METHOD: We translated the TCI into Mandarin and had a non-psychiatric sample of Malaysian Chinese subjects complete the TCI at baseline and at a 1-month retest, with subsets completing English or Mandarin versions alternatively or on both occasions. Analyses examine the TCI factor structure and any impact of language and culture on TCI scoring.
RESULTS: We identified age, gender, occupation and language effects on TCI scale scores. Test-retest reliability was high and not compromised by language. Scale internal consistency was also high. Factor analyses of separate sets of TCI scales corresponded strongly to the structure identified in the TCI development studies.
CONCLUSION: The results indicate that TCI is likely to have applicability to Chinese subjects, and argue against properties being constrained by the English language or by western culture.
Methods: We used a single-blind, randomized controlled crossover equivalence design to compare the efficacy on N.A. regulation of W.A.R.A. versus Distraction in 101 patients with different neuropsychiatric disorders.
Results: The results showed a significant difference (p < 0.001) in response to W.A.R.A. vs. Distraction, with W.A.R.A. being significantly more effective in regulating N.A., with a large effect size (dRMpooled = 2.38) and a high probability (95%) of success.
Limitations: The heterogeneity of the study population makes generalization and clear recommendations for specific patient groups difficult. The Numeric Rating Scale might have prevented detection of increased N.A. when the baseline scores were high. More in-depth research is needed to explore the W.A.R.A. technique and the extent of confounding variables such as the placebo effect.
Conclusions: The findings suggest that W.A.R.A. may be an effective, accessible, and brief intervention reducing negative affect. Although premature, these first results are encouraging.