0% found this document useful (0 votes)
30 views9 pages

The Psychometric Properties of Attentional Control Scale

Uploaded by

kuromireyu
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
30 views9 pages

The Psychometric Properties of Attentional Control Scale

Uploaded by

kuromireyu
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 9

Iran J Psychiatry 2017; 12: 2: 109-117

Original Article

The Psychometric Properties of Attentional Control Scale


and Its Relationship with Symptoms of Anxiety and
Depression: A Study on Iranian Population
*
Imaneh Abasi, Parvaneh Mohammadkhani , Abbas Pourshahbaz, Behrouz Dolatshahi

Abstract
Objectives: The attentional control scale is a self- report questionnaire that assesses individual differences in
attentional control. Despite its extensive use, the psychometric properties of the Persian version of the ACS are not well
understood. Thus, the present study aimed at investigating the psychometric properties of the attentional control scale
and its relationship with symptoms of anxiety and depression in Iranian population .
Method: Using quota sampling, we asked a community sample of 524 to respond to Attentional Control Scale,
mindfulness, emotion regulation, social anxiety, depression, generalized anxiety, worry, and rumination. SPSS (Version
23) was used for data analysis .
Results: Exploratory factor analysis yielded 2 factors of focusing and shifting, which accounted for 30.93% of the total
variance. The results of convergent validity revealed that reappraisal, as an emotion regulation strategy and mindfulness
facets, had a positive relationship with focusing, shifting, and the total score of the attentional control scale. Furthermore,
worry, rumination, depression, generalized anxiety, and social anxiety symptoms all had negative relationships with
focusing, rumination, and the total score of the attentional control scale. In addition, the results of incremental validity
revealed that focusing, not shifting, uniquely predicted depression and generalized anxiety symptoms. Furthermore, both
focusing and shifting uniquely predicted social anxiety symptoms. Test- retest reliability of focusing and shifting was 0.80
and 0. 76, respectively.
Conclusion: Attentional control scale has been demonstrated to have acceptable validity and reliability in Iranian
population. However, further studies are needed to evaluate other aspects of the ACS like CFA.

Key words: Anxiety, Attention, Emotion, Depression, Psychometrics

Attention and attentional control are 2 mainly related Attentional bias towards negative stimuli or information
interferes with the flexible use of emotion regulation
constructs associated with emotion regulation, and are
strategies and contributes to depression (6).
considered as emotion regulation strategies in anxiety
Over the last 3 decades, most studies have highlighted
and mood disorders (1-3). Attentional control as
the role of attentional biases and attentional control in
voluntary control of emotion is central to emotion
psychopathology including anxiety (7), social anxiety
regulation, as the process model of emotion regulation
disorder (8), trait anxiety (9), depression (10),
posits that individuals regulate their emotion in the
generalized anxiety disorder (11), rumination (12), and
situation-attention-appraisal-response sequence and that
worry (13); and various treatments have been developed
attentional deployment is a cardinal emotion regulation
to control them in people suffering from several anxiety
strategy in developing and maintaining emotional
and depression symptoms (14-16).
disorders (4, 5).

Department of Clinical Psychology, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

*Corresponding Author:
Address: University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, kodakyar Avenue, Daneshjo Blvd, Evin, 1985713834, Tehran, Iran.
Tel: +98-21-22180045, Fax: +98-21-22180045, Email: [email protected]

Article Information:
Received Date: 2016/11/07, Revised Date: 2017/01/17, Accepted Date: 2017/02/25
Abasi, Mohammadkhani, Pourshahbaz, et al.

