Skip to main content

ETHNOS_APP

Home • Search • Journals • List 0

Which health regulatory focus scale should I choose? A psychometric evaluation of Gomez and Ferrer’s measures in Chinese populations

Bibliographic Data

ID22234162
AuthorsLei 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)
Year2026
Publication date2026-06-16
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueHumanities and Social Sciences Communications (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 2662-9992 • E-ISSN: 2662-9992
PublisherSpringer Science and Business Media LLC (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1057/s41599-026-07963-w
OpenAlexW7164900089
LanguageEN

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 citedNo

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access
Ethnos_APP • Open Source Project • MIT License • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacy and Cookies • API Documentation: api.ethnos.app/docs • API Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Frontend Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae