Kriston (2013) - YSQ German Psychometry

European
L. Kriston
Journalof
et al.:
Psychological
Reliability and
Assessment
Validity
2013;
of
2012
theVol.
Hogrefe
German
29(3):205212
Publishing
YSQ-S3
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Original Article
Reliability and Validity of the

German Version of the
Young Schema Questionnaire
Short Form 3 (YSQ-S3)
Levente Kriston1, Janina Schfer2, Gitta A. Jacob2,3,
Martin Hrter1, and Lars P. Hlzel2
1
Department of Medical Psychology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg,

Germany, 2Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg
i. Br., Germany, 3Institute of Psychology, University of Freiburg, Freiburg i. Br., Germany
Abstract. To date, the psychometric properties of the German version of the Young Schema Questionnaire Short Form 3 (YSQ-S3)
have not yet been examined. We investigated the reliability and validity of the German version of the YSQ-S3. In a community sample
of 1,150 participants and a clinical sample of 30 psychiatric inpatients, we performed reliability analysis, confirmatory factor analysis,
and correlation analyses, and tested for group differences using analysis of variance. The YSQ-S3 proved to be reliable and corresponded
to the theoretically proposed 18-dimensional structure. Schema scores were positively associated with measures of psychopathology and
personality disorder, indicating convergent validity. Furthermore, the YSQ-S3 differentiated between participant subgroups defined by
level of health-care utilization, supporting discriminant validity. We conclude that the YSQ-S3 is a psychometrically sound instrument
that can be used in German-speaking countries in research on early maladaptive schemas. Further research is necessary particularly in
larger clinical samples.
Keywords: early maladaptive schema, Young Schema Questionnaire, factor structure, reliability, validity
Introduction
Schema therapy is a psychotherapy approach combining
traditional cognitive-behavioral therapy with elements of
psychodynamic approaches, Gestalt therapy, and humanistic therapies (Young, Klosko, & Weishaar, 2003). It recently gained increased attention, since outcome studies demonstrated its efficacy and effectiveness in patients with personality disorders, mainly borderline personality disorder
(Farrell, Shaw, & Webber, 2009; Giessen-Bloo et al., 2006;
Gude & Hoffart, 2008; Nadort et al., 2009; Nordahl &
Nysaeter, 2005).
Central to schema therapy is the concept of early maladaptive schemas (EMS), thought to develop in childhood
when essential needs of the child remain unmet. EMS comprise feelings, cognitions, bodily sensations, and coping behaviors (Young et al., 2003). Young et al. defined 18 schemas, clustered in five schema domains, each of which is
considered to be connected with specific unmet childhood
needs (see Table 1).
2012 Hogrefe Publishing
EMS are usually assessed with self-report questionnaires, mainly the Young Schema Questionnaire (YSQ).
The original version of this instrument was developed by
Young (1990) to assess 16 schemas. It consists of 205
items, and it was shown to be reliable and valid in large
clinical and student samples (Schmidt, Joiner, Young, &
Telch, 1995). Based on the findings of Schmidt et al.
(1995), Young and Brown (1994) developed a short form
of the YSQ comprising five items for each of the 16 EMS.
The psychometric properties of various translations of both
YSQ versions have been investigated in several studies
(overview in Oei & Baranoff, 2007). In their review, Oei
and Baranoff (2007) conclude that internal consistency,
test-retest reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant
validity of the YSQ are sufficient to warrant the use of the
YSQ in research settings. However, since findings on the
factorial structure are conflicting, the relevance of further
research was highlighted (Oei & Baranoff, 2007).
The short form of the YSQ has been revised repeatedly.
In its latest form, the YSQ-S3, it comprises 90 items asEuropean Journal of Psychological Assessment 2013; Vol. 29(3):205212
DOI: 10.1027/1015-5759/a000143
206
L. Kriston et al.: Reliability and Validity of the German YSQ-S3
sessing 18 schemas with five items each (Young, 2005). To