Attentional control is regulated through the anterior approach system, positive affect, and adaptive emotion
system that is viewed as the executive system regulation strategies (19). Furthermore, attentional
responsible for more voluntary and flexible cognitive control was negatively correlated with worry and social
functions such as attentional control (3). Based on the anxiety disorder (21).
description of anterior system and its utility in research Attentional control is known as an emotion regulation
and clinical settings, Derry berry and Reed developed a strategy that is related to variety of anxiety and mood
scale named attentional control scale (ACS) to assess disorders (23), thus, understanding its relationship to
the differences in voluntary attentional control. The psychopathology is helpful in improving o case
ACS comprises of 20 items that initially appeared to conceptualization and treatment of various mental
have 2 subscales: attentional focusing as the capacity disorders, particularly refractory mental illnesses.
to intentionally hold the attentional focus on desired Furthermore, it is the only questionnaire that assesses
channels, resisting unintentional shifting to irrelevant attentional control despite the suitable reliability and
or distracting channels, and attentional shifting as the validity of the ACS in other countries, thus, these
capacity to intentionally shift the attentional focus to results could not be generalized to all the population of
desired channels, avoiding unintentional attention on Iran, and its psychometric properties is unknown in the
particular channels (17). Factor analyses of the ACS in Iranian population. Therefore, the present study aimed
a study indicated 3 sub factors: (1) focus attention, (2) at assessing the psychometric properties of the ACS
shift attention between tasks, and (3) flexibly control (including factor structure, test retest reliability, and
thoughts. validity indexes) and determining the relationship
The psychometric properties of the ACS have been between attentional control and anxiety (including
assessed and reported in various studies in different generalized anxiety disorder and social anxiety
countries. Factor structure analyses of the Dutch disorder) and depression symptoms.
version of the ACS in a sample of 18 year- old children
and adolescents have supported 2 factors, but omitted 2 Materials and Methods
items (Items 9 and 10) from the analysis, with internal Participants
consistency of α = 0.70 for focusing scale and α = 0.63 This was a cross sectional study. Using quota sampling,
for shifting scale (18). A study on the Polish version of 554 participants were recruited from a community
the ACS, using factor analysis, revealed 1-factor sample in Tehran. Participants were classified
solution and then 3, 4, and 5 factor solutions using according to statistical data obtained from the statistical
varimax and oblimin rotations. However, the 1-factor center of Iran. Data were collected according to age,
solution (KMO =.88, the total variance explained activity status, and education level, so our sample had
35.4%) and 3-factor solution (KMO =.87, the total the same proportions of individuals as the entire
variance explained 47.8%) emerged as most suitable population with respect to aforementioned phenomena.
for psychological interpretation. Three factors were Because the main aim of the present study was to
identified as follow: (1) attentional focusing, (2) assess the reliability and validity of the ACS, a large
attentional shifting, and (3) divided attention (19). sample size was selected, (24). Data clean up and
Another study on the Icelandic version of the ACS on omitting 30 outliers using Mahalabonis and other
undergraduate students, using confirmatory factor methods to detect the outliers revealed 524 participants
analysis, yielded 2 factors of focusing and attention, (46.4% females and 53.6% males). The mean age of
which explained 35.13% of the variance. Furthermore, the participants was 35.24 (SD =10.71) with 20 as the
confirmatory factor analysis revealed a reasonable fit minimum and 60 as the maximum age. With respect to
of this 2-factor model (20). The result of this study is in marital status, 31.7% of the participants were single,
line with another research that showed 2- factor 65.5% married, and 2.9% were divorced. Of the
structure of the ACS using exploratory factor analysis, participants, 14.9% did not have a high school diploma,
which explained 29.01% of the variance. Moreover, 41.6%, 29.4%, 11.3%, and 2.9% held diploma, a
confirmatory factor analysis revealed a superior fit bachelor’s degree, a master’s degree, and doctoral
compared to the Icelandic version. Furthermore, degree, respectively. Considering the activity status,
internal consistency of the subscales were adequate, α 50.2% of the participants were employed, 7.1%, 25%,
= 0.82 for focusing and α = 0.71 for shifting (21). 11.5%, and 6.3% were unemployed, housekeepers,
Attentional control was positively related to students, and had income without having a job,
extraversion and negatively related to neuroticism . respectively. The statistical results of the study
Considering the convergent and divergent validity of variables are presented in Table 1.
the ACS, the total score of the ACS was related to Measures
diary ratings of intrusive thoughts (22); moreover, Attentional control scale was used as the main
shifting subscale was a significant predictor of questionnaire. Furthermore, Five Facet Mindfulness
depression, and focusing subscale was a significant Questionnaire, Emotion Regulation Questionnaire,
predictor of anxiety (20). Also, attentional control was Social Interaction Anxiety Scale, Beck Depression
negatively related to behavioral inhibition system, Questionnaire, Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-Item
negative affect, and maladaptive emotion regulation Scale, Penn State Worry Questionnaire, and
strategies, and it was positively related to behavioral Rumination Response Questionnaire were used in the

107
110 Iranian J Psychiatry 12:2, April 2017 ijps.tums.ac.ir
Psychometric Properties of ACS in Iranian Sample

