲﺷﻮم‪.‬‬
‫‪1/11 3/17 1/48 2/55‬‬ ‫ﺣﻔﻆ رواﺑﻂ ﺻﻤﻴﻤﻲ ﺑﺮاي ﻣﻦ ﻣﺸﻜﻞ اﺳﺖ و اﺣﺴﺎس ﻧﺎﻛﺎﻣﻲ ﻣﻲﻛﻨﻢ‪.‬‬
‫‪1/43 3/30 1/65 2/79‬‬ ‫ﻧﻴﺎزﻫﺎي زﻧﺪﮔﻲ روزﻣﺮه‪ ،‬اﻏﻠﺐ ﻣﺮا از ﭘﺎي در ﻣﻲآورد‪.‬‬
‫‪1/38 3/06 1/68 2/85‬‬ ‫ﻣﻦ ﺑﺮاي ﺣﺎل زﻧﺪﮔﻲ ﻣﻲﻛﻨﻢ و واﻗﻌﺎ ﺑﻪ آﻳﻨﺪه ﻓﻜﺮ ﻧﻤﻲﻛﻨﻢ‪.‬‬
‫‪1/49 5/80 1/27 6/24‬‬ ‫ﻣﻦ ﺑﺴﻴﺎري از ﻣﺴﻮوﻟﻴﺖﻫﺎي زﻧﺪﮔﻲ روزاﻧﻪام را ﺑﻪ ﺧﻮﺑﻲ ﻣﺪﻳﺮﻳﺖ ﻣﻲﻛﻨﻢ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﻜﺮ ﻣﻲﻛﻨﻢ داﺷﺘﻦ ﺗﺠﺎرب ﺟﺪﻳﺪي ﻛﻪ ﺗﻔﻜﺮ ﻓﺮد را درﺑﺎره ي ﺧﻮد و ﺟﻬﺎن ﺑﻪ ﭼﺎﻟﺶ ﻣﻲﻛﺸﺪ ﻣﻬﻢ اﺳﺖ‪1/67 6/37 1/21 4/77 .‬‬
‫‪3/83 5/02 1/31 5/05‬‬ ‫ﺑﻴﺶﺗﺮ ﺟﻨﺒﻪﻫﺎي ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺖ ﺧﻮد را دوﺳﺖ دارم‪.‬‬
‫‪1/90 5/82 1/05 5/64‬‬ ‫اﻓﺮاد ﻣﺼﻤﻢ ﺑﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺗﺎﺛﻴﺮ ﻣﻲﮔﺬارﻧﺪ‪.‬‬
‫‪1/18 3/23 1/92 3/83‬‬ ‫در ﺑﺴﻴﺎري ﺟﻬﺎت از ﻣﻮﻓﻘﻴﺖﻫﺎﻳﻢ در زﻧﺪﮔﻲ اﺣﺴﺎس ﻧﺎ اﻣﻴﺪي ﻣﻲﻛﻨﻢ‪.‬‬
‫‪1/72 6/02 1/49 4/76‬‬ ‫اﻓﺮاد ﻣﺮا ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮان ﻓﺮدي ﺑﺨﺸﻨﺪه و ﻋﻼﻗﻤﻨﺪ ﺑﻪ ﺻﺮف وﻗﺖ ﺑﺎ دﻳﮕﺮان‪ ،‬ﺗﻮﺻﻴﻒ ﻣﻲﻛﻨﻨﺪ‪.‬‬
‫‪1/87 5/47 1/11 5/30‬‬ ‫ﺑﻪ ﻧﻈﺮات ﺧﻮد اﻃﻤﻴﻨﺎن دارم‪ ،‬اﮔﺮ ﭼﻪ آﻧﻬﺎ ﺑﺮ ﺧﻼف ﻧﻈﺮ ﺟﻤﻊ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪.‬‬
‫‪1/11 3/42 1/65 3/20‬‬ ‫رواﺑﻂ ﺧﻴﻠﻲ ﮔﺮم و ﻫﻤﺮاه ﺑﺎ اﻋﺘﻤﺎد زﻳﺎدي را ﺑﺎ دﻳﮕﺮان ﺗﺠﺮﺑﻪ ﻧﻜﺮدهام‪.‬‬
‫‪1/07 6/44 1/06 5/80‬‬ ‫ﺑﻌﻀﻲ از اﻓﺮاد ﺑﻲ ﻫﺪف‪ ،‬زﻧﺪﮔﻲ ﺧﻮد را ﺳﭙﺮي ﻣﻲﻛﻨﻨﺪ؛ اﻣﺎ ﻣﻦ از آن دﺳﺘﻪ از اﻓﺮاد ﻧﻴﺴﺘﻢ‪.‬‬
‫‪1/21 6/68 1/38 6/13‬‬ ‫ﺑﺮاي ﻣﻦ‪ ،‬زﻧﺪﮔﻲ ﻳﻚ ﻓﺮاﻳﻨﺪ ﻣﺴﺘﻤﺮ ﻳﺎدﮔﻴﺮي‪ ،‬ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮ و رﺷﺪ اﺳﺖ‪.‬‬
‫‪1/64 3/98 1/21 4/29‬‬ ‫ﺑﻌﻀﻲ اوﻗﺎت اﺣﺴﺎس ﻣﻲﻛﻨﻢ ﻛﻪ ﻫﻤﻪ آﻧﭽﻪ را ﺑﺎﻳﺪ در زﻧﺪﮔﻲ اﻧﺠﺎم دﻫﻢ‪ ،‬اﻧﺠﺎم دادهام‪.‬‬
‫‪0/59 2/72 0/96 2/99‬‬ ‫ﻣﺪتﻫﺎﺳﺖ از ﺗﻼش ﺑﺮاي اﻳﺠﺎد ﺑﻬﺒﻮدﻫﺎ و ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮات زﻳﺎد در زﻧﺪﮔﻲام دﺳﺖ ﻛﺸﻴﺪهام‪.‬‬
‫ﺧﻮدم را آﻧﮕﻮﻧﻪ ﻛﻪ ﻓﻜﺮ ﻣﻲﻛﻨﻢ ﻣﻬﻢ اﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﻗﻀﺎوت ﻣﻲﻛﻨﻢ؛ ﻧﻪ ﺑﺮ اﺳﺎس ارزشﻫﺎﻳﻲ ﻛﻪ ﺑﺮاي دﻳﮕﺮان ﻣﻬﻢ اﺳﺖ‪1/96 4/65 1/38 4/83 .‬‬
 ‫‪       ‬اﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ و رﻓﺘﺎر‬ ‫‪  Thought & Behavior in Clinical Psychology‬‬ ‫‪٣٢‬‬

