Romanian Version of the Frustration Discomfort Scale (FDS): A Preliminary Validation on a Non-clinical Sample

Claudia Lupuleac, Florin Alin Sava
{"title":"Romanian Version of the Frustration Discomfort Scale (FDS): A Preliminary Validation on a Non-clinical Sample","authors":"Claudia Lupuleac, Florin Alin Sava","doi":"10.1007/s10942-023-00531-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Low frustration tolerance is one of the key concepts in rational emotional behavior therapy (REBT). The purpose of this study is to explore the factorial structure, reliability, and validity of the Romanian version of the Frustration Discomfort Scale (FDS), developed by Harrington (Clin Psychol Psychother 12(5):374–387, 2005b. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.465), within a non-clinical sample (N = 308) of Romanian teachers. For validation purposes, participants also completed several measures such as the Unconditional Self-Acceptance Questionnaire (USAQ) (Chamberlain and Haaga in J Ration Emot Cogn Behav Ther 19(3):163–176, 2001. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011189416600), Attitudes and Belief Scale 2 (ABS2) (DiGiuseppe et al. J Ration Emot Cogn Behav Ther 36(1):47–79, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10942-017-0273-3), Teacher Irrational Belief Scale (TIBS) (Bernard Teacher irrationality and teacher stress, 24th international congress of psychology, Sydney, Australia, 1988), and Pupil Control Ideology Scale (PCI) (Willower et al. The school and pupil control, The Pennsylvania State University, 1967). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) suggests that the initial four-factor solution from the scale development study received similar support to the one-factor solution found in some previous studies. Patterns of correlations linking the FDS total sum score versus the FDS 4-factor scale scores with other variables provide some support for the one-factor solution, mainly because it is a more parsimonious solution. Differentiating between several subcomponents of FDS does not bring discriminant validity in our non-clinical sample. Based on current preliminary validation, the FDS is a reliable and valid instrument for assessing frustration discomfort in a Romanian-speaking population as a single-factor construct. Our results do not exclude the possibility that future discriminant validity endeavors could support the utility of treating low frustration tolerance as a multidimensional construct since using a non-clinical sample is likely to impact the factorial structure of the FDS.</p>","PeriodicalId":501324,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10942-023-00531-0","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Low frustration tolerance is one of the key concepts in rational emotional behavior therapy (REBT). The purpose of this study is to explore the factorial structure, reliability, and validity of the Romanian version of the Frustration Discomfort Scale (FDS), developed by Harrington (Clin Psychol Psychother 12(5):374–387, 2005b. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.465), within a non-clinical sample (N = 308) of Romanian teachers. For validation purposes, participants also completed several measures such as the Unconditional Self-Acceptance Questionnaire (USAQ) (Chamberlain and Haaga in J Ration Emot Cogn Behav Ther 19(3):163–176, 2001. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011189416600), Attitudes and Belief Scale 2 (ABS2) (DiGiuseppe et al. J Ration Emot Cogn Behav Ther 36(1):47–79, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10942-017-0273-3), Teacher Irrational Belief Scale (TIBS) (Bernard Teacher irrationality and teacher stress, 24th international congress of psychology, Sydney, Australia, 1988), and Pupil Control Ideology Scale (PCI) (Willower et al. The school and pupil control, The Pennsylvania State University, 1967). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) suggests that the initial four-factor solution from the scale development study received similar support to the one-factor solution found in some previous studies. Patterns of correlations linking the FDS total sum score versus the FDS 4-factor scale scores with other variables provide some support for the one-factor solution, mainly because it is a more parsimonious solution. Differentiating between several subcomponents of FDS does not bring discriminant validity in our non-clinical sample. Based on current preliminary validation, the FDS is a reliable and valid instrument for assessing frustration discomfort in a Romanian-speaking population as a single-factor construct. Our results do not exclude the possibility that future discriminant validity endeavors could support the utility of treating low frustration tolerance as a multidimensional construct since using a non-clinical sample is likely to impact the factorial structure of the FDS.

罗马尼亚版挫折不适量表(FDS):对非临床样本的初步验证
低挫折容忍度是理性情绪行为治疗(REBT)的一个重要概念。本研究的目的是探讨罗马尼亚版的挫折不适量表(FDS)的因子结构,信度和效度,由哈林顿(临床心理与心理杂志12(5):374 - 387,2005)。https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.465),在罗马尼亚教师的非临床样本(N = 308)中。为了验证目的,被试还完成了无条件自我接受问卷(USAQ) (Chamberlain and Haaga in journal of emotional conconbehavior, 19(3): 163-176, 2001)。https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011189416600),态度与信念量表2 (ABS2) (DiGiuseppe et al.)。心理学报,36(1):47-79,2018。https://doi.org/10.1007/s10942-017-0273-3)、教师非理性信念量表(TIBS) (Bernard Teacher Irrational and Teacher stress,第24届国际心理学大会,Sydney, Australia, 1988)和学生控制意识形态量表(PCI) (Willower et al.)。学校和学生控制,宾夕法尼亚州立大学,1967年)。验证性因子分析(CFA)表明,量表开发研究中最初的四因素解决方案与之前一些研究中发现的单因素解决方案得到了类似的支持。将FDS总得分与FDS 4因素量表得分与其他变量联系起来的相关性模式为单因素解决方案提供了一些支持,主要是因为它是一种更简洁的解决方案。在我们的非临床样本中,区分FDS的几个子成分不会带来区别效度。基于目前的初步验证,FDS作为单因素结构是评估罗马尼亚语人群沮丧不适的可靠和有效的工具。我们的研究结果并不排除这样一种可能性,即未来判别效度的努力可以支持将低挫折容忍度视为一个多维结构的效用,因为使用非临床样本可能会影响FDS的析因结构。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信