Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T07:28:29.332Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Are four maladaptive schema domains a better option than five? Recommendations based on comparison of the latent structure of schemas on a large group of healthy adults

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2022

Dorota Mącik Open the ORCID record for Dorota Mącik [Opens in a new window]  and
Radosław Mącik Open the ORCID record for Radosław Mącik [Opens in a new window]
Dorota Mącik*
Affiliation:
Institute of Psychology, John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, al. Racławickie 14, 20-950 Lublin, Poland
Radosław Mącik
Affiliation:
Institute of Management and Quality Studies, Maria Curie-Sklodowska University in Lublin, Plac M.C. Sklodowskiej 5, 20-031 Lublin, Poland
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background:

Numerous publications and analyses conducted in various cultures lead to the conclusion that the latent structure of schemas is not unambiguous. The latest proposal by Bach et al. (2017a) includes 18 schemas and four domains; however, a five domain structure is also acceptable.

Aim:

The aim of the research was to directly compare both proposals based on the research of a large group of healthy people.

Method:

The schema questionnaire YSQ-S3 was completed by 2348 people aged 18–81 years, of whom women constituted slightly over 54%.

Results:

CFA analyses have demonstrated a poor fit to the data of all analysed models, with the model of four correlated domains, which is also characterised by higher loadings (standardised regression loadings), being the closest to fulfil the criteria. Exploratory factor analyses have shown an almost exact reflection of the structure with the assumed four factors; the structure of five factors has not been recreated. The released number of factors indicated a two-factor solution. The additional analysis confirmed positive medium correlations with negative affect and psychopathology symptoms. Negative correlations of self-esteem, positivity scale and positive affect indicate good divergent validity.

Conclusion:

The analysis confirms the existence of 18 schemas and supports the new four-domain model of the latent structure of schemas as more appropriate than a model consisting of five domains.

Keywords

assessmentcognitive behavioural therapylatent structureschemaschema domainsYSQ
Type
Main
Information
Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy , Volume 50 , Issue 3 , May 2022 , pp. 334 - 344
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the British Association for Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapies

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.)

