Advertisement

Psychometric evaluation of the German version of the revised spontaneity assessment inventory (SAI-R)

  • Sven RabungEmail author
  • Michael Wieser
  • Almut Thomas
  • Ines Testoni
  • Chris Evans
Hauptbeiträge

Abstract

Spontaneity has been defined as an adaptive response to varying situational conditions. In this regard, it may be considered as a major contributor to well-being and mental health which could play an essential role within the context of psychotherapy. Despite its potential importance empirical research on spontaneity has been lacking until recently. As a remedy, the present paper introduces the German translation of the Revised Spontaneity Assessment Inventory (SAI-R; Kipper and Shemer, Group Psychother Psychodrama Sociom, 59(3):127–136, 2006) as a qualified self-report measure of spontaneity.

The German version of the 18-items SAI-R has been applied both in a non-clinical (n = 467 students) and in a clinical sample (n = 40 female survivors of domestic violence) and has been psychometrically analysed. The total score of the questionnaire, which shows to be well accepted and feasible, reveals high reliability. Evidence of its validity and sensitivity to change are demonstrated. Thus, this study provides preliminary evidence indicating that the German version of the SAI-R may be a reliable and valid measure for the assessment of spontaneity.

Keywords

Spontaneity Psychodrama Assessment SAI-R 

Psychometrische Überprüfung der deutschen Version des überarbeiteten Spontaneität Assessment Inventars (SAI-R)

Zusammenfassung

Spontaneität kann als adäquate Antwort auf eine neue Situation oder als neue Antwort auf eine alte Situation definiert werden. In diesem Sinne sollte sie einen wichtigen Beitrag zu Wohlbefinden und psychischer Gesundheit leisten und könnte auch eine bedeutsame Rolle im Kontext von Psychotherapie spielen. Trotz ihrer theoretischen Relevanz mangelt es bislang jedoch an empirischer Forschung zu Spontaneität. Um diesem Missstand zu begegnen, stellt die vorliegende Arbeit die deutsche Übersetzung eines Selbstbeurteilungsinstruments zur Erfassung von Spontaneität, das überarbeitete Spontaneität Assessment Inventar (SAI-R; Kipper und Shemer, Group Psychother Psychodrama Sociom, 59(3):127–136, 2006), vor. Die deutsche Version des 18 Items umfassenden SAI-R wurde in einer nicht-klinischen (n = 467 Studierende) und einer klinischen Stichprobe (n = 40 weibliche Opfer häuslicher Gewalt) eingesetzt und psychometrisch überprüft. Der Fragebogen zeichnet sich durch hohe Akzeptanz und Praktikabilität aus. Die hohe Reliabilität sowie Hinweise auf Validität und Veränderungssensitivität der Skala lassen das deutsche SAI-R als geeignetes Instrument zur Erfassung von Spontaneität erscheinen.

Schlüsselwörter

Spontaneität Psychodrama Selbstbeurteilung SAI-R 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The non-clinical sample reported in this paper (N = 467) differs from the Austrian student sample of the EMPoWER project reported elsewhere (N = 146; Testoni et al. 2013, 2013) as, for the present paper, we used the entire student convenience sample instead of applying specific selection criteria regarding age or gender.

We want to thank C. M. Amerstorfer, M. Berchtaler, H. Heaney, M. Hendel, Ph. Mayring, and G. Sigott for their support in the process of translation and back-translation. Further thanks go to the staff of Caritas Lebensberatung Kärnten (life counseling Carinthia) who worked with the women survivors of violence, S. Tillian who used her contacts to nursery school and psychodrama trainees, as well as J. Kadur and L. Fazakas who supported us as undergraduate research students.

This study has been conducted with the financial support of the DAPHNE III Programme of the European Union for the Project ‘EMPoWER: Empowerment of Women - Environment Research’. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the authors of this article and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Commission. The publication itself has been supported with a grant of the research advisory board of the Alpen-Adria-Universität Klagenfurt provided through Private Foundation Kärntner Sparkasse.

