Which health regulatory focus scale should I choose? A psychometric evaluation of Gomez and Ferrer’s measures in Chinese populations
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 22234162 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Lei Zheng (0000-0003-4015-0110, Macau University of Science and Technology, corresponding author), Yiqing Zeng (Macau University of Science and Technology), Yan Zhao (0009-0007-8186-9443, South China Normal University, corresponding author), Chengkun Liu (0000-0001-8999-482X, Macau University of Science and Technology), Sheng Zhao (0000-0002-8083-2119, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2026 |
| Publication date | 2026-06-16 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Humanities and Social Sciences Communications (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2662-9992 • E-ISSN: 2662-9992 |
| Publisher | Springer Science and Business Media LLC (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1057/s41599-026-07963-w |
| OpenAlex | W7164900089 |
| Language | EN |
Health regulatory focus is an important construct related to health-related behaviors. However, the psychometric distinctions between two commonly used health regulatory focus scales, one developed by Gomez et al. (2013; G-scale) and the other by Ferrer et al. (2017; F-scale), remain insufficiently understood. This research aims to clarify the two scales by integrating a meta-analytic review with empirical survey studies, focusing on both theoretical and psychometric properties. Study 1 conducted a meta-analysis of 22 published articles to assess the reliability of the two scales across diverse samples, using generalized reliability meta-analyses. Study 2 utilized two samples: a cross-sectional survey ( n = 1716; 73.5% female; Mage = 20.77) and a longitudinal sample ( n = 453; 77.5% female; Mage = 19.62). The results showed that the F-scale demonstrated acceptable reliability and validity with good model fit indices (CFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.07), whereas the G-scale exhibited mixed model fit (CFI = 0.94, TLI = 0.90, and RMSEA = 0.13). Notably, results from exploratory structural equation modeling and network analysis revealed theoretically meaningful distinctions between them. Specifically, the G-scale’s promotion focus was more strongly associated with outcome expectations (edge weight = 0.11), whereas the F-scale’s promotion focus showed a stronger link to health behavioral motivation (edge weight = 0.23). Additionally, the F-scale’s prevention focus was more closely related to exercise procrastination (edge weight = 0.30). These findings emphasize important theoretical differences between the two scales and suggest that researchers should select the scale most aligned with their conceptual framework and research objectives
Conceptual model · Construct validity · Procrastination · Psychometrics · Structural equation modeling · Behavioral Health and Interventions · Motivation and Self-Concept in Sports · Perfectionism, Procrastination, Anxiety Studies
| Highly cited | No |
|---|