Is There an All-Embracing "Intolerance to Uncertainty" Construct? French Adaptation and Validation of the Intolerance to Uncertainty Scale-Revised.

IF 2 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Clinical Neuropsychiatry Pub Date : 2023-02-01 DOI:10.36131/cnfioritieditore20230106
Camille Mouguiama Daouda, M Annelise Blanchard, Alexandre Heeren
{"title":"Is There an All-Embracing \"Intolerance to Uncertainty\" Construct? French Adaptation and Validation of the Intolerance to Uncertainty Scale-Revised.","authors":"Camille Mouguiama Daouda,&nbsp;M Annelise Blanchard,&nbsp;Alexandre Heeren","doi":"10.36131/cnfioritieditore20230106","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Intolerance to uncertainty is a trait-like disposition largely studied in psychopathology and known to be involved in many psychological disorders. Yet, the very operationalization of this construct has prompted debate in the literature. Three different models have regularly been discussed: a correlated two-factor solution, a bifactorial solution, and a single-factor structure. A growing body of evidence suggests that the bifactorial model represents the adequate factorial solution; however, its validity has never been tested in a large French-speaking sample. Moreover, uncertainty remains regarding the associations between IUS-R and other psychological constructs, especially stress and depression. This project was designed to overcome these limitations.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>To do so, we translated the scale into French and tested (n = 728) via confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) whether the French version would better fit with a bifactorial-, correlated, or single-factor structure, as implied by previous works. We also examined the internal reliability of the IUS-R, as well as its associations with concurrent measures of stress, depression, anxiety, and worry.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The results pointed to a bifactorial structure as the best-fitting model and provided evidence for a strong general intolerance of uncertainty factor that was more reliable and accounted for significantly more common variance than each subscale factor individually.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We discuss how this bifactorial structure impacts the conceptualization of IU.</p>","PeriodicalId":46700,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Neuropsychiatry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10016102/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Neuropsychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36131/cnfioritieditore20230106","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Objective: Intolerance to uncertainty is a trait-like disposition largely studied in psychopathology and known to be involved in many psychological disorders. Yet, the very operationalization of this construct has prompted debate in the literature. Three different models have regularly been discussed: a correlated two-factor solution, a bifactorial solution, and a single-factor structure. A growing body of evidence suggests that the bifactorial model represents the adequate factorial solution; however, its validity has never been tested in a large French-speaking sample. Moreover, uncertainty remains regarding the associations between IUS-R and other psychological constructs, especially stress and depression. This project was designed to overcome these limitations.

Method: To do so, we translated the scale into French and tested (n = 728) via confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) whether the French version would better fit with a bifactorial-, correlated, or single-factor structure, as implied by previous works. We also examined the internal reliability of the IUS-R, as well as its associations with concurrent measures of stress, depression, anxiety, and worry.

Results: The results pointed to a bifactorial structure as the best-fitting model and provided evidence for a strong general intolerance of uncertainty factor that was more reliable and accounted for significantly more common variance than each subscale factor individually.

Conclusions: We discuss how this bifactorial structure impacts the conceptualization of IU.

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
是否存在包罗万象的“对不确定性的不容忍”结构?法语对不确定度不耐受度的适应和验证-修订。
目的:对不确定性的不耐受是一种在精神病理学中被广泛研究的类似特质的性格,已知与许多心理障碍有关。然而,这种结构的操作化在文献中引起了争论。经常讨论三种不同的模型:相关的双因素解决方案,双因素解决方案和单因素结构。越来越多的证据表明,双因子模型代表了适当的因子解决方案;然而,它的有效性从未在一个讲法语的大样本中进行过测试。此外,关于IUS-R与其他心理构念之间的关系,特别是压力和抑郁,仍然存在不确定性。该项目旨在克服这些限制。方法:为此,我们将量表翻译成法文,并通过验证性因子分析(CFA)检验(n = 728),如之前的工作所暗示的那样,法语版本是否更适合双因子、相关因子或单因子结构。我们还检查了IUS-R的内部可靠性,以及它与压力、抑郁、焦虑和担忧的并发测量的关联。结果:结果指出双因子结构是最佳拟合模型,并为不确定性因素的强一般不耐受提供了证据,该不确定性因素比单个子尺度因素更可靠,并能显著地解释更多的常见方差。结论:我们讨论了这种双因子结构如何影响IU的概念化。
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
Clinical Neuropsychiatry
Clinical Neuropsychiatry CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-
CiteScore
11.10
自引率
1.60%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Therapeutic Relationship in Videoconferencing Psychotherapy: A Qualitative Study of Therapists' Experiences. Alexithymia: A Defense of the Original Conceptualization of the Construct and a Critique of the Attention-Appraisal Model. Effects of Approved Pharmacological Interventions for Insomnia on Mood Disorders: A Systematic Review. Psychopathological Correlates and Psychosocial Functioning in Children and Adolescents with Syncope: A Systematic Review. Reevaluating ADHD and its First-Line Treatment: Insights from DSM-5-TR and Modern Approaches.
×
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:481959085
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