date, four studies have tested the psychometric qualities of
the YSQ-S3 in four different languages (Portuguese: Rijo
& Gouveia, 2008; Finnish: Saariaho, Saariaho, Karila, &
Joukamaa, 2009; Turkish: Soygt, Karaosmano6lu, & Cakir, 2009; Romanian: Trip, 2006). All studies found good
discriminant validity with regard to group differences (patient groups always scored higher than psychologically
healthy groups) and correlations with other measures of
psychopathology, but results regarding the factorial structure were less conclusive. Trip (2006) found high internal
consistency of all subscales in a Romanian version. Rijo
and Gouveia (2008) confirmed the proposed factorial structure in a Portuguese sample by confirmatory factor analysis; however, six items had to be removed due to substantial
crossloadings. With a Turkish version, Soygt et al. (2009)
found 14 of the proposed 18 factors in a principal components analysis. Saariaho et al. (2009) tested a Finnish translation of the YSQ-S3 and verified the 18-factor structure
using confirmatory factor analysis. Furthermore, internal
consistency of all subscales was high. Putting together the
findings from theses studies suggests that the YSQ-S3 is a
psychometrically sound instrument.
So far, the German translation of the YSQ-S3 (Young,
2006; German translation: Berbalk, Grutschpalk, Parfy, &
Zarbock) has yet to be tested for psychometric properties.
An increasing number of both schema therapy studies in
the German-speaking region and international schema therapy studies with German-speaking centers, however, call
for a psychometric test of the German YSQ-S3. With this
study we examined the reliability as well as factorial, convergent, and discriminant validity of the German YSQ-S3.
Instruments
The YSQ-S3 (Young, 2006) is a self-report instrument. People are asked to describe themselves by rating descriptive
statements through a 6-step Likert-type response format
ranging from completely untrue of me to describes me perfectly. Higher values indicate a stronger presence of the respective schema. The YSQ-S3 assesses 18 EMS (see Table
1) with five items per scale, resulting in a total of 90 items.
Table 1. Schemas, schema domains, and associated needs
Schema domains Associated needs
Disconnection
Schemas
Emotional deprivation
Safe attachment,
acceptance, nurtur- Abandonment/Instability
Mistrust/Abuse
ing, protection
Social isolation/Alienation
Defectiveness/Shame
Impaired autono- Autonomy, compe- Failure to achieve

my and achieve- tency, identity
Dependence/Incompetence
ment
Vulnerability to harm or illness
Enmeshment/Undeveloped
self
Impaired limits
Realistic limits and Entitlement/Grandiosity

self-control
Insufficient self-control
Other-directedness
Free expression of Subjugation

needs and emotions Self-sacrifice
Approval-seeking
Exaggerated vigi- Spontaneity and

lance and inhibi- play
tion
Emotional inhibition
Unrelenting standards
Negativity/Pessimism
Punitiveness
Cross-sectional data were collected in a convenience community sample and a clinical sample. Data in the community sample were collected via internet from July 14 to August 13, 2009. The survey link was distributed via email to
psychology faculties at German universities, several internet forums, and the of authors surroundings. Participants
did not get incentives for study participation, and no personal data (e.g., IP-address) were recorded.
Data from the clinical sample were collected among inpatients of the psychiatric Department of a university medical center between August 14 and September 25, 2009.
Patients gave written informed consent and were then
asked to fill out a paper-and-pencil version of the instruments used in the online survey. Completed questionnaires
were collected in envelopes that were closed by the patients
themselves to ensure anonymity.
The study protocol was approved by the local ethics
committee.
A short-form of the Symptom Checklist 90-R (SCL-90-R;

Derogatis, 1992), the SCL-K-9 (Klaghofer & Brhler, 2001),
was administered as a global measure of psychological distress. Participants rated the intensity of psychopathological
symptoms within the past week on nine 5-step Likert-scaled
items. The SCL-K9 measures a single dimension of general
symptom severity and correlates with the General Severity
Index (GSI) of the SCL-90-R to a degree of 0.93 with a Cronbachs of 0.87 (Klaghofer & Brhler, 2001).
Furthermore, a brief self-rating instrument to assess
symptoms of personality disorders was used. The Standardized Assessment of Personality Abbreviated Scale (SAPAS; Moran et al., 2003) contains eight items with a binary
response format. Germans, van Heck, Moran, and Hodiamont (2008) used it as a self-rating instrument and found a
good test-retest reliability of 0.89 and a Cronbachs of
0.45. Discriminant validity was sufficient with a correct
classification rate of 81% in subjects with and without personality disorders.
Additionally, self-reported demographic (sex, age,
family status, level of education, employment status) and
clinical data (self-reported diagnosis of a mental disorder
and past health care utilization due to a mental disorder)
were collected.
European Journal of Psychological Assessment 2013; Vol. 29(3):205212
Materials and Methods