present study to evaluate convergent, divergent, and rating scale. The internal consistency and test-retest
incremental validity of the ACS . reliability were α = 0.92 and r = 0.83, respectively. The
Attentional Control Scale (ACS, (3): ACS is a self- cutoff point of 10 has been identified with optimized
report 20- item questionnaire rated on a 4 point Likert sensitivity (89%) and specificity (82%) (35). Cronbach
scale (1 = almost never to 4 = always) that assesses alpha of GAD-7 was α = 0.89 in the present research .
attentional control and attentional shifting. The internal Penn State Worry Questionnaire (PSWQ, (36)):
consistency is reported to be as α = 0.88 (3) and test- PSWQ is a 16-item self-report questionnaire that
retest reliability of the ACS items varies from 0.45 to assesses worry on a 5 point response scale ranging
0.73 and it is 0.61 for the total score (19). from 1 (not at all typical of me) to 5 (very typical of
Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ, (25)): me). It was demonstrated that the scale has very good
FFMQ is a self-report 39- item questionnaire rated on a internal consistency (α = 0.93) and high test-retest
5 point Likert response scale ranging from 1 (never or reliability (r = 0.74-0.93) (36). The psychometric
very rarely true) to 5 (very often or always true). properties of the Iranian version of the scale has been
FFMQ includes 5 subscales: observing, describing, act demonstrated to have high internal consistency (α=
aware, nonjudging, and nonreacting. Alpha coefficient 0.88) and test-retest reliability (r = 0.79) (37).
of all facets of FFMQ reported to be as < 0.7 (26). The The Ruminative Response Scale (RRS, (38): RRS is a
internal consistency of the subscales is 0.83, 0.91, 0.87, 22- item self-report questionnaire that assesses the
0.87, and 0.75, respectively in the Chinese version of tendency to ruminate in response to depressed mood
the questionnaire. Furthermore, the correlation between and is rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale that is varied
the subscales and BDI, STAI-State, STAI-Trait, and from 0 to 3. Internal consistency (α = 0.89) and 5-
SCL-90 is agreeable (27). The internal consistency of month test- retest reliability have been reported
the Five Facets and the total score of FFMQ in the acceptable (39). The internal consistency of the Iranian
Iranian population was α = 0.71, α = 0.83, α = 0.81, α = version was reported to be 0.81 (40).
0.73, α = 0.55, and α = 0.80; and the test-retest Procedure
reliability was r = 0.84, r = 0.83, r = 0.68, r = 0.57, r = At first, the questionnaire was translated into Persian
0.71, and r = 0.80, respectively (28). and back translated into English by bilingual experts in
Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ, (29)): ERQ English language. Then, the two versions of the ACS
is a 10-item self-report questionnaire which is rated on were compared by another person who was adept in
a 7 point scale. ERQ consists of 2 subscales: English language. At that point, the translated
reappraisal and suppression. The internal consistency questionnaire was edited according to the comments,
of the 2 subscales has been reported 0.79 and 0.73, and the final translated ACS questionnaire was
respectively (29). The psychometric properties of the approved by 3 professors of University of Social
Iranian version have good alpha coefficient for both Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences who were familiar
subscales, α = 0.75 (30). Reappraisal subscale was used with attentional control concept. After preparing the
in the present study. final version of the Iranian ACS and obtaining approval
Social Interaction Anxiety Scale (SIAS, (31)): SIAS is from an institutional review board, we informed the
a 20-item self-report questionnaire which is rated on a participants about the goals of the study, ensured them
5 point Likert scale ranging from 0 (not at all about the confidentiality of their private information,
characteristic or true of me) to 4 (extremely and notified them they were not obliged to participate
characteristic or true of me). The internal consistency in the study. The participants filled in the questionnaire
of SIAS in social phobia sample, community sample, package, which included all the study questionnaires .
and undergraduate sample has been reported to be as Data Analyses
0.86, 0.95, and 0.85, respectively (31). The The primary goal of the present study was to conduct
psychometric properties among Iranian population has an exploratory factor analysis of a set of items
been demonstrated to have acceptable internal assessing ACS. The second aim of the study was to
consistency of α = 0.90, and test-retest reliability of r = assess test-retest reliability, internal consistency,
0.79 (32). convergent, divergent, and incremental validity of the
Beck Depression Questionnaire (BDI-II (33)): BDI is a ACS. It was hypothesized that rumination, worry,
self-report 21- item questionnaire that assesses severity social anxiety, generalized anxiety, and depression
of depression disorder. Each item is scored from 0 to 3. were negatively and mindfulness and reappraisal
The internal consistency of BDI is reported as 0.86 in positively correlated with attentional control.
psychiatric populations and 0.81 in nonpsychiatric Furthermore, we hypothesized that attentional control
populations. Test-retest reliability was also reported to could predict depression beyond its relationship with
be r = 0.86 (33). A study on 354 recovered depressed rumination and could predict social anxiety disorder
patients in Iran demonstrated internal consistency of α beyond its relationship with anxiety and rumination.
= 0/91 (34) . After checking the outliers and meeting the normality
Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-Item Scale (GAD- and linearity, factor analysis, bivariate correlation, and
7(35)): GAD-7 is a self-report 7- item questionnaire regression analysis were conducted to evaluate the
that rates the severity of generalized anxiety disorder hypotheses. SPSS Version 23 was used for data
and is rated on a 0 (not at all) to 3 (nearly every day) analysis.

Iranian J Psychiatry 12:2, April 2017 ijps.tums.ac.ir 111


Abasi, Mohammadkhani, Pourshahbaz, et al.

