Page 79 - JCBP-3-1

Journal of Clinical and
Basic Psychosomatics Neuroticism scale: Reliability and validity

tendencies is essential. The scale’s development included have no known competing financial interests or personal
both patients and healthy individuals as research subjects, relationships that could have influenced the work reported
ensuring its applicability across diverse groups. in this paper.
Finally, the scale consists of 14 items, which is a Author contributions
moderate number that helps minimize the fatigue effect
in participants. The four-level scoring system of the Conceptualization: Wenhao Jiang
neuroticism scale discourages compromise answers and Investigation: Qingfei Liu, Linlin You
significantly improves the scale’s effective utilization Methodology: Qingfei Liu, Linlin You, Wenhao Jiang
rate. Efforts to streamline personality inventories have Writing – original draft: Qingfei Liu, Linlin You
demonstrated that it is possible to reduce the number of Writing – review & editing: Yonggui Yuan, Wenhao Jiang
items without compromising validity and reliability. For
example, McCrae and Costa effectively condensed the Ethics approval and consent to participate
31
NEO-PI-R into the more manageable NEO-FFI. Similarly, This study was approved by the Medical Ethics Committee
Francis et al. successfully reduced the EPQ to the EPQR-A for Clinical Research of Zhongda Hospital, affiliated with
32
while maintaining essential psychometric properties. Southeast University, and informed consent was obtained
4.2. Limitations of the scale from all participants.
While this study had several advantages, there are three Consent for publication
major limitations that should be noted. First, the age range
of the subjects was narrow, limiting the generalizability of Informed consent of participants was obtained for
the findings across different age groups. Second, the study publishing their data in this paper.
did not incorporate a well-designed structural interview. Availability of data
Finally, the study relied solely on self-evaluation scales,
without peer assessments or other external evaluations, The raw/processed data required to derive these findings
which would have allowed for a more comprehensive, cannot be shared at this time as the data also form part of
multifaceted assessment. an ongoing study.
5. Conclusion References

The neuroticism scale includes four dimensions: low self- 1. Huang Y, Zhou R, Wu M. Neurophysiological mechanism of
esteem, excessive emotional sensitivity, unstable mood, neuroticism. Adv Psychol Sci. 2015;23(4):602-613.
and excessive worry, with scores ranging from 1 to 4. The doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2015.00602
scale demonstrates good reliability and validity, making 2. Lahey BB. Public health significance of neuroticism. Am
it a valuable tool for both research studies and clinical Psychol. 2009;64(4):241-256.
diagnosis.
doi: 10.1037/a0015309
Acknowledgments 3. Ding JL, Tian H. A review of Honey’s neurosis theory. Med
The authors thank the participants who have generously Philos (Humanit Soc Med). 2007(6);28:43-45.
given their time to complete the study. 4. Mats BK. Eysenck’s theory of personality and the role of
background music in cognitive task performance: A mini-
Funding review of conflicting findings and a new perspective. Front
The work was partially supported by the Research Psychol. 2017;14(8):1991.
Personnel Cultivation Program of Zhongda Hospital doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01991
Southeast University (CZXM-GSP-RC38).
5. McCrae RR, Sutin AR. A five-factor theory perspective on
Conflict of interest causal analysis. Eur J Pers. 2018;32(3):151-166.
doi: 10.1002/per.2134
Yonggui Yuan and Wenhao Jiang are the Editor-in-Chief
and the Associate Editor of the journal, respectively, but 6. Gu SQ, Xi XN, Cheng ZH, Wu ZG, Wang GQ. The
were not in any way involved in the editorial and peer- relationship between personality and mental health in
review process conducted for this paper, directly or college students. Chin J Clin Psychol. 2014;22(2):354-356.
indirectly. Separately, other authors declared that they 7. Rydberg Sterner T, Gudmundsson P, Sigström R, et al.

Volume 3 Issue 1 (2025) 73 doi: 10.36922/jcbp.3791