‫‪            ‬دوره ي ﻫﺸﺘﻢ‪ ،‬ﺷﻤﺎره ي ‪ ،32‬ﺗﺎﺑﺴﺘﺎن ‪1393‬‬ ‫‪  ‬‬ ‫‪2014, Volume 8, Number 32‬‬
‫‪ ‬‬

‫ﻫﻤﺴﺎﻧﻲ دروﻧﻲ ﺑﺎ اﺳﺘﻔﺎده از آﻟﻔﺎي ﻛﺮوﻧﺒﺎخ ﺑﺮاي ﻣﻮﻟﻔﻪﻫﺎي ﭘﺬﻳﺮش ﺧﻮد‪ ،‬ﺗﺴﻠﻂ ﻣﺤﻴﻄﻲ‪ ،‬راﺑﻄﻪ ي ﻣﺜﺒﺖ ﺑﺎ‬
‫دﻳﮕﺮان‪ ،‬داﺷﺘﻦ ﻫﺪف در زﻧﺪﮔﻲ‪ ،‬رﺷﺪ ﺷﺨﺼﻲ و اﺳﺘﻘﻼل ﺑﻪ ﺗﺮﺗﻴﺐ ﺑﺮاﺑﺮ ﺑﺎ ‪0/73 ،0/52 ،0/75 ،0/76 ،0/51‬‬
‫و ‪ 0/72‬ﺑﻪ دﺳﺖ آﻣﺪ‪ .‬ﻗﺒﻞ از ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﻋﺎﻣﻠﻲ ﺗﺎﻳﻴﺪي ﭼﻨﺪ ﮔﺮوﻫﻲ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻨﻈﻮر آزﻣﻮن ﻫﻢ ارزي ﺟﻨﺴﻲ‬
‫ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎر ﻋﺎﻣﻠﻲ ﻣﻘﻴﺎس ﺑﻬﺰﻳﺴﺘﻲ روان ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻲ رﻳﻒ‪ ،‬اﺑﺘﺪا رواﻳﻲ ﻋﺎﻣﻠﻲ اﻳﻦ ﻣﻘﻴﺎس از ﻃﺮﻳﻖ‬
‫ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﻋﺎﻣﻞ ﺗﺎﻳﻴﺪي روي ﺗﻤﺎﻣﻲ داﻧﺸﺠﻮﻳﺎن دﺧﺘﺮ و ﭘﺴﺮ آزﻣﻮن ﺷﺪ )ﺟﺪول ‪.(2‬‬

‫ﺟﺪول ‪ :2‬ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﻋﺎﻣﻠﻲ ﺗﺎﻳﻴﺪي اﻟﮕﻮي ﻓﺮم ﻛﻮﺗﺎه ﻣﻘﻴﺎس ﺑﻬﺰﻳﺴﺘﻲ روان ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻲ رﻳﻒ‬
‫آﻟﻔﺎي ﻛﺮوﻧﺒﺎخ‬ ‫ﺑﺎرﻋﺎﻣﻠﻲ‬ ‫ﻣﻘﻴﺎس‬
‫ﭘﺴﺮان‬ ‫دﺧﺘﺮان‬ ‫ﭘﺴﺮان‬ ‫دﺧﺘﺮان‬
‫‪0/56‬‬ ‫‪0/48‬‬ ‫‪0/62‬‬ ‫‪0/63‬‬ ‫ﭘﺬﻳﺮش ﺧﻮد‬
‫‪0/76‬‬ ‫‪0/77‬‬ ‫‪0/31‬‬ ‫‪0/61‬‬ ‫ﺗﺴﻠﻂ ﻣﺤﻴﻄﻲ‬
‫‪0/78‬‬ ‫‪0/73‬‬ ‫‪0/20‬‬ ‫‪0/51‬‬ ‫راﺑﻄﻪ ي ﻣﺜﺒﺖ ﺑﺎ دﻳﮕﺮان‬
‫‪0/56‬‬ ‫‪0/46‬‬ ‫‪0/42‬‬ ‫‪0/58‬‬ ‫داﺷﺘﻦ ﻫﺪف در زﻧﺪﮔﻲ‬
‫‪0/77‬‬ ‫‪0/68‬‬ ‫‪0/48‬‬ ‫‪0/53‬‬ ‫رﺷﺪ ﺷﺨﺼﻲ‬
‫‪0/74‬‬ ‫‪0/71‬‬ ‫‪0/55‬‬ ‫‪0/49‬‬ ‫اﺳﺘﻘﻼل‬