Results emotion regulation strategy and mindfulness facets,


Reliability Indexes had a positive relationship with focusing, shifting, and
Exploratory Factor Analyses: Exploratory factor the total score of ACS. Worry, rumination, depression,
analysis was performed. The chosen rotation method generalized anxiety, and social anxiety symptoms all
was oblimin rotation, as a previous study suggested had negative relationships with focusing, rumination,
that there was a correlation between the underlying and the total score of ACS .
factors (21). The Kaiser – Meyer – Olkin value was Incremental Validity: To examine the unique
0.82, which exceeds the recommended value of 0.7 relationship between the subscales of ACS and
(24). Bartlett’ s test of sphericity was significant and symptoms of depression, generalized anxiety disorder,
supported the factorability of the correlation matrix and social anxiety disorder, 3 hierarchical regression
(41). Exploratory factor analysis resulted in 2 factors: analyses were conducted. These analyses were done
focusing and shifting, with eigenvalues >1 explaining using the structure reported in previous studies that
20.30% and 10.63% of the variance, respectively examined the ability of focusing and shifting subscales
(30.93% of the total variance). All factors loadings in evaluating the significant amount of variability in
were higher than 0.3 except for Items 9, 15, and 20, depression and anxiety symptoms above and beyond
which were not retained in EFA. Table 2 presents the the established construct of rumination and worry (43).
items and respective factor loadings on the 2 primary The first model examined the predictors of depression
underlying dimensions. Furthermore, focusing and symptoms (Table 5). Rumination examined by RRS
shifting are almost moderately correlated with each was entered as a predictor in the first step and
other (Table 3) . depression symptoms examined by BDI were entered
Internal Consistency and Test-Retest Reliability: in the second step. Focusing, but not shifting, uniquely
Coefficient alpha for the focusing, shifting, and the predicted depression symptoms. The second model
total score of ACS were α = 0.78, α = 0.66, and α = examined the predictors of generalized anxiety
0.77, respectively that were almost in the range of symptoms (Table 5). Worry examined by PSWQ was
acceptable recommended value for Cronbach’s alpha entered as a predictor in the first step and generalized
reliability except for the shifting subscale (42). To anxiety symptoms examined by GAD was entered in
assess test- retest reliability, ACS was delivered to 57 the second step. Focusing but not shifting uniquely
participants in the present study after 14 days. Results predicted generalized anxiety symptoms. The third
of the test-retest reliability were as follow: focusing model examined the predictors of social anxiety
pre-post = 0.80, P<0.01, shifting pre-post= 0.076, symptoms (Table 5). Rumination and worry were
P<0.01, and ACS.tot pre-post= 0.82, P<0.01 . entered as predictors in the first step, and social anxiety
Validity Indexes symptoms examined by SIAS was entered in the
Convergent and Divergent Validity: The zero order second step. Both focusing and shifting uniquely
correlations between the ACS and its subscales are predicted social anxiety symptoms.
demonstrated in Table 3. To provide an estimation of
the effect size for statistically significant correlations,
the r2 statistic are also provided in Table 4 as an
indication of the percentage of common variance in the
2 measures. As hypothesized, reappraisal, as an

Table 1. The Descriptive Statistics of the Study Measured Variables

Minimum Maximum Mean S.D Skewness Kurtosis


ACS(short) 23 63 44.37 6.73 0.01 0.13
BDI 0 58 6.86 11 1.053 0.82
GAD 0 24 8.1 5.1 0.574 0.069
FFMQ 85 167 124.69 14.79 0.414 -0.047
Reappraisal 9 42 25.39 6.13 -0.181 -0.053
PSWQ 17 80 46.45 10.73 0.335 0.198
RRS 22 82 47.45 11.8 0.387 -0.002
SIAS 0 69 22.18 13.93 0.722 0.125

107
112
110 Iranian J Psychiatry 12:2, April 2017 ijps.tums.ac.ir
Psychometric Properties of ACS in Iranian Sample

Table2. Exploratory Factor Analysis of the attentional control scale in Iranian Sample
a
Items Focusing Shifting r
1. It is very hard for me to concentrate on a difficult task when there are noises 0.58 0.02 0.54
around.
2. When I need to concentrate and solve a problem, I have trouble focusing my 0.67 0.14 0.65
attention.
3. When I am working hard on something, I still get distracted by events around 0.61 0.15 0.60
me.
4. My concentration is good even if there is music in the room around me. 0.25 0.38 0.44
5. When concentrating, I can focus my attention so that I become unaware of 0.13 0.37 0.39
what's going on in the room around me.
6. When I am reading or studying, I am easily distracted if there are people talking 0.57 0.17 0.59
in the same room.
7. When trying to focus my attention on something, I have difficulty blocking out 0.63 0.13 0.61
distracting thoughts.
8. I have a hard time concentrating when I am excited about something. 0.52 0.11 0.54
9. When concentrating I ignore feelings of hunger or thirst. -0.2 0.23 -0.02
10. I can quickly switch from one task to another. -0.09 0.31 0.33
11. It takes me a while to get really involved in a new task. 0.35 0.16 0.41
12. It is difficult for me to coordinate my attention between the listening and 0.52 0.27 0.55
writing required when taking notes during lectures.
13. I can become interested in a new topic very quickly when I need to. 0.02 0.47 0.47
14. It is easy for me to read or write while I'm also talking on the phone. 0.18 0.41 0.45
15. I have trouble carrying on two conversations at once. 0.17 0.14 0.2
16. I have a hard time coming up with new ideas quickly. 0.36 0.16 0.4
17. After being interrupted or distracted, I can easily shift my attention back to 0.2 0.52 0.51
what I was doing before.
18. When a distracting thought comes to mind, it is easy for me to shift my 0.24 0.41 0.44
attention away from it.
19. It is easy for me to alternate between two different tasks. 0.22 0.63 0.59
20. It is hard for me to break from one way of thinking about something and look 0.19 -0.05 0.09
at it from another point of view.

