Höller Inken, Teismann Tobias, Cwik Jan Christopher, Glaesmer Heide, Spangenberg Lena, Hallensleben Nina, Paashaus Laura, Rath Dajana, Schönfelder Antje, Juckel Georg, Forkmann Thomas
Department of Clinical Psychology, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Northrhine-Westphalia, Germany.
Mental Health Research and Treatment Center, Department of Psychology, Ruhr-University of Bochum, Bochum, Northrhine-Westphalia, Germany.
Compr Psychiatry. 2020 Jan 8;98:152160. doi: 10.1016/j.comppsych.2020.152160.
The present study aimed to validate the German version of the Short Defeat and Entrapment Scale (SDES).
Validity and reliability were established in an online (N = 480), an outpatient (N = 277) and an inpatient sample (N = 296). Statistical analyses included confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) and group differences in defeat and entrapment.
For the online and the inpatient sample, the CFA indicated a two-factor solution, whereas for the outpatient sample both one- and two-factor solutions fitted the data equally well. Scale properties for the two-factor solution (defeat and entrapment subscale) were excellent. Thus, further analyses were based on this solution. For the online and the outpatient sample, suicidal ideators and suicide attempters scored significantly higher in defeat and entrapment than non-ideators and non-attempters.
Limiting factors of the study were the different measures across the samples and the cross-sectional design of the study.
Though results were partly mixed, we found support for a two-factor solution of the instrument showing excellent psychometric properties in all three samples. The two-factor solution is further expected to have higher clinical utility than a one-factor solution. Suicidal ideators and suicide attempters in the online and outpatient sample showed higher scores in defeat and entrapment than non-ideators and non-attempters, emphasizing these two concepts as predictors for suicidal ideation. All in all, the present study supports the general validity and reliability of the SDES. However, future investigations based on prospective data are warranted.
本研究旨在验证德文版的简短挫败与陷入量表(SDES)。
在一个在线样本(N = 480)、一个门诊样本(N = 277)和一个住院样本(N = 296)中建立效度和信度。统计分析包括验证性因素分析(CFA)以及挫败与陷入方面的组间差异。
对于在线样本和住院样本,CFA表明为双因素模型,而对于门诊样本,单因素和双因素模型对数据的拟合效果同样良好。双因素模型(挫败和陷入子量表)的量表特性极佳。因此,后续分析基于该模型。对于在线样本和门诊样本,有自杀意念者和自杀未遂者在挫败和陷入方面的得分显著高于无自杀意念者和未尝试自杀者。
本研究的限制因素包括各样本采用的不同测量方法以及研究的横断面设计。
尽管结果部分存在差异,但我们发现该量表的双因素模型在所有三个样本中均显示出优异的心理测量特性,这为其提供了支持。预计双因素模型比单因素模型具有更高的临床实用性。在线样本和门诊样本中的有自杀意念者和自杀未遂者在挫败和陷入方面的得分高于无自杀意念者和未尝试自杀者,这突出了这两个概念作为自杀意念预测指标的作用。总体而言,本研究支持SDES的总体效度和信度。然而,有必要基于前瞻性数据开展未来研究。