‫ﺑﺮ اﻳﻦ اﺳﺎس‪ ،‬اﻟﮕﻮي ﺷﺶ ﻋﺎﻣﻠﻲ ﻣﻘﻴﺎس ﺑﺮاي ﻛﻞ داﻧﺸﺠﻮﻳﺎن ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮان اﻟﮕﻮي ﭘﺎﻳﻪ اي‪ ،‬وارﺳﻲ اﻋﺘﺒﺎر‬
‫ﺷﺪ‪ .‬ﻧﺘﺎﻳﺞ ﻣﺮﺑﻮط ﺑﻪ ﺷﺎﺧﺺ ﻫﺎي ﺑﺮازش اﻟﮕﻮي ﺷﺶ ﻋﺎﻣﻠﻲ در ﻛﻞ ﻧﻤﻮﻧﻪ ﺑﺮاي ﻫﺮ ﻳﻚ از ﺷﺎﺧﺺ‬
‫ﻫﺎي ﭘﻴﺸﻨﻬﺎدي ﻫﻮ و ﺑﻨﺘﻠﺮ )‪ (1999‬ﺷﺎﻣﻞ ﺷﺎﺧﺺ ﻣﺠﺬور ﺧﻲ)‪ ،(χ2‬ﺷﺎﺧﺺ ﻣﺠﺬور ﺧﻲ ﺑﺮ درﺟﻪ ي‬
‫آزادي )‪ ،(df2χ/‬ﺷﺎﺧﺺ ﺑﺮازش ﻣﻘﺎﻳﺴﻪ اي )‪ ،(CFI‬ﺷﺎﺧﺺ ﻧﻴﻜﻮﻳﻲ ﺑﺮازش )‪ ،(GFI‬ﺷﺎﺧﺺ ﻧﻴﻜﻮﻳﻲ‬
‫ﺑﺮازش اﻧﻄﺒﺎﻗﻲ )‪ (AGFI‬و ﺧﻄﺎي رﻳﺸﻪ ي ﻣﺠﺬور ﻣﻴﺎﻧﮕﻴﻦ ﺗﻘﺮﻳﺐ )‪ (RMSEA‬ﺑﻪ ﺗﺮﺗﻴﺐ ﺑﺮاﺑﺮ ﺑﺎ‬
‫‪ 0/94 ،0/95 ،0/95 ،1/61 ،207/97‬و ‪ 0/025‬ﺑﻪ دﺳﺖ آﻣﺪ‪.‬‬
‫در اﻳﻦ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ‪ ،‬ﺗﻤﺎﻣﻲ ﺑﺎرﻫﺎي ﻋﺎﻣﻠﻲ اﻟﮕﻮي اﻧﺪازهﮔﻴﺮي ‪ 6‬ﻋﺎﻣﻠﻲ در ﺳﻄﺢ ‪ 0/05‬ﻣﻌﻨﺎدار ﺑﻮد‪ .‬ﺟﺪول ‪3‬‬
‫ﻧﺘﺎﻳﺞ ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي ﺑﺮازش ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎر ‪ 6‬ﻋﺎﻣﻠﻲ اﻟﮕﻮي اﻧﺪازهﮔﻴﺮي ﻣﻘﻴﺎس ﺑﻬﺰﻳﺴﺘﻲ روانﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻲ رﻳﻒ را‬
‫در ﻛﻞ ﻧﻤﻮﻧﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺗﻔﻜﻴﻚ در دو ﺟﻨﺲ ﻧﺸﺎن ﻣﻲدﻫﺪ‪ .‬ﻃﺒﻖ دﻳﺪﮔﺎه ﻫﻮ و ﺑﻨﺘﻠﺮ )‪ ،(1999‬از آﻧﺠﺎ ﻛﻪ‬
‫ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي ‪ GFI ،CFI‬و ‪ AGFI‬ﻣﺴﺎوي ﻳﺎ ﺑﺰرﮔﺘﺮ از ‪ 0/90‬و ﻣﻘﺎدﻳﺮ ‪ RMSEA‬در دو ﮔﺮوه ﻛﻮﭼﻜﺘﺮ‬
‫از ‪ 0/08‬و ﻣﻘﺎدﻳﺮ )‪ (χ2/df‬ﻛﻮﭼﻜﺘﺮ از ‪ 2‬ﺑﻪ دﺳﺖ آﻣﺪ‪ ،‬در دو ﺟﻨﺲ‪ ،‬ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎر ‪ 6‬ﻋﺎﻣﻠﻲ ﺑﻬﺰﻳﺴﺘﻲ‬
‫روانﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻲ رﻳﻒ ﺑﺮازش ﺧﻮﺑﻲ ﺑﺎ دادهﻫﺎ ﻧﺸﺎن ﻣﻲدﻫﺪ‪.‬‬
 ‫‪٣٣‬‬ ‫‪       ‬اﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ و رﻓﺘﺎر‬ ‫‪Thought & Behavior in Clinical Psychology‬‬

‫‪            ‬دوره ي ﻫﺸﺘﻢ‪ ،‬ﺷﻤﺎره ي ‪ ،32‬ﺗﺎﺑﺴﺘﺎن ‪1393‬‬ ‫‪  ‬‬ ‫‪2014, Volume 8, Number 32‬‬
‫‪ ‬‬

‫ﺟﺪول ‪ :3‬ﺷﺎﺧﺺﻫﺎي ﺑﺮازش اﻟﮕﻮﻫﺎي ﺷﺶ ﻋﺎﻣﻠﻲ ﺑﻬﺰﻳﺴﺘﻲ روانﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻲ رﻳﻒ‬

‫در داﻧﺸﺠﻮﻳﺎن دﺧﺘﺮ و ﭘﺴﺮ‬
‫‪RMSEA‬‬ ‫‪AGFI‬‬ ‫‪GFI‬‬ ‫‪CFI‬‬ ‫‪χ2 /d f‬‬ ‫‪df‬‬ ‫‪χ2‬‬ ‫اﻟﮕﻮ‬
‫‪0/014‬‬ ‫‪0/94‬‬ ‫‪0/96‬‬ ‫‪0/96‬‬ ‫‪1/68‬‬ ‫‪99‬‬ ‫‪156/95‬‬ ‫دﺧﺘﺮان‬
‫‪0/045‬‬ ‫‪0/94‬‬ ‫‪0/94‬‬ ‫‪0/92‬‬ ‫‪1/94‬‬ ‫‪99‬‬ ‫‪123/75‬‬ ‫ﭘﺴﺮان‬