Table3. Descriptive Statistics and Scale and Factor Intercorrelations in attentional control scale
M SD Skewness Kurtosis 1 2
**
1.Focusing 25.28 4.59 -0.38 -0.16 (0.78) 0.30
2.Shifting 19.08 3.88 0.35 0.20 0.18 (0.66)
Note: Alpha reliabilities of the subscales are found on the diagonal. Correlation coefficients for scale values appear below
the diagonal, and factor correlations appear above the diagonal. **P<0.01.

Table4. Correlations of the Subscales of attentional control scale and Its Total Score and Criterion
Measures
2
r R
Variable ACS (short) Focusing Shifting ACS (short) Focusing Shifting
** ** *
BDI -0.29 -0.35 -0.1 0.08 0.12 0.01
** ** *
GAD -0.3 -0.37 -0.1 0.09 0.13 0.01
** ** **
FFMQ 0.52 0.44 0.4 0.28 0.19 0.16
** ** **
Reappraisal 0.22 0.11 0.25 0.04 0.01 0.06
** ** **
PSWQ -0.43 -0.49 -0.19 0.19 0.24 0.03
** ** *
RRS -0.3 -0.37 -0.09 0.06 0.14 0.01
** ** **
SIAS -0.48 -0.46 -0.31 0.23 0.21 0.09
**
P<0.01
*
P<0.05
ACS (short): ACS full scale, with reduced items (17 items).

Iranian J Psychiatry 12:2, April 2017 ijps.tums.ac.ir 113


Abasi, Mohammadkhani, Pourshahbaz, et al.

Table 5. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis Examining Focusing and Shifting as


Predictors of Depressive Symptoms (BDI), Generalized Anxiety Symptoms (GAD), and Social Anxiety
Symptoms (SIAS)

B SE B β t
Dependent variable: depression
Step 1
2
R =0.32
Constant -11.38 1.64
**
RRS 0.53 0.03 0.56 15.81
Step 2
2
R =0.34
Constant 1.51 3.6
**
RRS 0.47 0.03 0.5 13.26
**
Focusing -0.38 0.09 -0.16 -4.02
Shifting 0.02 0.1 -0.008 -0.21

Dependent variable: Generalized


Anxiety disorder
Step 1
2
R =0.31
constant -4.46 0.83
**
PSWQ 0.27 0.01 0.56 15.53
Step 2
2
R =0.32
Constant -0.13 1.96
**
PSWQ 0.24 0.02 0.5 12.16
**
focusing -0.15 0.04 -0.13 -3.1
Shifting 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.94

Dependent variable: social Anxiety


disorder
Step 1
2
R =0.29
Constant -14.01 2.48
**
PSWQ 0.47 0.05 0.36 8.35
**
RRS 0.29 0.05 0.25 5.47
Step 2
2
R =0.37
constant 22.18 5.31
**
PSWQ 0.32 0.05 0.25 5.61
**
RRS 0.32 0.05 0.22 5.29
**
Focusing -0.6 0.12 -0.19 -4.75
**
Shifting -0.6 0.13 -0.18 -4.95

Discussion
In line with previous studies indicating 2 separate subscales were different from some studies (3, 20).
subscales (3, 20, 21), the exploratory factor analysis in However, there was a substantial overlap between the
the present study yielded 2 factors: the focusing factor, factor structures in the present study and that of Judah
assessing the ability to keep attention when facing with et al., Almost all items were loaded on the same factors
distractors or external stimuli irrelevant to the major except Items 4, 5, 11, 14, and 16 that were not retained
task at hand (44), and the shifting factor, assessing the in the EFA in study of Judah et al. However, in the
ability to shift between 2 tasks. Focusing items were present study, aforementioned items were included in
more homogenous, explaining 20.30% of the total the remaining analysis. Confirmatory factor analysis
variance, with acceptable internal consistency (α = conducted to evaluate the fitness indices of the
0.78); and in contrast, the shifting subscale items were empirical model in a study by Judah et al. suggested
more heterogeneous, explaining 10.63% of the total good fit to the data, χ2(53) = 78.96, p = .01, CFI = .96,
variance, with lower and not agreeable internal TLI = .95, RMSEA = 0.05, AIC =152.96 (21).
consistency (α = 0.66). Items 9, 15, and 20 were Focusing and shifting factors were moderately
deleted from the remaining analysis because of loading correlated (r = 0.52, P<0.01), which is in line with
lower than 0.3. Results of the loading items on the previous research (20, 21). Furthermore, there are some

