Five reinforcement sensitivity theory (RST) of personality questionnaires: Comparison, validity and generalization

Abstract

There are six purpose-built Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (RST) personality questionnaires currently in use to measure the fight-flight-freeze system (FFFS), the behavioural inhibition system (BIS), and the behavioural approach system (BAS). They differ in their conceptualizations and operational constructs, and this poses a problem for their differential validity and the generalizability of results, and comparison of results from different studies. This paper examined the psychometric properties of five of these RST questionnaires, with a total sample of 821 participants, taken from the factor structures for the Croatian translations of BIS/BAS scales, SPSRQ, Jackson-5, RSQ and RST-PQ. Data were analysed by correlational and confirmatory factor analyses. We found some of these questionnaires achieved marginal to adequate fit indices, and they showed ambiguity in terms of convergent validity for all three general behavioural systems. These findings highlight the difficulties with generalization and comparison of results with the use of different RST questionnaires. Based on these findings, as well as the ongoing debate concerning how best to measure RST constructs, we provide information on how to interpret results from the studies conducted with different RST scales.

High Bas and Low Bis in Overconfidence, and Their Impact on Motivation and Self-Efficacy After Positive and Negative Performance

“…Since there were only four male participants in the study, their data were not analysed, which reduced the final sample to 93. Both questionnaires are validated in Croatian language (Krupić, Corr, Ručević, Križanić, & Gračanin, 2016).…”

Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory of Personality Questionnaires: Structural survey with recommendations

“…First, there is only one BAS factor, which is not consistent with Carver and White's (1994) multidimensional model, theoretical models of the BAS (Corr, 2008; see below), or the differentiation of reward sensitivity and rash impulsivity (Dawe et al, 2004;Quilty & Oakman, 2004;Smillie, Jackson, & Dalgleish, 2006;Smillie, Pickering, & Jackson, 2006). Secondly, the BIS scale is problematic, with many of the items suffering from a lack of face validity (e.g., 'Prefer projects to prove my ability'; 'Want to do well compared with others', 'Aim better than peers') -conceptually, such 'BIS' items would be better aligned with the BAS; and, in practise, are correlated with BAS measures from other RST questionnaires (Krupić, Križanić, Ručević, Gračanin, & Corr, 2015).…”

“…Only one study to date has compared the structural convergence of the above revised RST scales (Krupić et al, 2015). Five questionnaires were compared: BIS/BAS scales, SPSRQ, Jackson-5, RSQ, and the RST-PQ.…”

“…Five questionnaires were compared: BIS/BAS scales, SPSRQ, Jackson-5, RSQ, and the RST-PQ. The first thing to note is that confirmatory factor analysis of these separate questionnaires generally yield adequate model fit estimates; however, when convergent validity between these questionnaires is inspected problems are found (Krupić et al, 2015). These mainly include Fight and BAS, but also the BIS from the Jackson-5.…”

“…As the theoretical conditions and empirical results reviewed above indicate, the BAS is multidimensional; and especially, there is an important distinction between reward sensitivity and impulsivity (this comes out in the comparison of RST-3 questionnaires; Krupić et al, 2015).…”