References

Aloi, M., Rania, M., Caroleo, M., Carbone, E. A., Fazia, G., Calabrò, G., & Segura-Garcia, C. (2020a). How are early maladaptive schemas and DSM-5 personality traits associated with the severity of binge eating? Journal of Clinical Psychology, 76, 539–548. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.22900 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aloi, M., Rania, M., Sacco, R., Basile, B., & Segura-Garcia, C. (2020b). The Young Schema Questionnaire Short Form 3 (YSQ-S3): does the new four-domains model show the best fit? Anales De Psicología/Annals of Psychology, 36, 254–261.10.6018/analesps.343461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach, B., Lockwood, G., & Young, J. E. (2017a). A new look at the schema therapy model: organization and role of early maladaptive schemas. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/16506073.2017.1410566 Google Scholar
Bach, B., Simonsen, E., Christoffersen, P., & Kriston, L. (2017b). The Young Schema Questionnaire 3 Short Form (YSQ-S3): psychometric properties and association with personality disorders in a Danish mixed sample. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 33, 134–143. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000272 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, A. T., Butler, A. C., Brown, G. K., Dahlsgaard, K. K., Newman, C. F., & Beck, J. S. (2001). Dysfunctional beliefs discriminate personality disorders. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 39, 1213–1225. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(00)00099-1 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bouvard, M., Denis, A., & Roulin, J. L. (2018). Psychometric properties of the French version of the Young Schema Questionnaire-Short Form 3 (YSQ-S3). Spanish Journal of Psychology, 21, E57. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2018.66 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calvete, E., Estévez, A., López de Arroyabe, E., & Ruiz, P. (2005). The Schema Questionnaire-Short Form: structure and relationship with automatic thoughts and symptoms of affective disorders. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 21, 90–99. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.21.2.90 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calvete, E., Orue, I., & González-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, 283–290.10.1027/1015-5759/a000158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caprara, G. V., Alessandri, G., Eisenberg, N., Kupfer, A., Steca, P., Caprara, M. G., Yamaguchi, S., Fukuzawa, A., & Abela, J. (2012). The Positivity Scale. Psychological Assessment, 24, 701.10.1037/a0026681CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chodkiewicz, J., & Gruszczyńska, E. (2018). Maladaptive schemas among people addicted to alcohol: heterogeneity but not specificity? Alcohol and Alcoholism, 53, 682–687. https://doi.org/10.1093/alcalc/agy047 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cui, L., Lin, W., & Oei, T. P. S. (2011). Factor structure and psychometric properties of the Young Schema Questionnaire (short form) in Chinese undergraduate students. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 9, 645–655. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-010-9283-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forbes, M. K., Sunderland, M., Rapee, R. M., Batterham, P. J., Calear, A. L., Carragher, N., Ruggero, C., Zimmerman, M., Baillie, A. J., & Lynch, S. J. (2021). A detailed hierarchical model of psychopathology: from individual symptoms up to the general factor of psychopathology. Clinical Psychological Science, 9, 139–168.10.1177/2167702620954799CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldberg, D., & Williams, P. (2000). General Health Questionnaire (GHQ). Swindon, UK: NferNelson.Google Scholar
Hancock, G. R., & Mueller, R. O. (2011). The reliability paradox in assessing structural relations within covariance structure models. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 71, 306–324. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164410384856 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawke, L. D., & Provencher, M. D. (2012). The Canadian French Young Schema Questionnaire: confirmatory factor analysis and validation in clinical and non-clinical samples. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue Canadienne Des Sciences Du Comportement, 44, 40–49. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026197 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HiTOP Clinical Network. https://hitop.unt.edu/introduction Google Scholar
Hoffart, A., Sexton, H., Hedley, L. M., Wang, C. E., Holthe, H., Haugum, J. A., Nordahl, H. M., Hovland, O. J., & Holte, A. (2005). The structure of maladaptive schemas: a confirmatory factor analysis and a psychometric evaluation of factor-derived scales. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 29, 627–644. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-005-9630-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khosravani, V., Najafi, M., & Mohammadzadeh, A. (2020). The Young Schema Questionnaire-Short Form: a Persian version among a large sample of psychiatric patients. International Journal of Mental Health & Addiction, 18, 949–967. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-018-9997-2 CrossRefGoogle 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, 205–212. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000143 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kriston, L., Schäfer, J., von Wolff, A., Härter, M., & Hölzel, L. P. (2012). The latent factor structure of Young’s Early Maladaptive Schemas: are schemas organized into domains? Journal of Clinical Psychology, 68, 684–698. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.21846 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lachenal-Chevallet, K., Mauchand, P., Cottraux, J., Bouvard, M., & Martin, R. (2006). Factor analysis of the Schema Questionnaire-Short Form in a nonclinical sample. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 20, 311–318. https://doi.org/10.1891/jcop.20.3.311 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, C. W., Taylor, G., & Dunn, J. (1999). Factor structure of the Schema Questionnaire in a large clinical sample. Cognitive Therapy & Research, 23, 441–451. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018712202933 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, S. J., Choi, Y. H., Rim, H. D., Won, S. H., & Lee, D.-W. (2015). Reliability and validity of the Korean Young Schema Questionnaire-Short Form-3 in medical students. Psychiatry Investigation, 12, 295–304. https://doi.org/10.4306/pi.2015.12.3.295 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li-Xia, Z., Chen-Jun, J., Hong-Zhen, F., Shu-Ping, T., Zhi-Ren, W., Qing-Yan, Y., Jun-Ran, Z., & Yi-Zhuang, Z. (2012). Reliability and validity of the Chinese version of Young Schema Questionnaire-Short Form. Chinese Mental Health Journal, 26, 226–229.Google Scholar