Sampling Procedure
Statistical Analysis
Due to the limited size of the clinical sample, analysis of
reliability as well as factorial and convergent validity was
calculated only with data from the community sample.
Reliability was estimated by calculating item discrimination statistics and Cronbachs for each scale. Factorial
validity was analyzed with confirmatory factor analysis.
The predefined structure consisted of 18 oblique (correlated) factors (representing schemas) and uncorrelated errors corresponding to Youngs model. The covariance matrix of the items was analyzed by means of maximum likelihood estimation. We preferred to analyze the covariance
Table 2. Sample characteristics
Community Clinical
sample
sample
n = 1,150
n = 30
female
899 (78.2)
19 (67.9)
male
251 (21.8)
9 (32.1)
Sex; n (%)
Age; years
mean (SD)
29.3 (10.1) 40.5 (11.4)
Family status; n (%)

single
896 (77.9)
17 (56.7)
married
188 (16.3)
9 (30.0)
separated
15 (1.3)
2 (6.7)
divorced
48 (4.2)
widowed
3 (0.3)
2 (6.7)
0 (0)
Level of education; n (%)

low
29 (2.5)
5 (16.7)
middle
223 (19.4)
12 (40.0)
high
898 (78.1)
13 (43.3)
451 (39.2)
9 (33.3)
207
rather than the correlation matrix because the latter is likely to lead to statistical and generalizability problems (e.g.,
Cudeck, 1989; Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2009).
Although the responses to the items of the YSQ-S3 should
be considered ordered categorical rather than continuous,
we applied the maximum likelihood estimator, since it
was shown to be robust in similar situations. Furthermore,
alternative estimation methods would have required a
considerably larger sample size (e.g., Green, Akey, Fleming, Hershberger, & Marquis, 1997; Muthn & Kaplan,
1985; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Local fit was investigated by examining factor loadings, factor reliabilities,
average extracted variance in items, and congruence (correlation) between factor scores and corresponding scale
sum scores. According to expert recommendations (e.g.,
Hair et al., 2009; Kline, 2010; Schweizer, 2010), we assessed global model fit using the discrepancy statistic,
the normed statistic, the Bentler comparative fit index
(CFI), the root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA), and the standardized root mean square residual
(SRMR). A more detailed evaluation of the latent factorial
structure of the YSQ-S3 was reported by Kriston, Schfer,
Hrter, and Hlzel (2010). Convergent validity was estimated via Pearson correlation coefficients between schema scales and general distress (SCL-K-9) as well as symptoms of personality disorders (SAPAS), respectively.
Discriminant validity was examined by comparing
schema scale scores of the clinical and the community
sample and by comparing subjects with different intensity of health care utilization within the community sample
(former counseling, former outpatient treatment, former
inpatient treatment due to a mental disorder). Mean schema scale scores were compared across groups by univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA). All analyses were
performed using SPSS 15.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL) and
Mplus 5.1 (Muthn & Muthn, 1998).
Occupational status; n (%)

employed
homemaker
23 (2.0)
1 (3.7)
pensioner
23 (2.0)
5 (18.5)
student
557 (48.4)
3 (11.1)
unemployed
35 (3.0)
9 (33.3)
other
61 (5.3)
0 (0)
Lifetime diagnosis of a mental health disorder; n (%)

yes
244 (21.2)
no
906 (78.8)
Health care utilization due to mental health disorder; n (%)a

