「心田寬恕量表」之中文化與信、效度分析

Shu-Chien Hsiao; Hsiu-Ling Lin; Chen-Wei Yu; Hsiang-Yi Wu

doi:10.6251/BEP.202303_54(3).0008

山西大学，您好！

感谢采购，人社期刊库｜人社论文库，期间：2024/01/01~2024/12/31

感谢试用，科学期刊库｜科学论文库，期间：2024/10/20~2025/01/20

浏览高级检索

关闭
检索检索高级检索出版物检索
浏览期刊主题浏览核心期刊浏览期刊拼音浏览

关闭

查询符号(半角)	查询符号意义说明
空格	表示为「AND」两个查询词之交集
双引号 ( " " )	片语以双引号标示开始及结束，而且只寻找出现顺序相同的字词，例： " image process "
?	表示一个字母切截，输入两个?表两个字母，依此类推，例：输入「Appl?」，查得结果应为appl e , appl y … ( 常用于英文字查询 )
*	表示不限字母切截，由0~n. 例：输入「appl*」，查得结果应为appl e , appl es , appl y , appl ied , appl ication … ( 常用于英文字查询 )
AND、OR、NOT	布尔逻辑组合关键字，用来扩大或缩小查询范围的技巧。 (1) AND ：缩小查询范围 (2) OR ：扩大查询范围(3) NOT：排除不相关的范围

DOI 是数位物件识别码（ D igital O bject I dentifier ）的简称，
为物件在网路上的唯一识别码，可用于永久连结并引用目标物件。

使用DOI作为永久连结

每个DOI号前面加上「 http://dx.doi.org/ 」便成为永久网址。
如以DOI号为 10.5297/ser.1201.002 的文献为例，此文献的永久连结便是： http://dx.doi.org/ 10.5297/ser.1201.002 。
日后不论出版单位如何更动此文献位置，永久连结所指向的位置皆会即时更新，不再错失重要的研究。

引用含有DOI的文献

有DOI的文献在引用时皆应同时引用DOI。若使用APA、Chicago以外未规范DOI的引用格式，可引用DOI永久连结。

DOI可强化引用精确性、增强学术圈连结，并给予使用者跨平台的良好使用经验，目前在全世界已有超过五千万个对象申请DOI。如想对DOI的使用与概念有进一步了解，请参考（）。

ACI:

数据来源：Academic Citation Index，简称ACI

台湾最大的引用文献资料库，目前收录台湾与港澳地区所出版的人文学、社会学领域学术期刊之书目资料与参考文献，总期刊量超过690种，每年定期公布收录期刊的影响指数(Impact Factor)等指标给大众，并提供专家学者与学术单位实用的计量与分析功能。

五年影响指数（5-Year Impact Factor）：某一期刊前五年所出版的文章在当年度的平均被引用次数。

公式：（前五年发表论文在统计年的被引用次数）÷（前五年论文产出论文总篇数）

例如：A期刊2017年之五年影响指数

(A期刊2012-2016年发表论文在2017年的被引总次数)/(A期刊2012-2016年发表的论文总数)

什么是预刊文章？

为提供读者最前线之学术资讯，于期刊文献获同意刊登后、纸本印制完成前，率先于网路线上发表之文章即为预刊文章。预刊文章尚未有卷期、页次及出版日期资讯，但可藉由DOI号识别。 DOI号是文献的数位身份证字号，不论预刊或正式出版皆不会改变，读者可点击DOI连结，或于DOI号前面加上「 http://dx.doi.org/ 」连结到文献目前最新版本。

如何引用预刊文章？

请使用预刊文章的线上发表日期及DOI号来引用该篇文献。

引用范例(视不同引文格式规范可能有所差异)：

作者姓名。文章篇名。期刊名称。 YYYY/MM/DD线上预先发表。

doi:DOI 号

来源数据

P685 - 703

社会科学 > 心理学
社会科学 > 教育学

DOI： 10.6251/BEP

书目管理工具

相关连结

问题回报

全文下载

「心田宽恕量表」之中文化与信、效度分析

Reliability and Validity of the Chinese Version of the Heartland Forgiveness Scale