107
110
114 Iranian J Psychiatry 12:2, April 2017 ijps.tums.ac.ir
Psychometric Properties of ACS in Iranian Sample

discords among the studies examining the factor with focusing and unique relationship of depression
structure of the ACS, and as the present study’s results with shifting (20, 21). This discrepancy may be due to
demonstrated, more explorations are needed to inspect the low reliability of the shifting subscale in the present
different structures of the ACS, and to add, or delete study. Furthermore, there was a moderate to high
some items, or develop new tools for assessing the correlation between the shifting and focusing subscale
broad aspects of attentional control. To use the ACS in in the present study, and some studies have suggested
the Iranian population, we recommend computing to treat ACS as a solitary dimension of effortful
items related to each factor indicated in EFA (Table 2); emotional control (19), and this may indicate that using
and as the shifting factor does not possess enough attentional control full scale may be more useful and
reliability, we recommend using the full scale score reliable in different analyses .
along with its subscales for various analyses.
The second aim of the present study was to evaluate the Limitations
validity of attentional control using measures that Concerning limitations of the present study, a
theoretically or empirically are associated with the community sample was used in the present study, so it
construct of attentional control. Anxiety and depression was unclear to what extent the present findings could
vulnerabilities are characterized by attentional bias to be generalized to broader and clinical population.
threat. Attentional bias modification trainings have Furthermore, all study variables including attentional
reduced the attentional bias to threat (14). In line with control were assessed by self-report questionnaires, and
these findings, depression, generalized anxiety as these types of scales may be biases, future research
disorder, social anxiety disorder, worry, and rumination should use more precise procedures or tools,
were used to evaluate the divergent validity of performance based tasks (43), and physiological
attentional control. Results indicated acceptable measures to evaluate the attentional control. To our
negative correlation between the variables. Consistent knowledge, this was the first study to evaluate the
with the findings of the present research, fear of psychometric properties of ACS in Iranian population,
performance negatively affects individuals with low so we recommend future studies to repeat this EFA in
attentional control. Moreover, attentional control as a another sample and conduct CFA to assess the fitness
self-regulation strategy acts as a buffer in performance of the multicomponent nature of attentional control.
anxiety (45). Moreover, impaired attentional control Finally, attentional control is a construct whose factors
and high attentional bias towards threat in social are not clearly known, so other studies are required to
anxiety disorder have been highlighted in several add other items to increase the reliability and validity
studies (46, 47). Besides, the relationship between of its factors. Furthermore, because attentional control
anxiety and depression symptoms and attentional and its subscales, especially focusing, were related to
control have been indicated through different anxiety and depression, some investigations that
methodologies using a wide range of questionnaires or illuminated the various pathways of attentional control
tools (16, 48). Also, the inability to control worry and its different roles in psychopathology may turn on
related negative thoughts and rumination is related to dark points in psychopathologies and treatments.
deficiency in attentional control (12, 13). To evaluate
the convergent validity of attentional control,
mindfulness facets and reappraisal were used. These Conclusion
constructs were moderately and positively associated Attentional control scale is a sole self- reported
with attentional control, which is in line with the measure that assesses attentional control and it has
findings demonstrating the moderating role of suitable psychometric properties to be used in Iranian
attentional control in the relationship between population. Furthermore, attentional control can be
difficulties in emotion regulation and distress tolerance regarded as an emotion regulation strategy or as a
(2), correlation between attentional control, emotion mechanism that may contribute to anxiety and
regulation strategies (19), and mindfulness (49). depression and may be a protective factor, and can be
The final goal of the present study was to evaluate the enhanced in psychotherapies instead of dealing with
incremental validity of attentional control full scale and repetitive negative thoughts (like worry and
focusing and shifting subscales in predicting rumination) directly.
depression, generalized anxiety disorder, and social
anxiety disorder. Attentional control full scale and Acknowledgment
focusing, not shifting, predicted depression and This research is based on the first author’s doctoral
generalized anxiety symptoms after controlling for the dissertation.
shared variance between anxiety and depressive
symptoms, and worry and rumination. Attentional
control full scale, shifting, and focusing predicted Conflict of Interest: All authors declare that there
social anxiety symptoms beyond the shared is no conflict of interest.
relationship between anxiety and worry and
rumination. The findings are inconsistent with previous
findings showing the unique relationship of anxiety

Iranian J Psychiatry 12:2, April 2017 ijps.tums.ac.ir 115


Abasi, Mohammadkhani, Pourshahbaz, et al.

