A systematic review of self‐report measures of generalized shame

Abstract

Objective: Shame is a transdiagnostic emotion of strong clinical and research interest. Yet, there is a lack of consensus on the definition and varying methods employed across self-report measures, potentially affecting our ability to accurately study shame and examine whether clinical interventions to alter shame are effective. This paper offers a systematic review of self-report measures of generalized shame. Methods: PubMed, PsycInfo, and Web of Science were searched. Studies were included when they were available in English and the primary aim was to evaluate measurement properties of scales or subscales designed to measure generalized shame in adults. Results: Thirty-six papers examining 19 scales were identified, with measures of trait shame more common than state shame. Construct validity, internal consistency, and structural validity were relative strengths. Development and content validity studies were lacking and suffered from low methodological quality.

A brief measure of guilt and shame: validation of the Guilt and Shame Questionnaire (GSQ-8)

“…To this end, we chose the best-performing items from the PFQ-2 (Harder et al, 1987 ) and the ASGS (Hoblitzelle, 1982 ). Both scales display good psychometric properties overall (Harder & Zalma, 1990 ; Lear et al, 2022 ). However, not all items perform well and the scales are not parsimonious.…”

“…Similarly, other measures of guilt and shame come with their short-comings (Lear et al, 2022 ). Few scales have evidence concerning measurement invariance.…”

“…Despite the importance of understanding guilt and shame in both human flourishing and psychopathology, the assessment of guilt and shame is impeded by the complexity of these constructs, as reflected in current measurement approaches (Ferguson & Crowley, 1997 ). Although several existing guilt and shame scales have contributed to a better understanding of these constructs, these existing scales have their limitations (for a review, see Lear et al, 2022 ). The Personal Feelings Questionnaire-2 (PFQ2; Harder et al, 1987 ) and the Adapted Shame and Guilt Scale (ASGS, Hoblitzelle, 1982 ) are among the psychometrically soundest measures of shame and guilt.…”

“…The PFQ-2 is a 22-item measure assessing shame-proneness and guilt-proneness, comprising 10 items assessing ‘shame-proneness’, 6 items assessing ‘guilt-proneness’ and 6 filler items. Despite good psychometric properties of the PFQ-2 in US samples (Harder et al, 1992 ; Harder & Greenwald, 1999 ) along good test–retest reliability (Di Sarno et al, 2019 ), a recent systematic review reported mixed evidence for its structural validity (Lear et al, 2022 ). Three studies found adequate model fit of a two-factor solution (Di Sarno et al, 2019 ; Harder & Zalma, 1990 ; Rice et al, 2018 ) and one study found poor model fit for this factor solution (Eterović et al, 2020 ).…”

“…The 24-item ASGS captures guilt and shame with good evidence for the structural validity of the intended two-factor structure of the ASGS (Harder & Zalma, 1990 ; Hoblitzelle, 1982 ), good internal consistency (ASGS Shame α = 0.83; ASGS Guilt α = 0.89) and good 2-week test–retest reliability (ASGS Shame r = 0.93; ASGS Guilt r = 0.95). However, evidence for the two-factor structure of the ASGS is limited by the exclusive use of principal component analysis, potential conflation of guilt and shame constructs within this measure, small sample sizes and lacking clarity in terms of the description of study procedures (Lear et al, 2022 ).…”