‫ﺑﻪ ﻣﻨﻈﻮر ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮﻧﺎﭘﺬﻳﺮي ﻋﺎﻣﻠﻲ ﭘﺮﺳﺸﻨﺎﻣﻪ ي ﺑﻬﺰﻳﺴﺘﻲ روانﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻲ رﻳﻒ‪ ،‬اﺑﺘﺪا ﻳﻚ اﻟﮕﻮي اﻧﺪازه‪-‬‬
‫ﮔﻴﺮي ﭘﺎﻳﻪ ﺑﺪون ﻣﺤﺪودﻳﺖﻫﺎي ﺗﺴﺎوي در دو ﺟﻨﺲ اﻳﺠﺎد و آزﻣﻮن ﺷﺪ ﺳﭙﺲ‪ ،‬ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮﻧﺎﭘﺬﻳﺮي اﻧﺪازه‪-‬‬
‫ﮔﻴﺮي دو ﺟﻨﺲ در ﺳﻪ ﻣﺮﺣﻠﻪ آزﻣﻮن ﺷﺪ‪ .‬ﻧﺘﺎﻳﺞ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﻋﺎﻣﻠﻲ ﺗﺎﻳﻴﺪي ﭼﻨﺪ ﮔﺮوﻫﻲ در دو ﺟﻨﺲ ﻧﺸﺎن‬
‫داد ﻛﻪ ﺑﺮازش اﻟﮕﻮي ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﻋﺎﻣﻠﻲ ﭼﻨﺪﮔﺮوﻫﻲ ﺧﻮب اﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﻣﻘﺪار‪ Δχ2‬ـ ﻛﻪ ﺑﺎ ﻫﺪف آزﻣﻮن ﺗﻔﺎوت‬
‫ﺑﻴﻦ ﻣﻘﺎدﻳﺮ ﻣﻘﺪار‪ χ2‬ﺑﻴﻦ اﻟﮕﻮي ﺑﺎﻣﺤﺪودﻳﺖ و اﻟﮕﻮي ﺑﺪون ﻣﺤﺪودﻳﺖ ﻣﺤﺎﺳﺒﻪ ﺷﺪه‪ ،‬ﻧﺸﺎن داد ﻛﻪ دو‬
‫ﺟﻨﺲ از ﻧﻈﺮ ﺑﺎﻗﻴﻤﺎﻧﺪهﻫﺎي اﻧﺪازهﮔﻴﺮي ﺑﺎ ﻳﻜﺪﻳﮕﺮ ﻣﺴﺎوي ﺑﻮدﻧﺪ ]‪ .[Δχ2 (23)=6/61, p= 0/84‬در‬
‫ﻣﺮﺣﻠﻪ ي دوم‪ ،‬دو ﺟﻨﺲ از ﻃﺮﻳﻖ اﻳﺠﺎد ﺗﺴﺎوي در ﻛﻮارﻳﺎﻧﺲﻫﺎي ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎري ﻣﺤﺪود ﺷﺪﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﻣﻘﺪار‪Δχ2‬‬
‫ﻧﺸﺎن داد ﻛﻪ در اﻟﮕﻮي ﺑﺎﻣﺤﺪودﻳﺖ و اﻟﮕﻮي ﺑﺪون ﻣﺤﺪودﻳﺖ ﻛﻮارﻳﺎﻧﺲﻫﺎي ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎري در دو ﺟﻨﺲ‬
‫ﻣﺴﺎوي ﺑﻮدﻧﺪ ]‪ .[Δχ2 (15)= 63/5، p= 0/23‬ﺟﻬﺖ ﺑﺮرﺳﻲ اﻋﺘﺒﺎر ﻫﻤﮕﺮاي ﻓﺮم ﻛﻮﺗﺎه ﻣﻘﻴﺎس ﺑﻬﺰﻳﺴﺘﻲ‬
‫رواﻧﺸﻨﺎﺧﺘﻲ رﻳﻒ از ﺿﺮﻳﺐ ﻫﻤﺒﺴﺘﮕﻲ ﭘﻴﺮﺳﻮن ﺑﻴﻦ ﻋﺎﻣﻞﻫﺎي اﻳﻦ ﻣﻘﻴﺎس ﺑﺎ ﺳﻴﺎﻫﻪ ي رواندرﻣﺎﻧﻲ ﻣﺜﺒﺖ‪،‬‬
‫رﺷﻴﺪ و ﺳﻠﻴﮕﻤﻦ)‪ (2013‬اﺳﺘﻔﺎده ﺷﺪ )ﺟﺪول ‪.( 4‬‬

‫ﺟﺪول‪ :4‬ﻫﻤﺒﺴﺘﮕﻲ ﺑﻴﻦ ﻣﻮﻟﻔﻪﻫﺎي ﺑﻬﺰﻳﺴﺘﻲ روانﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻲ ﺑﺎ ﺳﻴﺎﻫﻪ ي رواندرﻣﺎﻧﻲ‬

‫ﻣﺜﺒﺖﻧﮕﺮ و آزﻣﻮن اﺳﺘﺮس‪ ،‬اﺿﻄﺮاب و اﻓﺴﺮدﮔﻲ‬
‫اﻓﺴﺮدﮔﻲ‬ ‫اﺿﻄﺮاب‬ ‫اﺳﺘﺮس‬ ‫ﻣﺜﺒﺖ ﻧﮕﺮ‬
‫**‬ ‫**‬ ‫**‬
‫‪-0/48‬‬ ‫‪-0/35‬‬ ‫‪-0/38‬‬ ‫**‪0/49‬‬ ‫ﭘﺬﻳﺮش ﺧﻮد‬
‫**‬ ‫**‬ ‫**‬ ‫**‬
‫‪-0/37‬‬ ‫‪-0/29‬‬ ‫‪-0/34‬‬ ‫‪0/38‬‬ ‫ﺗﺴﻠﻂﻣﺤﻴﻄﻲ‬
‫**‬ ‫**‬ ‫**‬ ‫**‬
‫‪-0/36‬‬ ‫‪-0/30‬‬ ‫‪-0/31‬‬ ‫‪0/32‬‬ ‫رواﺑﻂ ﻣﺜﺒﺖ‬
‫**‬ ‫**‬ ‫**‬ ‫**‬
‫‪-0/30‬‬ ‫‪-0/29‬‬ ‫‪-0/29‬‬ ‫‪0/31‬‬ ‫ﻫﺪف در زﻧﺪﮔﻲ‬
‫**‬ ‫**‬ ‫**‬ ‫**‬
‫‪-0/31‬‬ ‫‪-0/26‬‬ ‫‪-0/31‬‬ ‫‪0/39‬‬ ‫رﺷﺪﺷﺨﺼﻲ‬
‫**‬ ‫**‬ ‫**‬ ‫**‬
‫‪-0/30‬‬ ‫‪-0/29‬‬ ‫‪-0/28‬‬ ‫‪0/30‬‬ ‫اﺳﺘﻘﻼل‬
‫*ﻣﻌﻨﺎداري در ﺳﻄﺢ ‪0/05‬‬ ‫**ﻣﻌﻨﺎداري در ﺳﻄﺢ ‪0/01‬‬
‫ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ وارﻳﺎﻧﺲ ﻧﻤﺮات دﺧﺘﺮان و ﭘﺴﺮان ﻧﺸﺎن داد ﻛﻪ در ﻣﻮﻟﻔﻪﻫﺎي ﭘﺬﻳﺮش ﺧﻮد‪ ،‬ﺗﺴﻠﻂ ﻣﺤﻴﻄﻲ‪ ،‬ارﺗﺒﺎط‬
‫ﻣﺜﺒﺖ ﺑﺎ دﻳﮕﺮان و ﻋﺎﻣﻞ رﺷﺪ ﺷﺨﺼﻲ‪ ،‬ﻣﻘﺪار ‪ F‬ﺑﺎ درﺟﺎت آزادي )‪ 2‬و ‪ (867‬ﺗﻔﺎوت ﻣﻌﻨﺎداري ﺑﻴﻦ‬
 ‫‪       ‬اﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ و رﻓﺘﺎر‬ ‫‪  Thought & Behavior in Clinical Psychology‬‬ ‫‪٣٤‬‬