References 14. MacLeod C, Clarke PJ. The attentional bias


modification approach to anxiety intervention.
C Clin Psychol Sci 2015; 3: 58-78.
1. Gross JJ, Barrett LF. Emotion generation and 15. Heeren A, Mogoașe C, Philippot P, McNally
emotion regulation: One or two depends on RJ. Attention bias modification for social
your point of view. Emotion review 2011; 3: 8- anxiety: a systematic review and meta-
16. analysis. Clin Psychol Rev 2015; 40: 76-90.
2. Bardeen JR, Tull MT, Dixon-Gordon KL, 16. Cristea IA, Kok RN, Cuijpers P. Efficacy of
Stevens EN, Gratz KL. Attentional Control as a cognitive bias modification interventions in
Moderator of the Relationship Between anxiety and depression: meta-analysis. Br J
Difficulties Accessing Effective Emotion Psychiatry 2015; 206: 7-16.
Regulation Strategies and Distress Tolerance. 17. Derryberry D, Rothbart MK. Arousal, affect,
Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral and attention as components of temperament.
Assessment. 2015; 37: 79-84. J Pers Soc Psychol 1988; 55: 958-966.
3. Derryberry D, Reed MA. Anxiety-related 18. Verstraeten K, Vasey MW, Claes L, Bijttebier
attentional biases and their regulation by P. The assessment of effortful control in
attentional control. J Abnorm Psychol 2002; childhood: Questionnaires and the Test of
111: 225-236. Everyday Attention for Children compared.
4. Gross JJ. Emotion regulation: Conceptual and Personality and Individual Differences 2010;
empirical foundations. Handbook of emotion 48: 59-65.
regulation 2014; 2: 3-20. 19. Fajkowska M, Derryberry D. Psychometric
5. Najmi S, Amir N, Frosio KE, Ayers C. The properties of Attentional Control Scale: The
effects of cognitive load on attention control in preliminary study on a Polish sample. Polish
subclinical anxiety and generalised anxiety Psychological Bulletin 2010; 41: 1-7.
disorder. Cognition and Emotion 2015; 29: 20. Ólafsson RP, Smári J, Guðmundsdóttir F,
1210-1223. Ólafsdóttir G, Harðardóttir HL, Einarsson SM.
6. Gotlib IH, Joormann J. Cognition and Self reported attentional control with the
depression: current status and future Attentional Control Scale: Factor structure and
directions. Annu Rev Clin Psychol 2010; 6: relationship with symptoms of anxiety and
285-312. depression. J Anxiety Disord 2011; 25: 777-
7. Nelson AL, Purdon C, Quigley L, Carriere J, 782.
Smilek D. Distinguishing the roles of trait and 21. Judah MR, Grant DM, Mills AC, Lechner WV.
state anxiety on the nature of anxiety-related Factor structure and validation of the
attentional biases to threat using a free attentional control scale. Cogn Emot 2014; 28:
viewing eye movement paradigm. Cogn Emot 433-451.
2015; 29: 504-526. 22. Verwoerd J, de Jong PJ, Wessel I. Low
8. Thai N, Taber-Thomas BC, Pérez-Edgar KE. attentional control and the development of
Neural correlates of attention biases, intrusive memories following a laboratory
behavioral inhibition, and social anxiety in stressor. Journal of Psychopathology and
children: An ERP study. Dev Cogn Neurosci Behavioral Assessment 2008; 30: 291-297.
2016; 19: 200-210. 23. O'Bryan EM, Kraemer KM, Johnson AL,
9. Edwards MS, Edwards EJ, Lyvers M. McLeish AC, McLaughlin LE. Examining the
Cognitive trait anxiety, stress and effort role of attentional control in terms of specific
interact to predict inhibitory control. Cogn Emot emotion regulation difficulties. Personality and
2017 ; 31: 671-686. Individual Differences 2017; 108: 158-163.
10. Naim-Feil J, Bradshaw JL, Sheppard DM, 24. Meyers LS, Gamst GC, Guarino AJ. Applied
Rosenberg O, Levkovitz Y, Dannon P, et al. multivariate research: Design and
Neuromodulation of Attentional Control in interpretation: Sage; 2006.
Major Depression: A Pilot DeepTMS Study. 25. Baer RA, Smith GT, Hopkins J, Krietemeyer J,
Neural Plast 2016; 2016: 5760141. Toney L. Using self-report assessment
11. Yiend J, Mathews A, Burns T, Dutton K, methods to explore facets of mindfulness.
Fernández-Martín A, Georgiou GA, et al. Assessment 2006;13: 27-45.
Mechanisms of selective attention in 26. Bohlmeijer E, Peter M, Fledderus M, Veehof
generalized anxiety disorder. Clin Psychol Sci M, Baer R. Psychometric properties of the five
2015; 3: 758-771. facet mindfulness questionnaire in depressed
12. Hsu KJ, Beard C, Rifkin L, Dillon DG, adults and development of a short form.
Pizzagalli DA, Björgvinsson T. Transdiagnostic Assessment. 2011; 18: 308-320.
mechanisms in depression and anxiety: The 27. Deng Y-Q, Liu X-H, Rodriguez MA, Xia C-Y.
role of rumination and attentional control. J The five facet mindfulness questionnaire:
Affect Disord 2015; 188: 22-27. Psychometric properties of the Chinese
13. Fox E, Dutton K, Yates A, Georgiou GA, version. Mindfulness 2011; 2: 123-128.
Mouchlianitis E. Attentional Control and 28. Heydarinasab L. An investigation of the
Suppressing Negative Thought Intrusions in validity and reliability of psychometric
Pathological Worry. Clin Psychol Sci 2015; 3: characteristics of five facet mindfulness
593-606. questionnaire in Iranian non-clinical samples.
International Journal of Behavioral Sciences
2013; 7: 229-237.