Supplementary material

11620_2015_313_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (424 kb)
(PDF 424 kb)

References

  1. Ameln, F. v., Gerstmann, R., & Kramer, J. (2009). Psychodrama (2nd edn.). Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental disorders. DSM-IV-TR (4th edn.). Washington DC: American Psychiatric Association.Google Scholar
  3. Amerstorfer, C. M., Berchtaler, M., Heaney, H., Hendel, M., Mayring, P., Sigott, G., & Wieser, M. (2011). Deutsche Version des Revised Spontaneity Assessment Inventory (SAI-R). Alpen-Adria-Universität Klagenfurt: Unveröffentlichter Fragebogen.Google Scholar
  4. Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Brown, G. K. (1996). Beck Depression Inventory–II (2nd edn.). San Antonio: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
  5. Christoforou, A., & Kipper, D. A. (2006). The Spontaneity Assessment Inventory (SAI), anxiety, obsessive-compulsive tendency, and temporal orientation. Journal of Group Psychotherapy, Psychodrama & Sociometry, 59(1), 23–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd edn.). In: Hillsdale, NJ. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  7. Collins, L. A., Kumar, V., Treadwell, T. W., & Leach, E. (1997). The personal attitude scale: a scale to measure spontaneity. Journal of Group Psychotherapy, Psychodrama & Sociometry, 49(4), 147–156.Google Scholar
  8. CORE System Group. (1999). CORE System User Manual. Leeds: CSG.Google Scholar
  9. Davelaar, P., Araujo, F., & Kipper, D. A. (2008). The Revised Spontaneity Assessment Inventory (SAI-R): Relationship to goal orientation, motivation, perceived self-efficacy, and self-esteem. Arts in Psychotherapy, 35(2), 117–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Evans, C. (2008). Translating and “normalising” CORE system. CORE System Trust (CST) position statement. Nottingham.Google Scholar
  11. Evans, C., Mellor-Clark, J., Margison, F., Barkham, M., Audin, K., Connell, J., & McGrath, G. (2000). CORE: Clinical outcomes in routine evaluation. Journal of Mental Health, 9(3), 247–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books, Inc.Google Scholar
  13. Hamilton, K. E., & Dobson, K. S. (2002). Cognitive therapy of depression: Pretreatment patient predictors of outcome. Clinical psychology review, 22(6), 875–893.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Hautzinger, M., Keller, F., & Kühner, C. (2010). Das Beck Depressionsinventar II. Deutsche Bearbeitung und Handbuch zum BDI II. Frankfurt a. M.: Pearson Assessment & Information GmbH.Google Scholar
  15. Joanes, D., & Gill, C. (1998). Comparing measures of sample skewness and kurtosis. The Statistician, 47, 183–189.Google Scholar
  16. Kellar, H., Treadwell, T. W., Kumar, V., & Leach, E. S. (2002). The Personal Attitude Scale-II: A Revised Measure of Spontaneity. Journal of Group Psychotherapy, Psychodrama & Sociometry, 55(1), 35–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kipper, D. A. (2011). Empirische Studien zur Spontaneität: Eine Überprüfung. Zeitschrift für Psychodrama und Soziometrie, 10, 21–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kipper, D. A., & Buras, E. (2009). Measurement of spontaneity: The relationship between Intensity and frequency of the spontaneous experience. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 108(2), 362–366.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Kipper, D. A., & Hundal, J. (2005). The spontaneity assessment inventory: The relationship between spontaneity and nonspontaneity. Journal of Group Psychotherapy, Psychodrama & Sociometry, 58(3), 119–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kipper, D. A., & Shemer, H. (2006). The Revised Spontaneity Assessment Inventory (SAI-R): Spontaneity, well-being, and stress. Journal of Group Psychotherapy, Psychodrama & Sociometry, 59(3), 127–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kipper, D. A., Davelaar, P. S., & Herst, S. (2009). The relationship between spontaneity and inhibition. Arts in Psychotherapy, 36(5), 329–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kipper, D. A., Green, D. J., & Prorak, A. (2010). The relationship among spontaneity, impulsivity, and creativity. Journal of Creativity in Mental Health, 5, 39–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Little, R., & Rubin, D. (2002). Statistical analysis with missing data. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lyne, K. J., Barrett, P., Evans, C., & Barkham, M. (2006). Dimensions of variation on the CORE-OM.. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 45(Pt 2), 185–203.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Moreno, J. L. (1934). Who shall survive? A new approach to the problem of human interrelations. Washington, DC: Nervous & Mental Disease Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Moreno, J. L. (1946). Psychodrama (Vol. 1). Beacon: Beacon House.Google Scholar
  27. Moreno, J. L. (1953). Who shall survive? Foundations of sociometry, group psychotherapy and sociodrama (2nd ed.). Beacon: Beacon House.Google Scholar
  28. Moreno, J. L. (1959). Gruppenpsychotherapie und Psychodrama. Einleitung in die Theorie und Praxis. Stuttgart: Thieme.Google Scholar
  29. Schacht, M. (1992). Zwischen Ordnung und Chaos. Neue Aspekte zur theoretischen und praktischen Fundierung der Konzeption von Spontaneität und Kreativität. Psychodrama, 5(1), 95–130.Google Scholar
  30. Schaller, R. (2001). Das große Rollenspiel-Buch. Grundtechniken, Anwendungsformen, Praxisbeispiele. Weinheim: Beltz.Google Scholar
  31. Sproll, S. (2011). Ein kurzes Outcome-Maß zur routinemäßigen Datenerhebung im Kontext von Evidence-Based Practice und Practice-Based Evidence in der Psychotherapie - Übersetzung und psychometrische Eigenschaften des deutschen CORE-OM. Wien, Universität Konstanz: Unveröffentlichte Diplomarbeit.Google Scholar
  32. Testoni, I., Armenti, A., Ronconi, L., Cottone, P., Wieser, M., & Verdi, S. (2012). Daphne European research project: Italian validation of hypothesis model (SAI-R, CORE-OM and BDI-II). Interdisciplinary Journal of Family Studies, 17(1), 207–218.Google Scholar
  33. Testoni, I., Armenti, A., Evans, C., Guglielmin, M. S., Ronconi, L., Zamperini, A., & Bucuta, M. (2012). Empower: A Daphne III project, our mission, structure and results. Interdisciplinary Journal of Family Studies, 17(2), 119–129.Google Scholar
  34. Testoni, I., Armenti, A., Ronconi, L., Wieser, M., Zamperini, A., Verdi, S., & Evans, C. (2013). Gender violence. Testing a model of assumptions: Spontaneity, psychological well-being and depression. Revista Brasileira de Psicodrama, 21(1), 95–110.Google Scholar
  35. Testoni, I., Armenti, A., Ronconi, L., Verdi, S., Wieser, M., Bucuta, M., & Tarashoeva, G. (2013). Developing spontaneity and well-being in women victims of domestic violence. La camera blu. Journal of gender studies, 10, 186–201.Google Scholar
  36. Testoni, I., Armenti, A., Bertoldo, A., Di L. S. D., Wieser, M., Moita, G., Cottone, P (2013). Assessing psychodramatic intervention on female victims on violence. The cross-cultural validation of CORE-OM and SAI-R for Project Empower Daphne. In C. Arcidiacono, I & Testoni A. G (Eds.), Daphne and the centaurs – overcoming gender based violence (pp. 161–178). Opladen: Barbara Budrich Publisher.Google Scholar
  37. Waldow, M. (2001). Zur grundlagentheoretischen Kategorie der Spontaneitaet von J. L. Moreno. Gruppenpsychotherapie und Gruppendynamik, 37(1), 1–28.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sven Rabung
    • 1
    Email author
  • Michael Wieser
    • 1
  • Almut Thomas
    • 2
  • Ines Testoni
    • 3
  • Chris Evans
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyAlpen-Adria-Universität KlagenfurtKlagenfurtAustria
  2. 2.Viktor FranklUniversity College of Teacher Education CarinthiaKlagenfurtAustria
  3. 3.Department of Philosophy, Sociology, Education & Applied Psychology (FISPPA), Section of Applied PsychologyUniversity of Padua (Italy)PaduaItaly
  4. 4.East London NHS Foundation TrustLondonUK

Personalised recommendations