none
755 (65.7)
counseling
220 (19.1)
outpatient treatment
229 (19.9)
inpatient treatment
81 (7.0)
Notes. Missing data were not present in the community sample. Valid
sample size varies between 27 and 30 in the clinical sample because
of missing data (valid percentages are reported). Data on lifetime
mental health-disorder diagnosis and health-care utilization were not
collected in the clinical sample. amultiple selections possible.
Results
Participant Characteristics
Data were collected from 1,150 online survey participants
(community sample) and 30 psychiatric patients (clinical
sample). Sample characteristics are given in Table 2.
Community sample participants were mostly female,
rather young, and highly educated. One fifth reported a lifetime diagnosis of a mental disorder. The most frequent entries were affective disorder (n = 134), anxiety disorder (n
= 43), eating disorder (n = 32), and borderline personality
disorder (n = 25).
The majority of the clinical sample was female. Their
mean age was 40 years. Most patients had a medium to high
level of education and around one third were employed.
The reasons for inpatient treatment (including comorbid
diseases) were affective disorder (n = 17), psychotic disorEuropean Journal of Psychological Assessment 2013; Vol. 29(3):205212
208
Table 3. Results of the reliability analysis
Corrected item-total correlations

Scale (schema)
1st item
2nd item
3rd item
4th item
5th item
0.70
0.74
0.70
0.80
0.60
0.88
Abandonment/Instability
0.67
0.71
0.76
0.63
0.67
0.87
Mistrust/Abuse
0.52
0.62
0.66
0.72
0.58
0.82
0.77
0.61
0.82
0.79
0.81
0.90
Defectiveness/Shame
0.75
0.84
0.79
0.79
0.74
0.91
Failure to achieve
0.73
0.50
0.79
0.78
0.74
0.87
0.63
0.61
0.58
0.55
0.71
0.82
0.61
0.70
0.44
0.47
0.54
0.77
Enmeshment/Undeveloped self
0.57
0.57
0.43
0.60
0.59
0.78
Subjugation
0.57
0.66
0.53
0.61
0.68
0.82
Self-sacrifice
0.53
0.51
0.67
0.55
0.63
0.80
0.71
0.73
0.58
0.68
0.77
0.87
0.52
0.57
0.51
0.54
0.36
0.74
Entitlement/Grandiosity
0.34
0.55
0.30
0.51
0.43
0.67
0.61
0.57
0.52
0.61
0.56
0.80
Approval-seeking
0.42
0.62
0.62
0.60
0.58
0.79
0.71
0.72
0.71
0.58
0.65
0.86
Punitiveness
Note. refers to Cronbachs .
0.54
0.44
0.45
0.47
0.39
0.70
der (n = 6), anxiety disorder (n = 4), borderline personality

disorder (n = 4), obsessive-compulsive disorder (n = 2),
posttraumatic stress disorder (n = 2), attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder (n = 2), substance dependence (n =
1), and somatoform disorder (n = 1).
Reliability
Results of the reliability analysis are shown in Table 3. Item
discriminations (corrected item-total correlations) exceeded the recommended threshold of 0.40 in all but four cases
(one item of the scale Unrelenting Standards, two items of
the scale Entitlement/Grandiosity, and one item of the scale
Punitiveness). Internal consistency of 17 of the 18 scales
was sufficient (Cronbachs > 0.70). Internal consistency
of the scale Entitlement/Grandiosity was 0.67.
extracted variance in items of the scales Entitlement/Grandiosity and Punitiveness was substantially lower than required (0.34 and 0.37, respectively). Factor-scale
congruence (correlation between factor scores and corresponding scale sum scores) was high (at least 0.95) for 17
scales. Congruence of the scale Punitiveness yielded 0.85.
All factors were positively and statistically significantly
(p < .001) interrelated, with correlations ranging from
0.21 to 0.87.
The discrepancy test indicated a statistically significant misfit between defined and observed variance-covariance matrix (2 = 11,516.1; df = 3,762; p < .001). The
normed statistic (3.06) marginally exceeded the
threshold for an acceptable fit (below 3.00). The CFI
(0.847) missed the required threshold for an acceptable
fit (above 0.90). The RMSEA (0.042; 95% CI =
0.0410.043) was less than 0.050, indicating a good fit.
The SRMR (0.060) stayed below 0.100 signifying an acceptable model fit.
Factorial Validity
Factorial validity results are reported in Table 4. Loadings
of all but three items exceeded the required threshold of
0.40 (one item of the scale Entitlement/Grandiosity, two
items of the scale Punitiveness). Factor reliability was satisfactory (> 0.70) in all scales except Entitlement/Grandiosity. Average extracted variance failed to reach the desired threshold of 0.50 but was still above 0.40 for the
scales Vulnerability to Harm or Illness, Enmeshment/Undeveloped Self, Self-Sacrifice, Unrelenting Standards, Insufficient Self-Control, and Approval-Seeking. Average
Convergent Validity
Pearson correlation coefficients (r) between YSQ-S3 scales
and general psychopathology as measured by the SCL-K-9
ranged from 0.28 (Scale Entitlement/Grandiosity) to 0.65
(scales Abandonment/Instability and Negativity/Pessimism) as reported in Table 4. Twelve of the 18 scales
showed a medium or strong association (r > 0.5) with the
SCL-K-9.
Associations of the YSQ-S3 scales with symptoms of
209
Table 4. Results of the factorial and convergent validity analysis

