Italian validation of the Approach-Avoidance Temperament Questionnaire
- BPA - Bullettin of Applied Psychology I Giunti Psychometrics
- Home
- Italian validation of the Approach-Avoidance Temperament Questionnaire
Italian validation of the Approach-Avoidance Temperament Questionnaire
BAGOZZI, R.P. & KIMMEL, S.K. (1995). A comparison of leadingtheories for the prediction of goal‐directed behaviours. BritishJournal of Social Psychology, 34 (4), 437-461.
doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1995.tb01076.xBIPP, T., KLEINGELD, A. & VAN DAM, K. (2015). Approach andAvoidance Temperament. European Journal of PsychologicalAssessment, 33, 196-206.
doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000285BRIKI, W. (2018). Trait self-control: Why people with a higherapproach (avoidance) temperament can experience higher(lower) subjective wellbeing. Personality and IndividualDifferences, 120, 112-117.
doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.08.039CARVER, C.S. & WHITE, T.L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition,behavioral activation, and affective responses to impendingreward and punishment: The BIS/BAS scales. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 67 (2), 319-333.
doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-3514.67.2.319CHEUNG, G.W. & RENSVOLD, R.B. (2002). Evaluatinggoodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance.Structural Equation Modeling, 9 (2), 233-255.
doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5ELLIOT, A.J. & THRASH, T.M. (2002). Approach-avoidancemotivation in personality: Approach and avoidancetemperaments and goals. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 82, 804-818.
doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.82.5.804ELLIOT, A.J. & THRASH, T.M. (2010). Approach and avoidancetemperament as basic dimensions of personality. Journal ofPersonality, 78, 865-906.
doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00636.xGRAY, J.A. (1982). Précis of The neuropsychology of anxiety: Anenquiry into the functions of the septo-hippocampal system.Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5 (3), 469-484.
doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00013066HU, L.T. & BENTLER, P.M. (1999). Cut-off criteria for fit indexes incovariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus newalternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A MultidisciplinaryJournal, 6 (1), 1-55.
doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118KOMISSAROUK, S., HARPAZ, G. & NADLER, A. (2017).Dispositional differences in seeking autonomy-or dependency-oriented help: Conceptual development and scale validation.Personality and Individual Differences, 108, 103-112.
doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.12.019LEONE, L., PIERRO, A. & MANNETTI, L. (2002). Validità della
versione italiana delle scale BIS/BAS di Carver e White (1994):Generalizzabilità della struttura e relazioni con costrutti affini.Giornale Italiano di Psicologia, 29 (2), 413-436.
doi.org/10.1421/1245MARSH, H.W., LÜDTKE, O., NAGENGAST, B., MORIN, A.J. &VON DAVIER, M. (2013). Why item parcels are (almost) neverappropriate: Two wrongs do not make a right-camouflagingmisspecification with item parcels in CFA models. Psychologicalmethods, 18 (3), 257-284.
doi.org/10.1037/a0032773McDONALD, R.P. (1970). The theoretical foundations of principalfactoranalysis,canonicalfactoranalysis,andalphafactoranalysis.British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 23 (1),1-21.
doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8317.1970.tb00432.xWALKER, B.R. & JACKSON, C.J. (2017). Examining the validityof the revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory scales.Personality and Individual Differences, 106, 90-94.
doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.10.035YEATTS, P.E. & LOCHBAUM, M. (2013). Coping in sport: A test ofElliot’s hierarchicalmodel of approach and avoidance motivation.Kinesiology: International Journal of Fundamental and AppliedKinesiology, 45 (2), 186-193.
First published November 23, 2024
First published November 23, 2024
200
36
Giunti Psychometrics
Giunti Psychometrics is the historic publisher of psychometric tests, psychology books, CME training courses and psychodiagnostic tools.
Scientific Director: Alessandro Zennaro
Copyright © 2021 by Giunti Psychometrics
