dot dot
ศ.นพ.ทินกร วงศ์ปการันย์
bulletอัตตประวัติ (CV)
bulletPublication on Pubmed
แบบวัด (Scales and Measurements)
bulletFamily Climate Questionnaire (FCQ)
bulletSufficiency Economy Scale
bulletType D Personality
bulletChiang Mai DIP-Q
bulletZKA- 40 (Personality Questionnaire; short version)
bulletInternet addiction test_Thai version
bulletCore Symptom Index (CSI)
bulletOutcome Inventory (OI-21)
bulletPathogenic belief scale short version (PBS-27)
bulletPHuSeG scale
bulletRevised Thai Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale
bulletResilience Inventory (RI-9)
bulletScreening instrument for borderline personality disorder (SI-Bord)
bulletinner Strength-Based Inventory (SBI)
bulletGroup Cohesiveness Scale (GCS)
bulletUCLA Loneliness Scale / Brief version RULS-6
bulletExperience in Close Relationship (ECR-R-18 and ECR-R-10)
bulletNeuroticism Inventory (NI-15)
bulletTraumatic experience scale (TES)
ลิงค์ที่เกี่ยวข้อง (Links)
bulletAmerican Group Psychotherapy Association
bulletDr. Nahathai Wongpakaran's Website
bulletขอเชิญทำแบบสอบถาม บุคลิกภาพ ZKA
bulletiMMH Bulletin
bulletBrief therapy for elderly
bulletMaster Program in Mental Health
bulletdataset for ZKA
bulletStrength-Based Therapy (SBT)
bulletทำแบบสอบถาม แบบสำรวจ SURVEY
bulletรักวัวให้ผูก รักลูกให้ใจ
bulletห้องข่าว (News Room)

Int J Intercult Relat
Psychiatry Investig

PHuSeG scale


PHuSeG scale

Composite Scale of Prudence, Humility, Self-regulation and Gratitude (PHuSeG scale)


 PHUSEG -10 Form Eng .pdf

PHUSEG -10 Form Thai .pdf

This study was based on character strengths, namely, the positive parts of our personality that influence how we think, feel and behave. Among the 24 common character strengths, we chose four corresponding to the code of medical ethics for physicians, i.e., prudence, humility, self-regulation and gratitude.  These four character strengths are assessed separately using the Prudence Scale (Emmons et al., 2003), consisting of 12 questions. Each question has 7 Likert scale choices, and scores ranging from 7 to 84.  The Humility scale (Ferranto et al., 2005), consisted of 15 questions and each question had 5 Likert scale items and scores ranging from 5 to 75. The Self-regulation Scale (Brown et al., 1999), consisted of 17 questions with 7 Likert scale items and scores ranging from 5 to 85.  The Gratitude Scale (McCullough et al., 2002), consisted of 6 questions, 7 Likert scale choices and scores ranging from 7 to 42.

            Despite the fact that they all constituted character strengths, they did not correlate statistically as expected. To identify the positive character strengths for physician involved combining all four character strengths in a composite scale. Using the measurement model point of view, all items in the composite scale contributed to the same construct of the unique positive character strengths of prudence, humility, self-regulation and gratitude. To achieve that, the composite scale should be unidimensional with locally independent items based on the Rasch measurement model.

            In a university sample of 50, we analyzed all combined items of these four measurements in a single composite scale. This totaled 50 items from all four scales comprising two kinds of rating scale: 5 and 7 responses. We used the Partial Credit Rasch model for the analysis.

The Rasch analysis showed fit statistics as described below.

The person reliability was 0.70. Item reliability = 1.00. The PCA showed the composite scale was more than one dimensional as expected.  Dependent items were then identified and consequently removed until the eigen value of the first contrast was less than 2.00.

The Wright map from final analysis showed item hierarchy and difficulty. The composite scale was now unidimensional and locally dependent. The person reliability was 0.75, and item reliability was 0.84.


            The PHuSeG scale has been tested in a sample of 283 university students, and and shown to be unidimensional. CFA shows the goodness of fit statistics as follows; CFI = .971, TLI = .950, RMSEA = .057 (90%CI .033-.081), Chi-square = 50.166, df= 26, Chi-square/df=1.929, p =.003. Rasch analysis shows that all item had fit statistics between 0.76 and 1.37. The person reliability = 0.77, item reliability = 0.93. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.84. In terms of dimensionality, 42 % of variance was explained by the measures. The 1st contrast Eigen value was 1.723. No dependency of item was found. No disordered of category and threshold was found. 

         The PHuSeG scale shows to have convergent validity with the inner strength-based inventory, i.e.  Wisdom(panya) ( r= .456, p<.001 (N=146)), Determination-Resolution (r = .422, p<.001 (N=146)), and Lovingkindness(metta) (r= .217, p =.008 (N=146)).


Coding and scoring

            No reversing values for all items was required before summing up. The PHuSeG scores ranged from 10 to 50.


            In general, the higher the score, the more the positive characteristics were indicated. However, we could use the distribution of scores based on the respective sample. For example, a high vs. low level of PHuSeG score, or a level of PHuSeG among the samples could be grouped in three categories: “low” for scores below the 25th percentile, “average” for scores ranging from the 25th to the 75th percentile and “high” for scores above the 75th percentile.


Tinakon Wongpakaran

Nahathai Wongpakaran

27 April 2020













Copyright © 2015 All Rights Reserved.