Construct validity and generalizability of the Carver–White behavioural inhibition system/behavioural activation system scales

143 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

A psychometric evaluation of behavioral inhibition and approach self-report measures (2006, background): “The evidence to this point is mixed regarding the relative adequacy of fit of two-factor versus four-factor structural models of the scales, though there is an emerging consensus in favor of the four-factor model (Heubeck, Wilkinson, & Cologon, 1998; Jorm et al., 1999; Leone et al., 2001; Ross, Mill”
Conceptual distinctions among Carver and White’s (1994) BAS scales: A reward-reactivity versus trait impulsivity perspective (2006, background): “Do Carver and White’s three BAS scales relate to a common construct? A number of studies using Confirmatory Factor Analysis have concluded that RR, Fun and Drive reflect distinct but related constructs (e.g., Heubeck, Wilkinson, & Cologon, 1998; Leone, Perugini, Bagozzi, Pierro, & Mannetti, 2001; ”
From BIS/BAS to the big five (2006, methodology): “Moreover, they were similar to the reliabilities as obtained in other studies (Heubeck et al., 1998, Jorm et al., 1999, Leone et al., 2001).”
A Confirmatory Factor Analytic Study of Anxiety, Fear, and Behavioral Inhibition System Measures (2007, methodology): “Item parceling has been used successfully in previous RST CFA studies (Gomez & Gomez, 2005; Leone et al., 2001).”