Factor loadings
Scale (schema)
1st item
Factor
2nd item 3rd item 4th item
5th item
Variance Factor
reliability extracted congruence
Correlation with
SCL-K-9 SAPAS
0.74
0.81
0.78
0.87
0.64
0.88
0.62
0.98
0.50
0.48
Abandonment/Instability
0.70
0.74
0.85
0.69
0.77
0.87
0.61
0.98
0.65
0.56
Mistrust/Abuse
0.58
0.73
0.76
0.78
0.63
0.83
0.51
0.95
0.60
0.59
0.81
0.65
0.86
0.86
0.86
0.91
0.70
0.99
0.57
0.51
Defectiveness/Shame
0.80
0.87
0.84
0.84
0.80
0.92
0.72
0.99
0.59
0.54
Failure to achieve
0.78
0.58
0.85
0.85
0.80
0.89
0.65
0.99
0.55
0.41
0.69
0.69
0.66
0.62
0.81
0.83
0.54
0.95
0.61
0.51
0.79
0.82
0.48
0.56
0.60
0.78
0.47
0.95
0.60
0.47
Enmeshment/Undeveloped self
0.65
0.62
0.51
0.65
0.76
0.78
0.47
0.95
0.50
0.45
Subjugation
0.70
0.73
0.55
0.68
0.76
0.82
0.53
0.95
0.57
0.50
Self-sacrifice
0.60
0.57
0.79
0.62
0.73
0.80
0.48
0.98
0.34
0.22
0.77
0.80
0.67
0.75
0.81
0.87
0.62
0.99
0.44
0.42
0.64
0.66
0.61
0.67
0.45
0.74
0.42
0.96
0.37
0.41
Entitlement/Grandiosity
0.44
0.72
0.38
0.67
0.56
0.69
0.34
0.96
0.28
0.28
0.67
0.68
0.61
0.67
0.67
0.80
0.49
0.97
0.51
0.40
Approval-seeking
0.48
0.72
0.79
0.65
0.63
0.79
0.46
0.96
0.38
0.34
0.79
0.80
0.78
0.64
0.70
0.86
0.61
0.97
0.65
0.57
Punitiveness
0.72
0.57
0.34
0.39
0.68
0.67
0.37
0.85
0.42
0.39
Notes. All reported parameters are statistically significantly different from zero at p < .001. SCL-K-9 = Nine-item short-form of the Symptom
Checklist 90-R (SCL-90-R). SAPAS = Standardized Assessment of Personality Abbreviated Scale.
Figure 1. Mean schema profiles of subgroups according to health-care utilization. The overall difference between group
means in one-factorial analysis of variance is statistically significant for each scale at p < .001.
210
personality disorder as measured by the SAPAS were (with

the exception of the scale Unrelenting Standards) weaker
than associations with psychopathological symptoms, but
still statistically significant (see Table 4). Seven YSQ-S3
scales showed an at least medium-sized association (r >
0.5) with the SAPAS, with the scales Mistrust/Abuse, Negativity/Pessimism, and Abandonment/Instability yielding
the strongest interrelations.
The present study revealed strong empirical support for