McNeish, D., An, J., & Hancock, G. R. (2018). The thorny relation between measurement quality and fit index cutoffs in latent variable models. Journal of Personality Assessment, 100, 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2017.1281286 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oettingen, J., Chodkiewicz, J., Mącik, D., & Gruszczyńska, E. (2018). Polish adaptation of the Young Schema Questionnaire-3-Short Form (YSQ-S3-PL). Psychiatria Polska, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.12740/PP/OnlineFirst/76541 Google Scholar
Rijkeboer, M. M., & van den Bergh, H. (2006). Multiple group confirmatory factor analysis of the Young Schema Questionnaire in a Dutch clinical versus non-clinical population. Cognitive Therapy & Research, 30, 263–278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-006-9051-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, M. (2015). Society and the Adolescent Self-Image. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ruggero, C. J., Kotov, R., Hopwood, C. J., First, M., Clark, L. A., Skodol, A. E., Mullins-Sweatt, S. N., Patrick, C. J., Bach, B., & Cicero, D. C. (2019). Integrating the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP) into clinical practice. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 87, 1069.10.1037/ccp0000452CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saariaho, T., Saariaho, A., Karila, I., & Joukamaa, M. (2009). The psychometric properties of the Finnish Young Schema Questionnaire in chronic pain patients and a non-clinical sample. Journal of Behavior Therapy & Experimental Psychiatry, 40, 158–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2008.07.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saggino, A., Balsamo, M., Carlucci, L., Cavalletti, V., Sergi, M. R., da Fermo, G., Dèttore, D., Marsigli, N., Petruccelli, I., Pizzo, S., & Tommasi, M. (2018). Psychometric properties of the Italian version of the Young Schema Questionnaire L-3: preliminary Results. Frontiers In Psychology, 9, 312–312. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00312 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sakulsriprasert, C., Phukao, D., Kanjanawong, S., & Meemon, N. (2016). The reliability and factor structure of Thai Young Schema Questionnaire-Short Form 3. Asian Journal of Psychiatry, 24, 85–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajp.2016.09.011 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Samuel, D., & Ball, S. (2013). The factor structure and concurrent validity of the Early Maladaptive Schema Questionnaire: research version. Cognitive Therapy & Research, 37, 150–159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-012-9439-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saritaş, D., & Gençö, T. (2011). Psychometric properties of ‘Young Schema Questionnaire-Short Form 3’ in a Turkish adolescent sample. Journal of Cognitive & Behavioral Psychotherapies, 11, 83–96.Google Scholar
Schmidt, N. B., Joiner, T. E., Young, J. E., & Telch, M. J. (1995). The Schema Questionnaire: investigation of psychometric properties and the hierarchical structure of a measure of maladaptive schemas. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 19, 295–321. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02230402 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slepecky, M., Kotianova, A., Sollár, T., Ociskova, M., Turzakova, J., Zatkova, M., Popelkova, M., Prasko, J., Solgajová, A., Romanova, M., & Trizna, P. (2019). Internal consistency and factorial validity of the Slovak version of the Young Schema Questionnaire-Short Form 3 (YSQ-S3). Neuroendocrinology Letters, 40, 141–148.Google Scholar
Stein, D. J., & Young, J. E. (1992). Schema approach to personality disorders. In Stein, D. J., & Young, J. E. (eds), Cognitive Science and Clinical Disorders (pp. 271–288). Academic Press.Google Scholar
Unoka, Z., Tölgyes, T., & Czobor, P. (2007). Early maladaptive schemas and body mass index in subgroups of eating disorders: a differential association. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 48, 199–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2006.09.002 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1999). The PANAS-X: Manual for the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule-Expanded Form. Ames: The University of Iowa.Google Scholar
Welburn, K., Coristine, M., Dagg, P., Pontefract, A., & Jordan, S. (2002). The Schema Questionnaire-Short Form: factor analysis and relationship between schemas and symptoms. Cognitive Therapy & Research, 26, 519. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016231902020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yalcin, O., Lee, C., & Correia, H. (2020). Factor structure of the Young Schema Questionnaire (Long Form-3). Australian Psychologist, 55, 546–558. https://doi.org/10.1111/ap.12458 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, W., Cui, C., Xu, W., Fu, Z., & Wang, J. (2017). Reliability and validity of the young schema questionnaire in Tibetan adolescents. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 25, 101–104.Google Scholar
Young, J. E. (1990). Cognitive therapy for personality disorders: A schema-focused approach. Sarasota, FL, England: Professional Resource Exchange, Inc.Google Scholar
Young, J. E. (1994). Cognitive therapy for personality disorders: A schema-focused approach. Rev. ed. Sarasota, FL, US: Professional Resource Press/Professional Resource Exchange.Google Scholar
Young, J. E. (1998). Young Schema Questionnaire Short Form. Cognitive Therapy Center.Google Scholar
Young, J. E., Klosko, J. S., & Weishaar, M. E. (2003). Schema Therapy: A Practitioner’s Guide. Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Young, J. E., Rygh, J. L., Weinberger, A. D., & Beck, A. T. (2008). Cognitive therapy for depression. In Barlow, D. H. (ed), Clinical Handbook of Psychological Disorders: A Step-by-Step Treatment Manual (pp. 250–305). The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Yuan, K.-H. (2005). Fit indices versus test statistics. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 40, 115–148. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr4001_5 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Mącik and Mącik supplementary material

Table S1

Download Mącik and Mącik supplementary material(File)
File 17.3 KB
Supplementary material: File

Mącik and Mącik supplementary material

Table S2

Download Mącik and Mącik supplementary material(File)
File 18.7 KB
Supplementary material: File

Mącik and Mącik supplementary material

Table S3

Download Mącik and Mącik supplementary material(File)
File 19.5 KB
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.