背景:内在动机(IM)受损,满足内在欲望的动力,如掌握,可能在精神病的残疾中起关键作用。然而,与外在动机(EM)或一般动机(GM)相比,我们对IM相对损伤的了解有限,部分原因是现有措施的局限性。
方法:在这里,我们使用新的特质内在和外在动机自我报告量表来解决这一差距,其中n=243名参与者,包括精神分裂症患者,精神病风险,和健康的控制。7个IM和6个EM项目中的每个项目都使用了7点李克特量表,以评估对性格陈述的认可。这些项目的双因素分析产生了不同的IM,EM,和GM因子得分。研究了与一般因果关系定向量表(GCOS-CP)和生活质量3项IM测量(QLS-IM)相关的收敛效度和判别效度。评估效用与精神病谱(PS)状态和CAINS临床动机的关系。
结果:IM和EM显示出可接受的项目间一致性(IM:α=0.88;EM:α=0.66);双因子模型显示出从好到边界到不足的拟合,取决于特定的拟合度量(SRMR=0.038,CFI=0.94,RMSEA=0.106±0.014)。IM评分与已建立的IM指标相关:GCOS-CP自主性(rho=0.38,p<0.01)和QLS-IM(rho=0.29,p<0.01)。支持判别效度,IM与GCOS-CP对照无相关性(rho=-0.14,p>0.05)。在可用的纵向子集(n=35)中,两年的稳定性很强(IM:rho=0.64,p<0.01;EM:rho=0.55,p<0.01)。PS青年性状IM较低(t=4.24,p<0.01),并与临床动机相关(rho=-0.36,p<0.01);EM没有显示出明显的临床相关性。
结论:这些结果证明了IM在精神病风险中的临床意义。他们还为可靠性提供初步支持,这种新的特征IM-EM量表的有效性和实用性,这解决了测量差距,可以促进识别IM缺陷的神经行为和临床相关性。
Impairment in intrinsic motivation (IM), the drive to satisfy internal desires like mastery, may play a key role in disability in psychosis. However, we have limited knowledge regarding relative impairments in IM compared to extrinsic motivation (EM) or general motivation (GM), in part due to limitations in existing measures.
Here we address this gap using a novel Trait Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation self-report scale in a sample of n = 243 participants including those with schizophrenia, psychosis-risk, and healthy controls. Each of the 7 IM and 6 EM items used a 7-point Likert scale assessing endorsement of dispositional statements. Bifactor analyses of these items yielded distinct IM, EM, and GM factor scores. Convergent and discriminant validity were examined in relation to General Causality Orientation Scale (GCOS-CP) and Quality of Life 3-item IM measure (QLS-IM). Utility was assessed in relation to psychosis-spectrum (PS) status and CAINS clinical amotivation.
IM and EM showed acceptable inter-item consistency (IM: α = 0.88; EM: α = 0.66); the bifactor model exhibited fit that varied from good to borderline to inadequate depending on the specific fit metric (SRMR = 0.038, CFI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.106 ± 0.014). IM scores correlated with established IM measures: GCOS-CP Autonomy (rho = 0.38, p < 0.01) and QLS-IM (rho = 0.29, p < 0.01). Supporting discriminant validity, IM did not correlate with GCOS-CP Control (rho = -0.14, p > 0.05). Two-year stability in an available longitudinal subset (n = 35) was strong (IM: rho = 0.64, p < 0.01; EM: rho = 0.55, p < 0.01). Trait IM was lower in PS youth (t = 4.24, p < 0.01), and correlated with clinical amotivation (rho = -0.36, p < 0.01); EM did not show significant clinical associations.
These results demonstrate the clinical relevance of IM in psychosis risk. They also provide preliminary support for the reliability, validity and utility of this new Trait IM-EM scale, which addresses a measurement gap and can facilitate identification of neurobehavioral and clinical correlates of IM deficits.