116
107 Iranian J Psychiatry 12:2, April 2017 ijps.tums.ac.ir
Psychometric Properties of ACS in Iranian Sample

29. Gross JJ, John OP. Individual differences in symptoms of anxiety and depression.
two emotion regulation processes: implications Cognition & emotion 2013; 27: 430-40.
for affect, relationships, and well-being. J Pers 44. Friedman NP, Miyake A. The relations among
Soc Psychol 2003; 85: 348-362. inhibition and interference control functions: a
30. Abasi I, Fata L, Sadeghi M, Banihashemi S, latent-variable analysis. Journal of
Mohammadee A. A Comparison of experimental psychology: General 2004; 133:
Transdiagnostic Components in Generalized 101.
Anxiety Disorder, Unipolar Mood Disorder and 45. Jones CR, Fazio RH, Vasey MW. Attentional
Nonclinical Population. International Scholarly control buffers the effect of public-speaking
and Scientific Research & Innovation 2013; 7: anxiety on performance. Social psychological
803-811. and personality science 2012; 3: 556-561.
31. Heimberg RG, Mueller GP, Holt CS, Hope 46. Bantin T, Stevens S, Gerlach AL, Hermann C.
DA, Liebowitz MR. Assessment of anxiety in What does the facial dot-probe task tell us
social interaction and being observed by about attentional processes in social anxiety?
others: The Social Interaction Anxiety Scale A systematic review. Journal of behavior
and the Social Phobia Scale. Behavior therapy and experimental psychiatry 2016; 50:
Therapy 1992; 23: 53-73. 40-51.
32. Tavoli A, Allahyari A, Azadfallah P, Fathi 47. Gorlin EI, Teachman BA. Threat interference
Ashtiani A, Melyani M, Sahragard M. [Validity biases predict socially anxious behavior: The
and Reliability of the Farsi Version of Social role of inhibitory control and minute of stressor.
Interaction Anxiety Scale (SIAS) (persion)]. Behavior therapy 2015; 46: 493-509.
Iranian Journal of Psychiatry and Clinical 48. Dedovic K, Giebl S, Duchesne A, Lue SD,
Psychology 2012; 18: 227-232. Andrews J, Efanov S, et al. Psychological,
33. Beck AT, Steer RA, Carbin MG. Psychometric endocrine, and neural correlates of attentional
properties of the Beck Depression Inventory: bias in subclinical depression. Anxiety Stress
Twenty-five years of evaluation. Clinical Coping 2016; 29: 479-496.
psychology review 1988; 8: 77-100. 49. Wolkin JR. Cultivating multiple aspects of
34. Dabson K, Mohammadkhani P. Psychometric attention through mindfulness meditation
characteristics of Beck depression inventory–II accounts for psychological well-being through
in patients with major depressive disorder. decreased rumination. Psychology research
JOURNAL OF REHABILITATION 2007; 8: 82- and behavior management 2015; 8: 171.
88.
35. Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JB, Löwe B. A
brief measure for assessing generalized
anxiety disorder: the GAD-7. Arch Intern Med
2006;166: 1092-1097.
36. Meyer TJ, Miller ML, Metzger RL, Borkovec
TD. Development and validation of the Penn
State worry questionnaire. Behav Res Ther
1990; 28: 487-495.
37. Borjali A, Sohrabi F, Dehshiri G, Golzari M.
[Psychometrics Particularity of Farsi Version of
Pennsylvania State Worry Questionnaire for
College Students (persion)]. J clin psychol
2009; 4: 67-75.
38. Nolen-Hoeksema S. Responses to depression
and their effects on the duration of depressive
episodes. J Abnorm Psychol 1991; 100: 569-
582.
39. Nolen-Hoeksema S, Parker LE, Larson J.
Ruminative coping with depressed mood
following loss. J Pers Soc Psychol 1994; 67:
92-104.
40. Asadi S, Abedini M, Poursharifi H, Nikokar M.
[The Relationship between Intolerance of
Uncertainty and Rumination with Worry on
Student Population (persion)]. Journal of
Clinical Psycology 2013;4: 83-92.
41. Bartlett MS. A note on the multiplying factors
for various χ 2 approximations. Journal of the
Royal Statistical Society Series B
(Methodological). 1954; 16: 296-298.
42. DeVellis RF. Scale development: Theory and
applications: Sage publications; 2012.
43. Reinholdt-Dunne ML, Mogg K, Bradley BP.
Attention control: Relationships between self-
report and behavioural measures, and

Iranian J Psychiatry 12:2, April 2017 ijps.tums.ac.ir 117

You might also like