4.0 Article

Polish adaptation of the Young Schema Questionnaire 3 Short Form (YSQ-S3-PL)

期刊

PSYCHIATRIA POLSKA
卷 52, 期 4, 页码 707-718

出版社

WYDAWNICZY POLSKIEGO TOWARZYSTWA
DOI: 10.12740/PP/OnlineFirst/76541

关键词

Early maladaptive schemas; Young Schema Questionnaire YSQ-S3-PL; Polish adaptation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim. The aim of the study was to prepare the Polish adaptation of the Young Schema Questionnaire S3-PL. The scale is a self-assessment tool designed to measure 18 early maladaptive schemas. Method. The sample consists of 1,529 adults (927 women and 585 men), aged 18-85 years (mean age was 32 years), from non-clinical groups. Results. After language validation the internal consistency was assessed. The Cronbach's alpha ranged from 0.62 (Entitlement/grandiosity) to 0.81 (Failure), and it was 0.96 for total score. The best solution obtained in exploratory factor analysis was an eight-factor model, instead of the assumed 18-factor structure. Confirmatory factor analysis also did not fully supported Young's theoretical model. From all the tested models, bi-factor model (i.e., one generic factor and correlated specific factors - schemas) fitted the data best. In accordance with this model schema variance is explained concurrently by generic and specific factors; generic factor explains most of the Defectiveness variance, while only slightly - Self-sacrifice variance. Convergent validity analysis confirmes positive medium correlations with scales measuring psychopathology. Similarly, negative correlations with self-efficacy and optimism indicate good divergent validity. Conclusions. The psychometric characteristics of the Polish adaptation of the YSQ-S3-PL is similar to those reported for other language versions. The results allow to recommend the method for scientific research. However, using it in therapeutic practice needs caution especially in the case of clinical diagnosis. Further analyses are necessary to assess criterion validity and discriminative power in clinical settings.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据