the psychometric soundness of the German version of the
YSQ-S3. The instrument proved to be reliable and showed
acceptable factorial validity. Schema scores were positively associated with measures of psychopathology and
personality disorder, indicating convergent validity. The
YSQ-S3 differentiated between subgroups with different
levels of health-care utilization, supporting discriminant
validity. Although the scales Entitlement/Grandiosity and
Punitiveness showed some problems with regard to reliability and factorial validity, we still consider them sufficiently good to be used without serious revision.
All YSQ-S3 scales are associated with self-rated general psychopathology, personality disorder severity, and
health care utilization. Furthermore, YSQ-S3 scales are
highly interrelated. These results raise questions regarding the specificity of the schema constructs, i.e., whether
different schemas can indeed be regarded as different
constructs (Kriston et al., 2010), and/or whether they can
be grouped in a hierarchical structure (Rijo & Gouveia,
2008). Schema theory suggests five higher-order schema
domains (see Table 1; Young et al., 2003), however, the
validity of schema domains is currently being discussed
(Lockwood, 2011).
At first glance, global fit indexes are inconclusive in
confirmatory factor analysis. While some (discrepancy
chi-square test, normed , CFI) indicate poor fit, others
(RMSEA, SRMR) support the hypothesized structure.
However, Hair et al. (2009) note that the discrepancy
test is oversensitive (i.e., almost always statistically significant) in sample sizes over 300, and that the CFI tends
to indicate poorer fit with increasing model complexity.
Schweizer (2010) also points out that the recommended
cutoff limits for the normed statistic may need to be
enlarged in large samples. Since our study was conducted
with a large sample size (more than 1,000 participants)
and a rather complex model (18 correlated factors), we
relied on RMSEA and SRMR more strongly than on the
test and the CFI. But, it should be noted that our confirmatory factor-analytic model support is still slightly
weaker than in the study by Rijo and Gouveia (2008) and
considerably inferior to the findings reported by Saariaho
et al. (2009).
Surprisingly, YSQ-S3 scores are seemingly more
strongly related to general psychopathology than to personality disorder symptoms. Based on this finding one
might argue that the association between personality disorder features and reported schema scores are moderated
by schema modes that may weaken the intercorrelation
when avoidant/detached coping styles are present. However, Lobbestael, van Vreeswijk, and Arntz (2008) argue
that schema modes, particularly the so-called detached
protector mode, which covers avoidant/detached coping,
can reflect general psychopathology. Further investigation of the multiple associations between personality psychopathology, global psychopathology, schemas, and
schema modes are clearly necessary. However, a detailed
clinical discussion of this issue would go beyond the
scope of the present psychometric study. It should also
be noted that the instrument used for assessing personality disorder symptoms (SAPAS) uses binary items that
have higher response thresholds than items of the SCL.
This is likely to lead to a decreased variance of the SAPAS score, which in turn may deteriorate the Pearson correlation coefficients. In summary, no definite conclusion
on the comparison of these interrelations should be
drawn.
A major limitation of our study is our investigating a
convenience community sample. The online survey format allowed us to collect complete data from a large sample, but it did not allow for controlling the selection of
participants. However, a substantial proportion of the
community sample reported current or earlier health-care
treatment, and variance in YSQ-S3 scores was satisfyingly high. Demographic and clinical characteristics ranged
broadly, leading to a heterogeneous sample without a
clear population to which the findings could be generalized. Although we examined an additional clinical sample, its size was rather small because of limited resources.
Thus, further investigations in large clinical samples on
the psychometric properties of the YSQ-S3 are necessary.
To our knowledge this study is the first to test the German version of the YSQ-S3. Largely in agreement with
previous findings in other countries and with former versions of the instrument, we conclude that the YSQ-S3
Discriminant Validity
Statistically significant (p < .001) group differences in all
YSQ-S3 scales were found for groups defined by healthcare utilization (see Figure 1). Most schemas were most
pronounced in the clinical sample, followed by former
inpatients from the community sample. Similarly, outpatients scored lower than inpatients but higher than subjects reporting counseling sessions. Participants reporting
no mental-health related health-care utilization scored
lowest on all scales. Overall differences were most pronounced for schemas in the domains Disconnection and
Impaired Autonomy and Achievement (see Table 1).
Discussion
provides a valid and reliable measurement of Youngs

early maladaptive schemas.
Acknowledgments
We thank all persons who participated in the study either