‫‪            ‬دوره ي ﻫﺸﺘﻢ‪ ،‬ﺷﻤﺎره ي ‪ ،32‬ﺗﺎﺑﺴﺘﺎن ‪1393‬‬ ‫‪  ‬‬ ‫‪2014, Volume 8, Number 32‬‬
‫‪ ‬‬

‫دﺧﺘﺮان و ﭘﺴﺮان در ﺳﻄﺢ ‪ α=0/05‬وﺟﻮد دارد‪ .‬ﻣﻘﺎﻳﺴﻪ ي ﻣﻴﺎﻧﮕﻴﻦ دو ﮔﺮوه ﻧﺸﺎن ﻣﻲدﻫﺪ‪ ،‬دﺧﺘﺮان در‬
‫ﻣﻘﺎﻳﺴﻪ ﺑﺎ ﭘﺴﺮان در ﻣﻮﻟﻔﻪﻫﺎي ذﻛﺮ ﺷﺪه ﺑﻪ ﻏﻴﺮ از ﻋﺎﻣﻞ اﺳﺘﻘﻼل از ﻧﻤﺮه ي ﺑﺎﻻﺗﺮي ﺑﺮﺧﻮردار اﻧﺪ‪.‬‬

‫ﺑﺤﺚ و ﻧﺘﻴﺠﻪ ﮔﻴﺮي‬

‫ﻧﺘﺎﻳﺞ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﻋﺎﻣﻠﻲ ﺻﻮرت ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ در ﺑﻴﻦ دﺧﺘﺮان و ﭘﺴﺮان‪ ،‬ﻧﺸﺎن داد ﻛﻪ ﻣﺪل ﺑﻪ دﺳﺖ آﻣﺪه از ﺑﺮازش‬
‫ﺧﻮﺑﻲ ﺑﺮﺧﻮردار اﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﻫﻤﭽﻨﻴﻦ‪ ،‬ﻧﺘﻴﺠﻪ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﻋﺎﻣﻠﻲ روي ﻛﻞ ﻧﻤﻮﻧﻪ ﻣﻮرد ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﻧﻴﺰ ﺑﺮازش ﺧﻮﺑﻲ ﺑﺎ‬
‫ﻣﺪل ‪ 6‬ﻋﺎﻣﻠﻲ دارد و ﻣﻲﺗﻮان از اﻳﻦ ﻣﻘﻴﺎس ﺟﻬﺖ اﻧﺪازهﮔﻴﺮي ﺑﻬﺰﻳﺴﺘﻲ روانﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻲ رﻳﻒ ﺑﻴﻦ دﺧﺘﺮان‬
‫و ﭘﺴﺮان داﻧﺸﺠﻮ اﺳﺘﻔﺎده ﻧﻤﻮد‪ .‬اﻳﻦ ﻳﺎﻓﺘﻪ ﻫﻤﺴﻮ ﺑﺎ ﻧﺘﺎﻳﺞ )آﺑﻮت و ﻫﻤﻜﺎران‪2006 ،‬؛ ﻟﻴﻨﺪﻓﻮرس و‬
‫ﻫﻤﻜﺎران‪2006 ،‬؛ ونداﻳﻨﺮدوك‪2004 ،‬؛ ﻧﮕﻮوان‪2010 ،‬؛ ﺳﻴﺮﻳﮕﺎﺗﻲ‪2012 ،‬؛ ﺷﻜﺮي و ﻫﻤﻜﺎران‪2008 ،‬؛‬
‫ﻣﻴﻜﺎﻳﻠﻲ ﻣﻨﻴﻊ‪ (2011 ،‬اﺳﺖ‪ .‬در اﻳﻦ ﭘﮋوﻫﺶﻫﺎ ﻣﺪل ‪ 6‬ﻋﺎﻣﻠﻲ ﺑﻬﺰﻳﺴﺘﻲ روانﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻲ رﻳﻒ ﺗﺎﻳﻴﺪ ﺷﺪه ﺑﻮد‬
‫وﻟﻲ اﻳﻦ ﻳﺎﻓﺘﻪ ﺑﺎ دﻳﮕﺮ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﺎت )ﺳﻔﻴﺪي و ﻓﺮزاد‪2012 ،‬؛ ﻛﺎﻓﻜﺎ و ﻛﺰوﻣﺎ‪2002 ،‬؛ ﺑﺮﻧﺰ و ﻣﺎﭼﻴﻦ‪2009 ،‬؛‬
‫اﺳﭙﺮﻳﻨﮕﺮ و ﻫﻮﺳﺮ‪ (2006 ،‬ﻫﻤﺴﻮ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ‪.‬‬
‫ﻫﻤﺴﺎﻧﻲ دروﻧﻲ ﻣﻘﻴﺎس ﻧﻴﺰ ﺑﺎ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺿﺮﻳﺐ آﻟﻔﺎي ﻛﺮوﻧﺒﺎخ در ﮔﺮوه دﺧﺘﺮان و ﭘﺴﺮان و در ﻧﻤﺮه ي‬
‫ﻛﻞ ﻣﻘﻴﺎس ﻧﻴﺰ ﺗﻘﺮﻳﺒﺎ ﺑﺎﻻ ﺑﻪ دﺳﺖ آﻣﺪه اﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺿﺮاﻳﺐ ﺑﻪ دﺳﺖ آﻣﺪه ﺑﺮاي ‪ 6‬ﻋﺎﻣﻞ ﭘﺬﻳﺮش ﺧﻮد‪ ،‬ﺗﺴﻠﻂ‬
