中文简版高敏感者量表的信效度检验
Psychometric Evaluation of the Chinese Short Version of the Highly Sensitive Person Scale
DOI: 10.12677/ap.2025.154222, PDF,   
作者: 李重易:内蒙古师范大学心理学院,内蒙古 呼和浩特
关键词: 感觉加工敏感性环境敏感性信度效度Sensory Processing Sensitivity Environmental Sensitivity Reliability Validity
摘要: 对中文简版高敏感者量表(12-item Highly Sensitive Person scale, HSP-12)进行信效度检验。线上招募867名成年人填写中文简版高敏感者量表,中文版高敏感者量表、行为抑制/激活系统量表中行为抑制系统分量表、中国大五人格问卷简式版中神经质、开放性和外向性分量表、抑郁–焦虑–压力自评量表。八周之后,从中随机抽取初测的60位被试进行重测。中文简版高敏感者量表各项目区分度良好,探索性因素分析和验证性因素分析结果均支持两因素结构(积极敏感,消极敏感),量表总分与神经质、行为抑制系统、抑郁、焦虑和压力呈中等程度显著正相关,积极敏感维度与开放性呈中等程度显著正相关,与抑郁、焦虑和压力无关,消极敏感维度与抑郁、焦虑、压力和神经质中等程度显著正相关,与开放性无关。量表的Cronbach’s α、分半信度、八周重测信度分别为0.818、0.856、0.637。综上所述,中文简版高敏感者量表具有良好的信效度,可以作为测量中国成人感觉加工敏感性的有效工具。
Abstract: To assess the reliability and validity of the Chinese 12-item Highly Sensitive Person scale, an online survey was conducted with 867 adults. Participants completed the HSP-12, the Chinese version of the Highly Sensitive Person scale, the Behavioral Inhibition System subscale from the Behavioral Inhibition/Activation Systems scale, the Neuroticism, Openness, and Extraversion subscales from the brief Chinese Big Five Personality Questionnaire, and the Depression-Anxiety-Stress Self-Rating Scale. Eight weeks later, 60 participants were randomly selected from the initial sample for retesting. The HSP-12 items exhibited robust discriminative power, and both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses supported a two-factor structure—delineated as positive sensitivity and negative sensitivity. The overall HSP-12 score was moderately and significantly positively correlated with neuroticism, the Behavioral Inhibition System, depression, anxiety, and stress. In contrast, the positive sensitivity dimension was moderately and significantly positively correlated with openness, while showing no significant associations with depression, anxiety, or stress; conversely, the negative sensitivity dimension was moderately and significantly positively correlated with depression, anxiety, stress, and neuroticism, yet uncorrelated with openness. The scale’s Cronbach’s α, split-half reliability, and eight-week test-retest reliability were 0.818, 0.856, and 0.637, respectively. In sum, the HSP-12 demonstrates robust psychometric properties, thereby serving as an effective instrument for measuring sensory processing sensitivity in Chinese adults.
文章引用:李重易 (2025). 中文简版高敏感者量表的信效度检验. 心理学进展, 15(4), 418-425. https://doi.org/10.12677/ap.2025.154222

参考文献

[1] 龚栩, 谢熹瑶, 徐蕊, 罗跃嘉(2010). 抑郁-焦虑-压力量表简体中文版(DASS-21)在中国大学生中的测试报告. 中国临床心理学杂志, 18(4), 443-446.
[2] 李彦章, 张燕, 姜英, 李航, 米沙, 易光杰, 古洪勇, 姜原(2008). 行为抑制/激活系统量表中文版的信效度分析. 中国心理卫生杂志, 22(8), 613-616.
[3] 王孟成, 戴晓阳, 姚树桥(2011). 中国大五人格问卷的初步编制III: 简式版的制定及信效度检验. 中国临床心理学杂志, 19(4), 454-457.
[4] 张易潇, 张亚(2023). 中文版高敏感者量表的修订及信效度检验. 中国临床心理学杂志, 31(4), 836-842.
[5] Aron, E. N., & Aron, A. (1997). Sensory-Processing Sensitivity and Its Relation to Introversion and Emotionality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 345-368.[CrossRef
[6] Aron, E. N., Aron, A., & Davies, K. M. (2005). Adult Shyness: The Interaction of Temperamental Sensitivity and an Adverse Childhood Environment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 181-197.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[7] Aron, E. N., Aron, A., & Jagiellowicz, J. (2012). Sensory Processing Sensitivity: A Review in the Light of the Evolution of Biological Responsivity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16, 262-282.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[8] Belsky, J. (1997). Variation in Susceptibility to Environmental Influence: An Evolutionary Argument. Psychological Inquiry, 8, 182-186.