as inpatients or by filling out the online survey. We are
grateful to the two anonymous reviewers for their helpful
comments on a previous version of the manuscript.
References
Cudeck, R. (1989). Analysis of correlation matrices using covariance structure models. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 317327.
Derogatis, L. R. (1992). The SCL-90-R, administration, scoring
and procedures manual (2nd ed.). Towson, MD: Clinical Psychometric Research.
Farrell, J. M., Shaw, I. A., & Webber, M. A. (2009). A schema-focused approach to group psychotherapy for outpatients with
borderline personality disorder: A randomized controlled trial.
Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 40,
317328.
Germans, S., van Heck, G. L., Moran, P., & Hodiamont, P. P. G.
(2008). The self-report Standardized Assessment of Personality-Abbreviated Scale: Preliminary results of a brief screening
test for personality disorders. Personality and Mental Health,
2, 7076.
Giessen-Bloo, J., van Dyck, R., Spinhoven, P., van Tilburg, W.,
Dirksen, C., van Asselt, T., . . . Arntz, A. (2006). Outpatient
psychotherapy for borderline personality disorder: randomized trial of schema-focused therapy vs. transference-focused psychotherapy. Archives of General Psychiatry, 63,
649658.
Green, S. B., Akey, T. M., Fleming, K. K., Hershberger, S. L., &
Marquis, J. G. (1997). Effect of the number of scale points
on chi-square fit indices in confirmatory factor analysis.
Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal,
4, 108120.
Gude, T., & Hoffart, A. (2008). Change in interpersonal problems
after cognitive agoraphobia and schema-focused therapy versus psychodynamic treatment as usual of inpatients with agoraphobia and cluster C personality disorders. Scandinavian
Journal of Psychology, 49, 195199.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2009).
Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Klaghofer, R., & Brhler, E. (2001). Konstruktion und teststatistische Prfung einer Kurzform der SCL-90-R [Construction
and psychometric evaluation of a short-form of the SCL-90R]. Zeitschrift fr Klinische Psychologie, Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie, 49, 115124.
Kline, R. B. (2010). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford.
Kriston, L., Schfer, J., Hrter, M., & Hlzel, L. (2010, July). All
the same? Factorial structure of the Young Schema Questionnaire Short Form 3 (YSQ-S3). Paper presented at the 4th
211
Annual International Society of Schema Therapy Meeting,

Berlin, Germany.
Lobbestael, J., van Vreeswijk, M., & Arntz, A. (2008). An empirical test of schema mode conceptualizations in personality disorders. Behavior Research and Therapy, 46, 854860.
Lockwood, G. (2011, February 12). Do schema domains exist? [Online blog]. Retrieved from http://www.isst-online.com/node/226
Moran, P., Leese, M., Lee, T., Walters, P., Thornicroft, G., &
Mann, A. (2003). Standardized Assessment of Personality
Abbreviated Scale (SAPAS): Preliminary validation of a brief
screen for personality disorder. British Journal of Psychiatry,
183, 228232.
Muthn, B., & Kaplan, D. (1985). A comparison of some methodologies for the factor analysis of nonnormal Likert variables.
British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology,
38, 171189.
Muthn, L. K., & Muthn, B. O. (1998). Mplus users guide (6th
ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthn & Muthn.
Nadort, M., Arntz, A., Smit, J. H., Giessen-Bloo, J., Eikelenboom,
M., Spinhoven, P., . . . van Dyck, R. (2009). Implementation
of outpatient schema therapy for borderline personality disorder with versus without crisis support by the therapist outside
office hours: A randomized trial. Behavior Research and Therapy, 47, 961973.
Nordahl, H. M., & Nysaeter, T. E. (2005). Schema therapy for patients with borderline personality disorder: A single case series. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 36, 254264.
Oei, T. P. S., & Baranoff, J. (2007). Young schema questionnaire:
Review of psychometric and measurement issues. Australian
Journal of Psychology, 59, 7886.
Rijo, D., & Gouveia, P. (2008, October). A confirmatory factor
analysis study of the YSQ-S3 in a large Portuguese sample.
Paper presented at the 3rd Annual International Society of
Schema Therapy Meeting, Coimbra, Portugal.
Saariaho, T., Saariaho, A., Karila, I., & Joukamaa, M. (2009). The
psychometric properties of the Finnish Young Schema Questionnaire in chronic pain patients and a nonclinical sample.
Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 40,
158168.
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 maladaptive schemas. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 19, 295321.
Schweizer, K. (2010). Some guidelines concerning the modeling
of traits and abilities in test construction. European Journal of
Psychological Assessment, 26, 12.
Soygt, G., Karaosmano6lu, A., & Cakir, Z. (2009). Assessment
of early maladaptive schemas: A psychometric study of the
Turkish young schema questionnaire-short form-3. Trk Psikiyatri Dergisi, 20, 7584.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.) Boston, MA: Pearson.
Trip, S. (2006). The Romanian version of Young Schema Questionnaire Short Form 3 (YSQ-S3). Journal of Cognitive and
Behavioral Psychotherapies, 6, 173181.
Young, J. E. (1990). Cognitive therapy for personality disorders:
A schema-focused approach. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Exchange.
Young, J. E. (2005). Young Schema Questionnaire Short Form
3 (YSQ-S3). New York: Cognitive Therapy Center.
212
Young, J. E. (2006). Young Schema Questionnaire (German version, YSQ-S3) (H. Berbalk, J. Grutschpalk, E. Parfy, & G. Zarbock, Trans.). Eckernfrde: Institut fr Schematherapie.
Young, J. E., & Brown, G. (1994). Young Schema Questionnaire
Short Form. New York: Cognitive Therapy Center.
Young, J. E., Klosko, J. S., & Weishaar, M. (2003). Schema therapy: A practitioners guide. New York: Guilford.
Department of Medical Psychology