‫ﻣﺤﻴﻄﻲ‪ ،‬راﺑﻄﻪ ي ﻣﺜﺒﺖ ﺑﺎ دﻳﮕﺮان‪ ،‬داﺷﺘﻦ ﻫﺪف در زﻧﺪﮔﻲ‪ ،‬رﺷﺪ ﺷﺨﺼﻲ و اﺳﺘﻘﻼل ﺑﻪ ﺗﺮﺗﻴﺐ ﺑﺮاﺑﺮ ﺑﺎ‬
‫‪ 0/72 ،0/73 ،0/52 ،0/75 ،0/76 ،0/51‬و ﺑﺮاي ﻛﻞ ﻣﻘﻴﺎس ‪ 0/71‬ﺑﻪ دﺳﺖ آﻣﺪه اﺳﺖ‪ .‬اﻳﻦ ﺿﺮاﻳﺐ‬
‫ﻧﺴﺒﺘﺎ ﺑﺎﻻ ﺑﺎ ﻳﺎﻓﺘﻪﻫﺎي )رﻳﻒ‪ 1998 ،‬؛ ﻛﺎﻓﻜﺎ و ﻛﻮزﻣﺎ‪2002 ،‬؛ ونداﻳﺮﻧﺪوك‪2005 ،‬؛ ﻟﻴﻨﺪﻓﻮرس و‬
‫ﻫﻤﻜﺎران‪2006 ،‬؛ ﺑﻴﺎﻧﻲ و ﻫﻤﻜﺎران‪2008 ،‬؛ ﺟﻮﺷﻦ ﻟﻮ و ﻫﻤﻜﺎران‪ (2006 ،‬ﻫﻤﺴﻮﻳﻲ دارد وﻟﻲ ﺑﺎ‬
‫ﻳﺎﻓﺘﻪﻫﺎي ﭼﻨﮓ و ﭼﺎن) ‪ (2005‬و ﺷﻜﺮي و ﻫﻤﻜﺎران)‪ (2008‬ﻫﻤﺴﻮ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ‪ .‬اﻳﻦ ﻣﺤﻘﻘﺎن در ﭘﮋوﻫﺶﻫﺎي‬
‫ﺧﻮد ﻫﻤﺴﺎﻧﻲ دروﻧﻲ ﻓﺮم ‪ 18‬ﺳﻮاﻟﻲ ﻣﻘﻴﺎس ﺑﻬﺰﻳﺴﺘﻲ روانﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻲ رﻳﻒ را ﭘﺎﻳﻴﻦ ﮔﺰارش ﻛﺮده ﺑﻮدﻧﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮر ﻛﻠﻲ و ﺑﺎ ﻛﻨﺎر ﻫﻢ ﻗﺮار دادن ﻧﺘﺎﻳﺞ ﭘﮋوﻫﺶﻫﺎي ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ‪ ،‬ﻣﻲﺗﻮان ﻧﺘﻴﺠﻪ ﮔﺮﻓﺖ ﻛﻪ ﻓﺮم ‪ 18‬ﺳﻮاﻟﻲ‬
‫ﺑﻬﺰﻳﺴﺘﻲ از رواﻳﻲ و ﻫﻤﺴﺎﻧﻲ دروﻧﻲ ﺑﺎﻻﻳﻲ ﺑﺮﺧﻮردار اﺳﺖ و ﻧﺘﺎﻳﺞ ﺣﺎﺻﻞ از اﻳﻦ ﭘﮋوﻫﺶ ﻧﻴﺰ‪،‬‬
‫ﻛﺎرﺑﺮدﭘﺬﻳﺮي اﻳﻦ ﻣﻘﻴﺎس را در ﻧﻤﻮﻧﻪ داﻧﺸﺠﻮﻳﻲ در اﻳﺮان ﻧﺸﺎن ﻣﻲدﻫﺪ‪ .‬ﺟﻬﺖ ﺑﺮرﺳﻲ اﻋﺘﺒﺎر ﻣﻘﻴﺎس‬
‫ﺑﻬﺰﻳﺴﺘﻲ روانﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻲ رﻳﻒ‪ ،‬ﻫﻤﺒﺴﺘﮕﻲ اﻳﻦ ﻣﻘﻴﺎس ﺑﺎ ﺳﻴﺎﻫﻪ ي رواندرﻣﺎﻧﻲ ﻣﺜﺒﺖ ﻧﮕﺮ )رﺷﻴﺪ و‬
‫ﺳﻠﻴﮕﻤﻦ‪ (2013 ،‬و ﻣﻘﻴﺎس اﻓﺴﺮدﮔﻲ‪ ،‬اﺳﺘﺮس و اﺿﻄﺮاب )ﻻوﻳﺒﺎﻧﺪ‪ (1995 ،‬ﻣﻮرد ﺑﺮرﺳﻲ ﻗﺮار ﮔﺮﻓﺖ‪.‬‬
‫ﺳﻴﺎﻫﻪ ي رواندرﻣﺎﻧﻲ ﻣﺜﺒﺖﻧﮕﺮ‪ ،‬اﺑﺰاري روا و ﭘﺎﻳﺎ ﺟﻬﺖ ﺑﺮرﺳﻲ ﺧﺼﻴﺼﻪﻫﺎي ﻣﺜﺒﺖ در اﻓﺮاد اﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ‬
‫ﻫﻤﺒﺴﺘﮕﻲ ﺑﺎﻻﻳﻲ ﺑﺎ ﺑﻬﺰﻳﺴﺘﻲ روانﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻲ‪ ،‬رﺿﺎﻳﺖ از زﻧﺪﮔﻲ و ﺷﺎدﻛﺎﻣﻲ دارد )ﺧﺎﻧﺠﺎﻧﻲ و ﻫﻤﻜﺎران‪،‬‬
 ٣٥ ‫ اﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ و رﻓﺘﺎر‬       Thought & Behavior in Clinical Psychology

1393 ‫ ﺗﺎﺑﺴﺘﺎن‬،32 ‫ ﺷﻤﺎره ي‬،‫ دوره ي ﻫﺸﺘﻢ‬               2014, Volume 8, Number 32

 

‫ ﻣﻲﺗﻮان ﮔﻔﺖ اﻳﻦ‬،‫ ﺑﻪ دﻟﻴﻞ ﻫﻤﺒﺴﺘﮕﻲ ﻣﺜﺒﺖ اﻳﻦ ﻣﻘﻴﺎس ﺑﺎ ﺳﻴﺎﻫﻪ ي رواﻧﺪرﻣﺎﻧﻲ ﻣﺜﺒﺖﻧﮕﺮ‬.(2014
‫ اﻳﻦ ﻳﺎﻓﺘﻪ ﻫﻤﺴﻮ ﺑﺎ ﻧﺘﺎﻳﺞ دﻳﮕﺮ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﺎت‬.‫ اﺑﺰاري ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺐ در ﺑﺮرﺳﻲ ﺑﻬﺰﻳﺴﺘﻲ در داﻧﺸﺠﻮﻳﺎن اﺳﺖ‬،‫ﻣﻘﻴﺎس‬
‫ ﻫﻤﭽﻨﻴﻦ‬.(2014 ،‫؛ ﺧﺎﻧﺠﺎﻧﻲ و ﻫﻤﻜﺎران‬2008 ،‫؛ ﺑﻴﺎﻧﻲ و ﻫﻤﻜﺎران‬2006 ،‫اﺳﺖ)ﺟﻮﺷﻦ ﻟﻮ و ﻫﻤﻜﺎران‬
‫ اﺳﺘﺮس و اﺿﻄﺮاب ﻧﻴﺰ ﺗﺎﻳﻴﺪﻛﻨﻨﺪه ي رواﻳﻲ اﻳﻦ ﻣﻘﻴﺎس اﺳﺖ‬،‫ﻫﻤﺒﺴﺘﮕﻲ ﻣﻨﻔﻲ اﻳﻦ ﻣﻘﻴﺎس ﺑﺎ اﻓﺴﺮدﮔﻲ‬
.‫( اﺳﺖ‬2008 ،‫؛ و ﺑﻴﺎﻧﻲ و ﻫﻤﻜﺎران‬2006 ،‫ﻛﻪ اﻳﻦ ﻳﺎﻓﺘﻪ ﻧﻴﺰ ﻫﻤﺴﻮ ﺑﺎ دﻳﮕﺮ ﻧﺘﺎﻳﺞ )ﺟﻮﺷﻦ ﻟﻮ و ﻫﻤﻜﺎران‬
.‫* اﻳﻦ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﺑﺮﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ از رﺳﺎﻟﻪ دﻛﺘﺮي ﻧﻮﻳﺴﻨﺪه اول اﺳﺖ‬

References
Abbot, R. A., Ploubidis, G. B., Huppert, F. A., Kuh, D., Wadsworth, M. E. J., & Croudace, T. J. (2006).
Psychometric evaluation and predictive validity of Ryff´s psychological wellbeing items in a UK
cohort sample of women. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 4, 76.
Abbot, R. A., Ploubidis, G. B., Huppert, F. A., Kuh, D., & Croudace (2010). Evaluation of the precision of
measurement of Ryff's psychological Well-Being Scales in a population sample. Social Indicators
Research, 97(3), 357-373.
Bayani, A. A., Kouchaki, A. M., Bayani, A. (2008). Reliability and validity of Ryyf's psychological Well-
Being Scales. Journal of psychiatry and clinical psychology. 4(2), 146-151. ( Persian)
Bierman, A., Fazio, E. M., & Milkie, M. A. (2006). A multifaceted approach to the mental health advantage of
the married: Assessing how explanations vary by outcome measure and unmarried group. Journal of
Family Issues, 27, 554-582.
Burns, R. A., Machin, M. A. (2010). Identifying gender differences in the independent effects of personality
and psychological Well-Being on two broad affect components of subjective Well-Being. Personality
and Individual Differences, 48(1), 22-27.
Cheng, S., & Chan, A. (2005). Measuring psychological well-being in the Chinese. Personality and
Individual Differences, 38, 1307-1316.
Chrouser Ahrens, C. J., & Ryff, C. D. (2006). Multiple roles and well-being: Sociodemographic and
psychological moderators. Sex Roles, 55, 801-815.
Clarke, P. J., Marshall, V. W., Ryff, C. D., & Wheaton, B. (2001). Measuring Psychological well-Being in the
Canadian study of health and aging. International Psychogeriatric, 13, 79-90.
Clarke, P. J., Marshall, V. W., Ryff, C. D., & Rosenthal, C. J. (2000). Well-being in Canadian seniors:
Findings from the Canadian study of health and aging. Canadian Journal on Aging, 19, 139-159.
Guney, S. (2011). The positive psychotherapy inventory (PPTI): reliability and validity study in Turkish
population. Procedia-social and behavioral sciences, 29, 81-86.
Hu, L.T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
Joshanloo, M., Rostami, R., & Nosratabadi, M. (2006). Examining the factor structure of the Keyes
comprehensive scale of Well-Being. Journal of Iranian Psychologist. 3, 9, 35-51. (Persian)
Kafka, J. G., & Kozma, A. (2002). The construct validity of Ryff's Scales of Psychological Well-being
(SPWB) and their relationship to measures of subjective wellbeing. Social Indicators Research, 57,
171-190.
Keyes, C. L. M. (2007). Promoting and protecting Mental Health as Flourishing: A complementary strategy
for improving national mental health. American psychologist, 62, 2, 95-108.
Keyes, C. L. M., Shmotkin, D., & Ryff, C. D. (2002). Optimizing well-being: The empirical encounter of two
traditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 1007-1022.
Khanjani, M., Shahidi, Sh., Fathabadi, J., Mazaheri, M. A., & Shokri, O. (2014). Factor structure and
psychometric properties of the positive psychotherapy Inventory (PPTI). Journal of Applied
Psychology. 5, 7, 1-20. (Persian)
Lavasani, M. G., Boehanzadeh, S., Afzali, L., & Hejazi, E. (2011). The relationship between perceived
parenting styles, social support with psychological Well-Being. Procedia- Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 15, 1852-1856. [Persian]
 ‫ اﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ و رﻓﺘﺎر‬         Thought & Behavior in Clinical Psychology ٣٦

1393 ‫ ﺗﺎﺑﺴﺘﺎن‬،32 ‫ ﺷﻤﺎره ي‬،‫ دوره ي ﻫﺸﺘﻢ‬               2014, Volume 8, Number 32

 