[9] Belsky, J., & Pluess, M. (2009). Beyond Diathesis Stress: Differential Susceptibility to Environmental Influences. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 885-908.
[10] Booth, C., Standage, H., & Fox, E. (2015). Sensory-Processing Sensitivity Moderates the Association between Childhood Experiences and Adult Life Satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 87, 24-29.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[11] Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral Inhibition, Behavioral Activation, and Affective Responses to Impending Reward and Punishment: The BIS/BAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 319-333.[CrossRef
[12] Drndarević, N., Protić, S., & Mestre, J. M. (2021). Sensory-Processing Sensitivity and Pathways to Depression and Aggression: The Mediating Role of Trait Emotional Intelligence and Decision-Making Style—A Pilot Study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18, Article No. 13202.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[13] Eşkisu, M., Ağırkan, M., Çelik, O., Yalçın, R. Ü., & Haspolat, N. K. (2022). Do the Highly Sensitive People Tend to Have Psychological Problems Because of Low Emotion Regulation and Dysfunctional Attitudes? Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 40, 683-706.[CrossRef
[14] Evans, D. E., & Rothbart, M. K. (2008). Temperamental Sensitivity: Two Constructs or One? Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 108-118.
[15] Gottesman, I. I., & Shields, J. (1967). A Polygenic Theory of Schizophrenia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 58, 199-205.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[16] Greven, C. U., Lionetti, F., Booth, C., Aron, E. N., Fox, E., Schendan, H. E. et al. (2019). Sensory Processing Sensitivity in the Context of Environmental Sensitivity: A Critical Review and Development of Research Agenda. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 98, 287-305.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[17] Hellwig, S., & Roth, M. (2021). Conceptual Ambiguities and Measurement Issues in Sensory Processing Sensitivity. Journal of Research in Personality, 93, Article ID: 104130.[CrossRef
[18] Lionetti, F., Pastore, M., Moscardino, U., Nocentini, A., Pluess, K., & Pluess, M. (2019). Sensory Processing Sensitivity and Its Association with Personality Traits and Affect: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 81, 138-152.[CrossRef
[19] Liss, M., Mailloux, J., & Erchull, M. J. (2008). The Relationships between Sensory Processing Sensitivity, Alexithymia, Autism, Depression, and Anxiety. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 255-259.[CrossRef
[20] McGarrigle, R., & Mattys, S. (2023). Sensory-Processing Sensitivity Predicts Fatigue from Listening, but Not Perceived Effort, in Young and Older Adults. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 66, 444-460.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[21] Nocentini, A., Menesini, E., & Pluess, M. (2018). The Personality Trait of Environmental Sensitivity Predicts Children’s Positive Response to School-Based Antibullying Intervention. Clinical Psychological Science, 6, 848-859.[CrossRef
[22] Pluess, M. (2015). Individual Differences in Environmental Sensitivity. Child Development Perspectives, 9, 138-143.[CrossRef
[23] Pluess, M., & Belsky, J. (2013). Vantage Sensitivity: Individual Differences in Response to Positive Experiences. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 901-916.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[24] Pluess, M., & Boniwell, I. (2015). Sensory-Processing Sensitivity Predicts Treatment Response to a School-Based Depression Prevention Program: Evidence of Vantage Sensitivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 82, 40-45.[CrossRef
[25] Pluess, M., Lionetti, F., Aron, E. N., & Aron, A. (2023). People Differ in Their Sensitivity to the Environment: An Integrated Theory, Measurement and Empirical Evidence. Journal of Research in Personality, 104, Article ID: 104377.[CrossRef
[26] Slagt, M., Dubas, J. S., van Aken, M. A. G. et al. (2018). Sensory Processing Sensitivity as a Marker of Differential Susceptibility to Parenting. Developmental Psychology, 54, 543-558.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[27] Smolewska, K. A., McCabe, S. B., & Woody, E. Z. (2006). A Psychometric Evaluation of the Highly Sensitive Person Scale: The Components of Sensory-Processing Sensitivity and Their Relation to the BIS/BAS and “Big Five”. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 1269-1279.
[28] Van Reyn, C., Koval, P., & Bastian, B. (2023). Sensory Processing Sensitivity and Reactivity to Daily Events. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 14, 772-783.[CrossRef