University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf
Martinistr. 52
20246 Hamburg
Germany
Tel. +49 40 7410-56849
Fax +49 40 7410-54965
E-mail l.kriston@uke.de
Published online: July 20, 2012
Levente Kriston

Kriston (2013) - YSQ German Psychometry

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Kriston (2013) - YSQ German Psychometry

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

European

Reliability and Validity of the

Department of Medical Psychology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg,

L. Kriston et al.: Reliability and Validity of the German YSQ-S3

sessing 18 schemas with five items each (Young, 2005). To

Impaired autono- Autonomy, compe- Failure to achieve

Realistic limits and Entitlement/Grandiosity

Free expression of Subjugation

Exaggerated vigi- Spontaneity and

A short-form of the Symptom Checklist 90-R (SCL-90-R;

European Journal of Psychological Assessment 2013; Vol. 29(3):205212

2012 Hogrefe Publishing

Materials and Methods

L. Kriston et al.: Reliability and Validity of the German YSQ-S3

29.3 (10.1) 40.5 (11.4)

Family status; n (%)

Level of education; n (%)

Occupational status; n (%)

Lifetime diagnosis of a mental health disorder; n (%)

Health care utilization due to mental health disorder; n (%)a

L. Kriston et al.: Reliability and Validity of the German YSQ-S3

Table 3. Results of the reliability analysis

Corrected item-total correlations

Vulnerability to harm or illness

der (n = 6), anxiety disorder (n = 4), borderline personality

L. Kriston et al.: Reliability and Validity of the German YSQ-S3

Table 4. Results of the factorial and convergent validity analysis

2nd item 3rd item 4th item

reliability extracted congruence

Vulnerability to harm or illness

European Journal of Psychological Assessment 2013; Vol. 29(3):205212

L. Kriston et al.: Reliability and Validity of the German YSQ-S3

personality disorder as measured by the SAPAS were (with

The present study revealed strong empirical support for

European Journal of Psychological Assessment 2013; Vol. 29(3):205212

2012 Hogrefe Publishing

L. Kriston et al.: Reliability and Validity of the German YSQ-S3

provides a valid and reliable measurement of Youngs

We thank all persons who participated in the study either

Annual International Society of Schema Therapy Meeting,

L. Kriston et al.: Reliability and Validity of the German YSQ-S3

Department of Medical Psychology

Published online: July 20, 2012

European Journal of Psychological Assessment 2013; Vol. 29(3):205212

2012 Hogrefe Publishing

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen