Limits...
Construct validity and reliability of the adult rejection sensitivity questionnaire: a comparison of three factor models.

Innamorati M, Balsamo M, Fairfield B, Fabbricatore M, Tamburello A, Saggino A - Depress Res Treat (2014)

Bottom Line: Limitations.We administered an Italian version of the ARSQ to a nonclinical sample of adults, so that studies which use clinical populations or the original version of the ARSQ could obtain different results from those presented here.Conclusion.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Psychological, Humanistic and Territorial Sciences (DISPUTer), "G. d'Annunzio" University, 66013 Chieti, Italy ; European University of Rome, 00163 Rome, Italy ; Skinner Institute, 00184 Rome, Italy.

ABSTRACT
Objectives and Methods. The aim of the study was to investigate the construct validity of the ARSQ. Methods. The ARSQ and self-report measures of depression, anxiety, and hopelessness were administered to 774 Italian adults, aged 18 to 64 years. Results. Structural equation modeling indicated that the factor structure of the ARSQ can be represented by a bifactor model: a general rejection sensitivity factor and two group factors, expectancy of rejection and rejection anxiety. Reliability of observed scores was not satisfactory: only 44% of variance in observed total scores was due to the common factors. The analyses also indicated different correlates for the general factor and the group factors. Limitations. We administered an Italian version of the ARSQ to a nonclinical sample of adults, so that studies which use clinical populations or the original version of the ARSQ could obtain different results from those presented here. Conclusion. Our results suggest that the construct validity of the ARSQ is disputable and that rejection anxiety and expectancy could bias individuals to readily perceive and strongly react to cues of rejection in different ways.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Bifactor model.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4109080&req=5

fig3: Bifactor model.

Mentions: Thus, the evidence supporting the use of the ARSQ in the adult population is scarce, and information on the validity of this questionnaire is still limited. Thus, the major aim of the present research was to investigate construct validity of the ARSQ. First, we investigated the dimensionality of the ARSQ, comparing the original one-factor model (Figure 1) investigated by Downey and Feldman [1] in the original study on the RSQ with two alternative models (a 2nd-order factor model (Figure 2) and a bifactor model (Figure 3)). Furthermore, the one-factor model assumes that rejection expectancy and rejection concern contribute equally to the final rejection sensitivity score. The 2nd-order factor model (compared to the one-factor model) has the advantage that it tests the assumption that rejection sensitivity scores could be derived from weighting, for each situation, the expected likelihood of rejection and the degree of concern over its occurrence. Similarly, compared with the one-factor model, the bifactor model provides other advantages, permitting to address some questions still unexplored. (1) Is the ARSQ unidimensional or multidimensional? (2) To what degree does total scale score reflect reliable variation on a single construct? (3) Could rejection anxiety and expectancy be considered as two independent dimensions?


Construct validity and reliability of the adult rejection sensitivity questionnaire: a comparison of three factor models.

Innamorati M, Balsamo M, Fairfield B, Fabbricatore M, Tamburello A, Saggino A - Depress Res Treat (2014)

Bifactor model.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4109080&req=5

fig3: Bifactor model.
Mentions: Thus, the evidence supporting the use of the ARSQ in the adult population is scarce, and information on the validity of this questionnaire is still limited. Thus, the major aim of the present research was to investigate construct validity of the ARSQ. First, we investigated the dimensionality of the ARSQ, comparing the original one-factor model (Figure 1) investigated by Downey and Feldman [1] in the original study on the RSQ with two alternative models (a 2nd-order factor model (Figure 2) and a bifactor model (Figure 3)). Furthermore, the one-factor model assumes that rejection expectancy and rejection concern contribute equally to the final rejection sensitivity score. The 2nd-order factor model (compared to the one-factor model) has the advantage that it tests the assumption that rejection sensitivity scores could be derived from weighting, for each situation, the expected likelihood of rejection and the degree of concern over its occurrence. Similarly, compared with the one-factor model, the bifactor model provides other advantages, permitting to address some questions still unexplored. (1) Is the ARSQ unidimensional or multidimensional? (2) To what degree does total scale score reflect reliable variation on a single construct? (3) Could rejection anxiety and expectancy be considered as two independent dimensions?

Bottom Line: Limitations.We administered an Italian version of the ARSQ to a nonclinical sample of adults, so that studies which use clinical populations or the original version of the ARSQ could obtain different results from those presented here.Conclusion.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Psychological, Humanistic and Territorial Sciences (DISPUTer), "G. d'Annunzio" University, 66013 Chieti, Italy ; European University of Rome, 00163 Rome, Italy ; Skinner Institute, 00184 Rome, Italy.

ABSTRACT
Objectives and Methods. The aim of the study was to investigate the construct validity of the ARSQ. Methods. The ARSQ and self-report measures of depression, anxiety, and hopelessness were administered to 774 Italian adults, aged 18 to 64 years. Results. Structural equation modeling indicated that the factor structure of the ARSQ can be represented by a bifactor model: a general rejection sensitivity factor and two group factors, expectancy of rejection and rejection anxiety. Reliability of observed scores was not satisfactory: only 44% of variance in observed total scores was due to the common factors. The analyses also indicated different correlates for the general factor and the group factors. Limitations. We administered an Italian version of the ARSQ to a nonclinical sample of adults, so that studies which use clinical populations or the original version of the ARSQ could obtain different results from those presented here. Conclusion. Our results suggest that the construct validity of the ARSQ is disputable and that rejection anxiety and expectancy could bias individuals to readily perceive and strongly react to cues of rejection in different ways.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus