Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T22:00:56.864Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Psychometric Properties of the French Version of the Young Schema Questionnaire - Short Form 3 (YSQ–S3)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 November 2018

Martine Bouvard Open the ORCID record for Martine Bouvard [Opens in a new window] ,
Anne Denis  and
Jean Luc Roulin
Martine Bouvard*
Affiliation:
Université Savoie Mont Blanc (France)
Anne Denis
Affiliation:
Laboratoire InterUniversitaire de Psychologie (France)
Jean Luc Roulin
Affiliation:
Laboratoire de Psychologie et NeuroCognition (France)
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Martine Bouvard. Université Savoie Mont Blanc. Département de Psychologie. BP1104, 73000 Chambery (France). Université Grenoble Alpes 3800 Grenoble (France). E-mail: martine.bouvard@univ-smb.fr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The purpose was to assess the psychometric properties of the French version of the Young Schema Questionnaire - Short Form 3 (YSQ–S3). The main non-clinical sample (N = 605, M = 20.63, 78% women) was divided into two subsamples: One was used for exploratory factor analyses (EFA) and the other was used for confirmatory analyses. Next, internal consistency, convergent validity and criterion-related validity were studied. The EFA to each of the five domains was similar to the theoretical structure postulated by Young. The confirmatory analysis of each of the five domains appeared to favor our solution over a single-factor solution and Young’s solution. The confirmatory factor analyses of high-order structures did not give fully satisfactory results but appeared to favor our solution (RMSEA =.11, CFI =.76, TLI =.71, SRMR =.07, AIC = 58,566.44). In our best model, the reliability (> .70) was satisfactory for fourteen schemas. The relationships between the schemas and the neuroticism, extraversion and psychoticism scores went in the expected directions. Detrimental parental rearing behaviors were linked to high scores for the various schemas. Lastly, 4 schemas differentiated between the clinical and non-clinical groups. In conclusion, the overall psychometric qualities of the French version of the YSQ–S3 allow its use in clinical populations.

Keywords

maladaptive schemasreliabilitythe Young Schema QuestionnaireShort Form 3validity
Type
Research Article
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 21 , 2018 , E57
Copyright
Copyright © Universidad Complutense de Madrid and Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

How to cite this article:

Bouvard, M., Denis, A., & Roulin, J. L. (2018). Psychometric properties of the French version of the Young Schema Questionnaire - short form 3 (YSQ–S3). The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 21. e57. Doi:10.1017/sjp.2018.66

References

Arrindell, W. A., Akkerman, A., Bagès, N., Feldman, L., Caballo, V. E., Oei, T. P. S., & Zaldívar, F. (2005). The short-EMBU in Australia, Spain, and Venezuela. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 21(1), 56–66. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.21.1.56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arrindell, W. A., & Engebretsen, A. A. (2000). Convergent validity of the short-EMBU and the Parental Bonding Instrument (PBI): Dutch findings. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 7, 262–266. https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-0879(200010)7:4<262::aid-cpp257>3.0.co;2-93.0.CO;2-9>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arrindell, W. A., Sanavio, E., Aguilar, G., Sica, C., Hatzichristou, C., Eisemann, M., … & van der Ende, J. (1999). The development of a short form of the EMBU: Its appraisal with students in Greece, Guatemala, Hungary and Italy. Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 613–628. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0191-8869(98)00192-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach, B., Simonsen, E., Christoffersen, P., & Kriston, L. (2017). The Young Schema Questionnaire 3 Short Form (YSQ–3). Psychometric properties and association with personality disorders in a Danish mixed sample. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 33(2), 134–143. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouvard, M., Aulard, J., Longuepée, L., Rogé, B., & Hautekeete, M. (2010). Etude préliminaire de la version abrégée du questionnaire sur les souvenirs d’enfance version abrégée (s-EMBU) [preliminary study of the short (s)- EMBU (Swedish acronym for Egna Minnen Beträffande Uppfostran)]. Revue Francophone de Clinique Comportementale et Cognitive, XV(3), 8–17.Google Scholar
Bouvard, M., Aulard-Jaccod, J., Pessonneaux, S., Hautekeete, M., & Rogé, B. (2010). Etude du questionnaire de personnalité d’Eysenck révisé et abrégé (EPQR-A) dans une population d’étudiants [A study on the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire Revised-Abbreviated (EPQR-A) in a student population]. L’Encéphale, 36(6), 510–512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.encep.2010.02.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calvete, E., Orue, I., & Gonzalez-Diez, Z. (2013). An examination of the structure and stability of early maladaptive schemas by means of the young Schema Questionnaire–3. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 29(4), 283–290. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cattell, R. B. (1966). The Scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245–276. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr0102_10CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eysenck, S. B. G., Eysenck, H. J., & Barrett, P. (1985). A revised version of the psychoticism scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 6 , 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(85)90026-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eysenck, H. J. (1992). The definition and measurement of psychoticism. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 757–785. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(92)90050-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd Ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Hawke, L. D., & Provencher, M. D. (2012). The Canadian French Young Schema Questionnaire: Confirmatory factor analysis and validation in clinical and nonclinical samples. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 44(1), 40–49. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural equation modeling guidelines for determining model fit. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53–56.Google Scholar
Kriston, L., Schäfer, J., Jacob, G. A., Härter, M., & Hölzel, L. P. (2013). Reliability and validity of the German version of the Young Schema Questionnaire-Short Form 3 (YSQ–S3). European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 29(3), 205–212. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, C. A., Francis, L. J., Shevlin, N., & Forrest, S. (2002). Confirmatory factor analysis of the French translation of the abbreviated form of the revised Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQR–A). European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 18(2), 179–185. https://doi.org/10.1027//1015-5759.18.2.179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muris, P. (2006). Maladaptive schemas in non-clinical adolescents: Relations to perceived parental rearing behaviors, Big Five Personality factors and psychopathological symptoms. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 13, 405–413. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2015). Mplus user’s guide (7th Ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
Rafaeli, E., Bernstein, D. P., & Young, J. (2011). Schema therapy . London, UK: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
Saritas, D., & Gençöz, T. (2011). Psychometric properties of “Young Schema Questionnaire-short form 3” in a Turkish adolescent sample. Journal of Cognitive and Behavioral Psychotherapies, 11(1), 83–96.Google Scholar
Soygut, G., Karaosmanoglu, A., & Çakir, Z. (2009). Assessment of early maladaptive schemas: A psychometric study of the Turkish Young Schema Questionnaire-Short form–3. Turkish Journal of Psychiatry, 20, 144–152.Google ScholarPubMed
Young, J. E. (1994). Cognitive therapy for personality disorders: A schema-focused approach (2nd ed). Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Exchange.Google Scholar
Young, J. E. (2005). Young Schema Questionnaire-Short Form 3 (YSQ–S3). New York, NY: Cognitive Therapy Center.Google Scholar
Young, J. E., Klosko, J. S., & Weishaar, M. E. (2003). Schema therapy. A practitioner’s guide. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Yu, C. Y. (2002). Evaluating cutoff criteria of model fit indices for latent variable models with binary and continuous outcomes (unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California, Los Angeles CA.Google Scholar