萧舒谦(Shu-Chien Hsiao) ；林秀玲(Hsiu-Ling Lin) ；余晨玮(Chen-Wei Yu) ；吴相仪(Hsiang-Yi Wu)

教育心理学报； 54 卷 3 期 (2023 / 03 / 01) ， P685 - 703

繁体中文;英文 DOI： 10.6251/BEP.202303_54(3).0008

信度；效度；量表；宽恕； reliability ； validation ； scale ； forgiveness

0 个人觉得这篇文章赞

摘要 │ 参考文献 (51) │ 被引用文献 (1) │ 国际计量

摘要〈TOP〉

并列摘要〈TOP〉

The field of positive psychology emerged in the 21st century. Positive traits are among the three pillars of this discipline and concern character strengths and virtues. A total of 6 virtues and 24 strengths exist. Park et al. (2004) defined strengths as "positive traits that reflect people's thinking, feelings, and behaviors." Forgiveness is one example. This strength can support mental health and is negatively correlated with multiple maladjustment indices, such as depression and anxiety (Mauger et al., 1992). Early studies on forgiveness have emphasized the forgiveness of other people and examined the transformation of a victim's negative attitude toward their transgressor to a positive one, as in the design of the Enright Forgiveness Inventory (Enright & Fitzgibbons, 2000) and the Transgression-Related Interpersonal Motivations Inventory (McCullough et al., 1998). Subsequently, attention has been focused on other facets of forgiveness, such as forgiveness of the self, which is defined as an individual's recognition of their own errors, assumption of responsibility, and process of moving away from and back toward the self. On the basis of the multifaceted theory of forgiveness, studies have developed appropriate instruments to measure this construct, such as the Forgiveness of Self and Forgiveness of Others scales (Mauger et al., 1992), State Self-Forgiveness Scales (Wohl et al., 2008), Multidimensional Forgiveness Inventory (Tangney et al., 1999), and Heartland Forgiveness Scale (Thompson et al., 2005). The progress of forgiveness research in Chinese-speaking society is approximately 10 years behind than that in the West. The first Chinese-speaking scholars to conduct studies in this field did not emerge until approximately 2000. Most research continue to treat forgiveness as a one-dimensional construct. Therefore, more studies are required to address this gap and examine forgiveness as a multifaceted perspective. Thompson et al. (2005) contributed critically to this promising and vital endeavor. They treated forgiveness as a multifaceted construct and examined the process of granting forgiveness instead of seeking forgiveness. Expanding previous theoretical frameworks, they included an additional facet of forgiveness in addition to that of others and the self: Forgiveness of situations. This approach has been influential in the field, and the corresponding scale has been translated into more than 20 languages. The present research introduced the theoretical framework of the multifaceted forgiveness scale (i.e., the Heartland Forgiveness Scale) proposed by Thompson et al. (2005). We first translated the scale from English to Chinese by using robust procedures, including back translation, and then examined its reliability and validity. Using stratified convenience sampling, we recruited 229 college students for a pilot test. After item and reliability analyses, the original 18 scale items were retained. Subsequently, for a formal test, we recruited 503 college students from North, Central, and South Taiwan. The number of participants from each area was proportionate to that area's population to ensure that our sample was representative. Results indicated that the scale exhibited high reliability (Cronbach's α = .87). The reliability of each of the subscales was high: Forgiveness of the self (α = .79), forgiveness of others (α = .79), and forgiveness of situations (α = .78). In addition, we examined the composite reliability (CR) and the average variance extracted (AVE) of each of the subscales. The CR was .87 for forgiveness of the self, .86 for forgiveness of others, and .87 for forgiveness of situations; their AVE values were .53, .50, and .52, respectively. After establishing the reliability of the scale, we conducted confirmatory factor analysis by using SPSS AMOS to assess the construct validity of the scale. We used the maximum likelihood to estimate parameters and adapted the criterion proposed by Hair et al. (2009) to evaluate the overall model fit in terms of absolute fit measures, relative fit measures, and parsimonious fit measures. With respect to absolute and relative fit, the fit indices indicated that our model fit the data: Goodness of fit index (GFI) = .94, standardized root mean squared residual = .05, root mean square error of approximation = .06, and adjusted GFI (AGFI) = .91. We obtained the same results for the parsimonious Fit: Parsimony normed fit index = .69, and parsimony GFI = .63. We examined the concurrent validity of the scale by testing the correlation between forgiveness and resilience, as measured using the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC). The results indicated that the entire forgiveness scale and its subscales were all positively significantly correlated with the CD-RISC and its subscales (i.e., positive acceptance of change, strengthening effect of stress, and perceptions of control). The r values ranged from .31- .56 (p < .001). The results demonstrated the validity of the Heartland Forgiveness Scale and corroborated the relationship between forgiveness and resilience, a critical well-being index. By grouping individuals on the basis of demographic variables, we compared individuals' trait level forgiveness. Using multivariate analysis of variance, we entered data on sex, religion, and their interaction into the model to predict individuals' scale scores. None of the predictors were significant (F < 1.5, p > .30). We determined that the Heartland Forgiveness Scale exhibited high reliability and validity in our Taiwanese college student sample. The strengths of the study include an effectively planned pilot test, a translation procedure with proven reliability, a representative sample of the formal test, and robust statistical tests. However, this study has some limitations that should be addressed. First, future studies should collect data on different age groups, such as older adults. Changes occurring in people's perception regarding forgiveness with age can affect the factor structure of the scale. Future studies should recruit participants with different occupations. Our study included only college students, and future studies validating the scale with other populations in Taiwan are warranted. Because of the positive correlation between forgiveness and well-being, future studies should develop interventions to help individuals exhibit greater multifaceted forgiveness. The facets of forgiveness are interconnected, and enhancing one facet might help individuals to develop another. However, with an organized intervention addressing the three facets together, individuals may benefit more fully from this character strength. The implications of this study are wide-ranging, and we encourage scholars and practitioners to use our empirically validated multifaceted Heartland Forgiveness Scale. We hope the introduction to this theoretical framework and instrument stimulate interest and spark intellectually diverse conversations among forgiveness researchers and practitioners in Taiwan, enabling the field to steadily develop and society to become more forgiving of others, the self, and situations.

参考文献 ( 51 ) 〈TOP〉

吴相仪, H.-Y.,张圣翎, S.-L.,萧舒谦, S.-C.,简晋龙, C.-L.(2018)。感恩到幸福：从复原力探讨感恩与心理健康之关系。教育心理学报，50，83-106。
连结：
李新民, H.-M.,陈密桃, M.-T.(2009)。宽恕的测量及其与焦虑的潜在关联。教育心理学报，41，1-27。
连结：
林志哲, C.-C.,叶玉珠, Y.-C.(2011)。「大学生感恩量表」之发展。测验学刊，58，147-178。
连结：
林维芬, W.-F.(2011)。「修订 Enright 宽恕治疗历程模式」团体介入方案对国小儿童宽恕态度、情绪智力与幸福感之研究。教育心理学报，42，591-611。
连结：
张芝萱, C.-H.(2021)。中文版慈悲心灵量表应用於台湾青少年之心理计量分析。特殊教育研究学刊，46(2)，61-91。
连结：

被引用文献 ( 1 ) 〈TOP〉

(2023)。青少年宽恕水平能力测验之编制及其追踪调查研究的应用。教育心理学报，55(2)，269-287。

国际计量

〈TOP〉

E-mail ：

文章公开取用时，将寄通知信至您填写的信箱地址