Lovibond, S. H., Lovibond, P. F. (1995). Manual for the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales. Sydney: The
Psychology Foundation of Australia Inc.
Lindfors, P., Berntsson, L., & Lundberg, U. (2006). Factor structure of Ryff’s psychological well-being scales
in Swedish female and male white-collar workers. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 1213-
1222.
Michaeli Manee, F. (2011). The Study of Undergraduate Students' Psychological Well-being Status in Urmia
University. Journal of Gonabad University of Medical Sciences, 17, 1, 65-72. (Persian)
Negovan. N. (2010). Dimension of students' psychological well-being and their measurement: validation of a
student's psychological well-being inventory. Europe's journal of psychology, 2, 85-104.
Rashid, T., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2013). Positive psychotherapy: A treatment manual. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Rashid, T. (2008). Positive Psychotherapy. In Lopez, S. J. (Ed.) Positive psychology: Exploring the best in
people. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Company.
Ruini, C., Ottolini, F., Rafanelli, C., Tossani, E., Ryff, C. D., & Fava, G. A. (2003). The relationship of
psychological well-being to distress and personality. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 72, 268-275.
Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Exploration on the meaning of psychological wellbeing.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 1069-1081.
Ryff, C. D. (1995). Psychological well-being in adult life. Current Direction in Psychological Sciences, 4: 99–
104.
Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 716-727.
Ryff, C. D., Singer, B. H., Wing, E., & Love, G. D. (2001). Elective affinities and uninvited agonies: Mapping
emotion with significant others onto health. In C. D.
Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. (2002). From social structure to biology: Integrative science in pursuit of human
health and well-being. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp.
541-554). London, England: Oxford University.
Ryff, C. D., Keyes, C. L. M., & Hughes, D. L. (2003). Status inequalities, perceived discrimination and
eudaimonic well-being: Do the challenges of minority life hone purpose and growth? Journal of
Health and Social Behavior, 44, 275-291.
Ryff. C. D., & Singer, B. H. (2006). Best news yet on the six-factor model of well-being. Social science
Research, 35, 4, 1103-1119
Sahebi, A., Salari, M. J., & Salari, R. S. (2005). Validation of the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale
(DASS-21) for Iranian population. Developmental psychology: the Iranian psychologist. 4, 1, 299-
312. (Persian)
Schroevers, M. J., Helgeson, V. S., Sanderman, R., & Ranchor, A. V. (2010). Type of social support matters
for prediction of posttraumatic growth among cancer survivors. Psycho-Oncology, 19, 46-53.
Sefidi, F., Farzad, Valiolah. (2012). Validated measure of Ryff psychological well-being among students of
Qazvin University of Medical Sciences (2009). Journal of Qazvin University of Medical Sciences. 1,
16, 65-71. (Persian)
Shokri, O., Kadivar, P., Farzad, V., Daneshpor, Z., Dastjerdi, R., & Paeezi, M. (2008). The study of factor
structure of Persian version (3, 9 and 14 item) of Ryyf's psychological Well-Being Scales among
students. Journal of psychiatry and clinical psychology. 2, 14, 152-161. ( Persian)
Sirigatti, S., Penzo, I., Iani, L., Mazzeschi, A., Hatalskaja, H., Giannetti, E., & Stefanile, C. (2012).
Measurement Invariance Ryff's Psychological Well-Being Scales Across Italian and Belarusian
Students. Social Indicators Research, 1-14.
Springer, K.W., & Hauser, R. M., (2006). An Assessment of the Construct Validity of Ryff’s Scales of
Psychological well-Being: Method, Mode and Measurement Effects.” Social Science Research,
35(4): 1120-1131.
Springer, K. W., Pudrovska, T., & Hauser, R. M. (2011). Does psychological well-being change with age?
Longitudinal tests of age variations and further exploration of the multidimensionality of Ryff’s
model of psychological well-being. Social Sciences Research, 40, 392 – 398.
Van Dierendonck, D. (2004). The Construct Validity of Ryff’s Scales of Psychological Well-being and Its
Extension with Spiritual Well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 36: 629-643.
Van Dierendonck, D., Diaz, D., Rodriguez-Carvajal, R., Blanco, A., & Moreno-Jimenez, B. (2008). Ryff’s
Six-factor Model of Psychological Well-Being, A Spanish explanation. Social Indicators Research,
87: 473-479.
 93 Zf§ Á ČË|¿Y Thought & Behavior in Clinical Psychology

1393 ½Zfˆ]Ze ,32 É ÃZ¼‹ ,ºfŒÅ É ÃÁ{ 2014 Volume, 8 Number 32

Journal of
Thought & Behavior in Clinical Psychology
Vol. 8 (No. 32), pp. 27-36, 2014

Factor structure and psychometric properties of the Ryff’s scale of

Psychological well-being, short form (18-item) among male and female
students

Khanjani, Mehdi
Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
Shahidi, Shahriar
Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
Fath-Abadi, Jalili
Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
Mazaheri, Mohammad Ali
Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
Shokri, Omid
Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
Received: Jun, 14, 2014 Accepted: Jun, 20, 2014

Psychological well-being is trying to flourish the capabilities of human beings. So far,

many tools have been provided for assessment and evaluation of psychological wellbeing.
The aim of this study was to examine the factor structure and psychometric properties of
the short form (18 items) of Psychological well-being scale. To this end, in a descriptive
study, correlational type, 976 patients (647 females and 329 males) were selected from
Shahid Beheshti University of Medical sciences and were tested on short versions of
Ryff’s scale of Psychological well-being , optimistic psychotherapy Inventory, depression
scale, anxiety and stress. The result of Single-group confirmatory factor analysis indicated
that the total sample and in both sexes, the six-factor model of the scale (Self-acceptance,
environmental mastery, positive relationships with others, having a purpose in life,
Personal growth and independence) has a good fit. The scale's internal homology using
Cronbach's alpha in 6 factors of Self-acceptance, environmental mastery, positive
relationships with others, having a purpose in life, Personal growth and independence,
were respectively, 0.52, 0.76, 0.75, 0.52, 0.73, 0.72 and for the total scale it was 0.71.
Overall, the results suggest that the short form (18-item) of Ryff’s scale of Psychological
well-being was a useful tool to measure psychological well-being among Iranian sample of
girls and boys.

Keywords: Psychological well-being, factor structure, psychometric

Electronic mail may be sent to: shahriarshahidi@hotmail.com