Scale to measure dialectical thinking from dialectical behavior therapy perspective.

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY European Journal of Psychiatry Pub Date : 2025-03-21 DOI:10.1016/j.ejpsy.2025.100305
Joaquim Soler , Maria Arqueros , Carlos Schmidt , Daniela Otero , Anna Soria-Madrid , María José Campins , Anna Catalan , Elisabet Casellas , Rocío Espeso , Juan Carlos Pascual
{"title":"Scale to measure dialectical thinking from dialectical behavior therapy perspective.","authors":"Joaquim Soler ,&nbsp;Maria Arqueros ,&nbsp;Carlos Schmidt ,&nbsp;Daniela Otero ,&nbsp;Anna Soria-Madrid ,&nbsp;María José Campins ,&nbsp;Anna Catalan ,&nbsp;Elisabet Casellas ,&nbsp;Rocío Espeso ,&nbsp;Juan Carlos Pascual","doi":"10.1016/j.ejpsy.2025.100305","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background and Objectives</h3><div>Dialectical thinking is a core component of dialectical behavior therapy (DBT), characterized by the synthesis of seemingly opposing ideas to develop a more comprehensive perspective. This study aimed to create a reliable and valid instrument for measuring dialectical thinking.</div></div><div><h3>Method</h3><div>We analyzed the psychometric properties of the Dialectical Thinking Scale in a mixed sample of 205 participants. Factor structure with both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, reliability, test-retest stability, sensitivity to change, and convergent validity were evaluated.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The final resulting questionnaire consisted of a 5-item self-reported scale. The analyses revealed a distinct two-factor structure: \"Both Sides\" (the capacity to recognize and accept opposing perspectives as simultaneously valid, thereby fostering cognitive flexibility and reducing polarized thinking) and \"Both Sides in Me\" (the ability to integrate and accept internal contradictions). The scale exhibited high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.81), and robust test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.82 for \"Both Sides\" and 0.64 for \"Both Sides in Me\"). The scale demonstrated satisfactory sensitivity to change after psychotherapeutic intervention and showed significant negative correlations with psychopathological symptoms.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>This scale addresses a critical gap in clinical assessment tools for DBT and it holds promise for applications across mental disorders and social studies.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12045,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Psychiatry","volume":"39 2","pages":"Article 100305"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0213616325000163","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and Objectives

Dialectical thinking is a core component of dialectical behavior therapy (DBT), characterized by the synthesis of seemingly opposing ideas to develop a more comprehensive perspective. This study aimed to create a reliable and valid instrument for measuring dialectical thinking.

Method

We analyzed the psychometric properties of the Dialectical Thinking Scale in a mixed sample of 205 participants. Factor structure with both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, reliability, test-retest stability, sensitivity to change, and convergent validity were evaluated.

Results

The final resulting questionnaire consisted of a 5-item self-reported scale. The analyses revealed a distinct two-factor structure: "Both Sides" (the capacity to recognize and accept opposing perspectives as simultaneously valid, thereby fostering cognitive flexibility and reducing polarized thinking) and "Both Sides in Me" (the ability to integrate and accept internal contradictions). The scale exhibited high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.81), and robust test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.82 for "Both Sides" and 0.64 for "Both Sides in Me"). The scale demonstrated satisfactory sensitivity to change after psychotherapeutic intervention and showed significant negative correlations with psychopathological symptoms.

Conclusions

This scale addresses a critical gap in clinical assessment tools for DBT and it holds promise for applications across mental disorders and social studies.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
从辩证行为治疗的角度衡量辩证思维的量表。
背景与目的辩证思维是辩证行为疗法(DBT)的核心组成部分,其特点是将看似对立的观点综合起来,形成更全面的视角。本研究旨在建立一种可靠有效的辩证思维测量工具。方法采用205人的混合样本,对辩证思维量表的心理测量特征进行分析。采用探索性和验证性因子分析评估因子结构、信度、重测稳定性、变化敏感性和收敛效度。结果最终问卷由5项自述量表组成。分析揭示了一个明显的双因素结构:“两面”(认识和接受对立观点同时有效的能力,从而促进认知灵活性和减少两极分化的思维)和“两面在我”(整合和接受内部矛盾的能力)。量表具有较高的内部一致性(Cronbach's alpha = 0.81)和稳健的重测信度(“双方”的ICC = 0.82,“我的双方”的ICC = 0.64)。该量表对心理治疗干预后的变化具有满意的敏感性,且与精神病理症状呈显著负相关。结论:该量表填补了DBT临床评估工具的一个关键空白,并有望在精神障碍和社会研究领域得到应用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
40
审稿时长
43 days
期刊介绍: The European journal of psychiatry is a quarterly publication founded in 1986 and directed by Professor Seva until his death in 2004. It was originally intended to report “the scientific activity of European psychiatrists” and “to bring about a greater degree of communication” among them. However, “since scientific knowledge has no geographical or cultural boundaries, is open to contributions from all over the world”. These principles are maintained in the new stage of the journal, now expanded with the help of an American editor.
期刊最新文献
Mixed-methods analysis of formulations in functional neurological disorder Two exploratory studies to investigate the role of self and emotional dysregulation in borderline personality disorder Sex differences in the efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy for adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder Exploring the nexus of cognition and insight in euthymic bipolar patients Discriminative utility and limitations of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire for ADHD in a referred clinical pediatric sample
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1