Limits...
A short version of the revised 'experience of close relationships questionnaire': investigating non-clinical and clinical samples.

Wongpakaran T, Wongpakaran N - Clin Pract Epidemiol Ment Health (2012)

Bottom Line: The ECR-R-18 showed a fair to good internal consistency (α 0.77 to 0.87) for both samples, and the test-retest reliability was found to be satisfactory (ICC = 0.75).The ECR-R-18 questionnaire revealed an overall better level of fit than the original 36 item questionnaire, indicating its suitability for use with a broader group of samples, including clinical samples.The reliability of the ECR-R- 18 might be increased if a modified scoring system is used and if our suggestions with regard to future studies are followed up.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: 110/147 Intawarorote Rd, Amphur Muang, Chiang Mai, Thailand 50200, Department of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University.

ABSTRACT

Aim: This study seeks to investigate the psychometric properties of the short version of the revised 'Experience of Close Relationships' questionnaire, comparing non-clinical and clinical samples.

Methods: In total 702 subjects participated in this study, of whom 531 were non-clinical participants and 171 were psychiatric patients. They completed the short version of the revised 'Experience of Close Relationships' questionnaire (ECR-R-18), the Perceived Stress Scale-10(PSS-10), the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES) and the UCLA Loneliness scale. A retest of the ECR-R-18 was then performed at four-week intervals. Then, confirmatory factor analyses were performed to test the validity of the new scale.

Results: The ECR-R-18 showed a fair to good internal consistency (α 0.77 to 0.87) for both samples, and the test-retest reliability was found to be satisfactory (ICC = 0.75). The anxiety sub-scale demonstrated concurrent validity with PSS-10 and RSES, while the avoidance sub-scale showed concurrent validity with the UCLA Loneliness Scale. Confirmatory factor analysis using method factors yielded two factors with an acceptable model fit for both groups. An invariance test revealed that the ECR-R-18 when used on the clinical group differed from when used with the non-clinical group.

Conclusions: The ECR-R-18 questionnaire revealed an overall better level of fit than the original 36 item questionnaire, indicating its suitability for use with a broader group of samples, including clinical samples. The reliability of the ECR-R- 18 might be increased if a modified scoring system is used and if our suggestions with regard to future studies are followed up.

No MeSH data available.


ECR-R-18 with Method Factors (Positively and Negatively Worded).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3367387&req=5

Figure 2: ECR-R-18 with Method Factors (Positively and Negatively Worded).

Mentions: As found in Wei’s study, a poor fit influences the production of systematic errors that might be due to the items’ wording style, that is, participants may have a systematic way of responding to negatively and positively worded items, regardless of the content of the item. Therefore, method factors, where two orthogonal factors that corresponded to a negatively or positively worded item, were employed here (Fig. 2).


A short version of the revised 'experience of close relationships questionnaire': investigating non-clinical and clinical samples.

Wongpakaran T, Wongpakaran N - Clin Pract Epidemiol Ment Health (2012)

ECR-R-18 with Method Factors (Positively and Negatively Worded).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3367387&req=5

Figure 2: ECR-R-18 with Method Factors (Positively and Negatively Worded).
Mentions: As found in Wei’s study, a poor fit influences the production of systematic errors that might be due to the items’ wording style, that is, participants may have a systematic way of responding to negatively and positively worded items, regardless of the content of the item. Therefore, method factors, where two orthogonal factors that corresponded to a negatively or positively worded item, were employed here (Fig. 2).

Bottom Line: The ECR-R-18 showed a fair to good internal consistency (α 0.77 to 0.87) for both samples, and the test-retest reliability was found to be satisfactory (ICC = 0.75).The ECR-R-18 questionnaire revealed an overall better level of fit than the original 36 item questionnaire, indicating its suitability for use with a broader group of samples, including clinical samples.The reliability of the ECR-R- 18 might be increased if a modified scoring system is used and if our suggestions with regard to future studies are followed up.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: 110/147 Intawarorote Rd, Amphur Muang, Chiang Mai, Thailand 50200, Department of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University.

ABSTRACT

Aim: This study seeks to investigate the psychometric properties of the short version of the revised 'Experience of Close Relationships' questionnaire, comparing non-clinical and clinical samples.

Methods: In total 702 subjects participated in this study, of whom 531 were non-clinical participants and 171 were psychiatric patients. They completed the short version of the revised 'Experience of Close Relationships' questionnaire (ECR-R-18), the Perceived Stress Scale-10(PSS-10), the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES) and the UCLA Loneliness scale. A retest of the ECR-R-18 was then performed at four-week intervals. Then, confirmatory factor analyses were performed to test the validity of the new scale.

Results: The ECR-R-18 showed a fair to good internal consistency (α 0.77 to 0.87) for both samples, and the test-retest reliability was found to be satisfactory (ICC = 0.75). The anxiety sub-scale demonstrated concurrent validity with PSS-10 and RSES, while the avoidance sub-scale showed concurrent validity with the UCLA Loneliness Scale. Confirmatory factor analysis using method factors yielded two factors with an acceptable model fit for both groups. An invariance test revealed that the ECR-R-18 when used on the clinical group differed from when used with the non-clinical group.

Conclusions: The ECR-R-18 questionnaire revealed an overall better level of fit than the original 36 item questionnaire, indicating its suitability for use with a broader group of samples, including clinical samples. The reliability of the ECR-R- 18 might be increased if a modified scoring system is used and if our suggestions with regard to future studies are followed up.

No MeSH data available.