Confirmatory factor analysis of the Dutch Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale: Comparison of the full and short version

Abstract

Background and Objectives. The Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale (IUS) was developed for assessing reactions to ambiguous situations, uncertainty, and future events. The IUS has been validated in different languages, but equivocal factor structures, in combination with highly interrelated items and factors, resulted in a redundancy of the items of the English version. In the current study, the psychometric properties of the Dutch version of the IUS were examined, and compared with the shortened 12-item version (IUS-12).Methods. Confirmatory factor analyses were used to investigate different factor structures of both the full and short version of the IUS. Results. Results indicated that the IUS-12 model with two factors (ProspectiveAnxiety and Inhibitory Anxiety) provides the best fit. The reduced measure has equally good internal consistency, and is highly correlated with the full version.Limitations. Future research could investigate whether the current findings generalize to clinical populations. Conclusion.To summarize, the usage of the short 12-item version of the IUS should be encouraged in future research concerning intolerance of uncertainty.

Further clarifying prospective and inhibitory intolerance of uncertainty: Factorial and construct validity of test scores from the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale.

“…Also, as Sexton and Dugas (2009) had noted, this strategy had excluded other items for consideration at the outset and that might have compromised content validity. Although Sexton and Dugas had demonstrated an excellent fit of the two-factor IUS-27 model to their data, subsequent studies showed less favorable fit indices for this model compared to the two-factor IUS-12 model (Helsen et al, 2013;McEvoy & Mahoney, 2011). As a result, most recent studies examining the construct validity of IUS test scores have relied on the IUS-12 rather than the IUS-27.…”

“…Specifically, prospective IU seems to be more correlated with worry and symptoms of obsessive-compulsive disorder whereas inhibitory IU is more strongly implicated in symptoms of social anxiety, panic disorder, and agoraphobia, posttraumatic stress dis order, and depression (Berenbaum et al, 2008;Fetzner et al, 2013;Helsen et al, 2013;McEvoy & Mahoney, 2011, 2012Sexton & Dugas, 2009). These recent studies documented the differential relations the two aspects of IU have with symptoms of anxiety and mood disorders.…”

Srpska Adaptacija I Validacija Upitnika Netolerancije Na Neizvesnost

“…Od početka NN se dovodila u vezu sa konceptom nekontrolabilne brige (Helsen, Van den Bussche, Vlaeyen, & Goubert, 2013), za koju se pretpostavlja da igra značajnu (ako ne i centralnu) ulogu u razvoju i održavanju različitih anksioznih poremećaja pre svega GAP-a. Prvi model koji centralno mesto daje NN konstruktu je kognitivni model GAP-a koji su formulisali Dugas i saradnici (Dugas et al, 1998).…”

“…Naime, rezultati istraživanja sugerišu postojanje različitog broja latentnih faktora u prostoru od 27 stavki, npr. četvorofaktorsko rešenje (Berenbaum et al, 2008;Buhr & Dugas, 2002;Norton, 2005), dvofaktorsko rešenje (Birrell et al, 2011;Carleton, Norton, & Asmundson, 2007;Helsen et al, 2013;Sexton & Dugas, 2009) itd. U cilju klarifikacije latentne strukture konstrukta NN, Birrell i saradnici (Birrell et al, 2011), u svom preglednom članku, pokušali su da objedine rezultate svih prethodnih studija.…”

“…Pokazalo se da je dvofaktorsko rešenje najprihvatljivije, a kao najstabilniji faktori izdvojili su se 1) Neprihvatanje i izbegavanje neizvesnosti i 2) Nemogućnost delovanja u neizvesnoj situaciji. Ovakvi nalazi potvrđeni su i u istraživanjima novijeg datuma (Carleton et al, 2012;Helsen et al, 2013).…”