Factor Structure, Internal Consistency and Criterion Validity of the Full‐form and Short‐form Versions of the Centrality of Events Scale in Young People

Abstract

The perceived centrality of a traumatic event has been hypothesized to impact subsequent responses to that event and shown to be positively associated to a number of psychological problems. In order to understand the role of this construct in adjustment to stress and trauma, reliable and valid measures are needed. The objective of this study was to evaluate the factor structure, internal consistency and convergent validity of the full-form and short-forms of the Centrality of Event Scale when used with young people. A sample of 262 undergraduate students completed this study. Confirmatory factor analyses, Cronbach alpha coefficients and Pearson correlation coefficients were performed. The findings support a one-factor structure of the full 20-item and the short 7-item versions. We also found that both versions provide reliable and valid scores when used with young people. We recommend the use of the 7-item version to minimize assessment burden.

The Persian version of the centrality of event scale (CES): Assessment of validity and reliability among Iranian university students

“…In line with the first hypothesis and the theoretical framework for CES (Berntsen & Rubin, 2006), the results of the construct validity confirmed a one‐factor model with high internal consistency and good fit indices in the studied sample. This finding aligns with the previous studies demonstrating satisfactory psychometric properties of the short version of the CES (Berntsen & Rubin, 2006; Galán et al., 2017; Gauer et al., 2013; Vagos et al., 2018; Vermeulen et al., 2020). The factor loading of all indicators were above 0.5 (ranging from 0.57 to 0.80).…”

“…The psychometric properties of the 7‐item CES have been supported in several studies among English‐speaking and non‐English‐speaking university students and adolescents (Berntsen & Rubin, 2006; Galán et al., 2017; Gauer et al., 2013; Vagos et al., 2018; Vermeulen et al., 2020), and these studies reported good to excellent internal consistency for the 7‐item CES. The Cronbach's alpha value was 0.88 in the English version (Berntsen & Rubin, 2006), 0.89 in the Brazilian Portuguese version (Gauer et al., 2013), 0.84 in the Spanish version (Galán et al., 2017), 0.85 to 0.93 in the Dutch version (Vermeulen et al., 2020), and 0.90 in the Portuguese adolescents’ version (Vagos et al., 2018).…”

The Dutch 20 Item Centrality of Event Scale

“…A one-factor model, as well as different three-factor models, obtained a good fit in the full sample, as well as in both subsamples (DSM-5 trauma A-criterion; probable PTSD based on the PCL cut-off). However, because of the high inter-factor correlations and the parsimony criterion, the one-factor structure was preferred, in line with previous studies (Berntsen & Rubin, 2006; Cunha et al, 2015; Galán et al, 2017; Matos et al, 2010). The high inter-factor correlations in the three-factor models may indicate that the three theoretical principles of event centrality serve to overlap and mutually dependent functions in the cognitive network (Berntsen & Rubin, 2007).…”

“…Of these four, two reported evidence for a three-factor solution aligning with the event centrality theory (Ionio et al, 2018;Vagos et al, 2018), whereas two other studies found factors that were not in line with the theoretical constructs (Gauer et al, 2013;Robinaugh & McNally, 2011). In contrast, four studies found only one underlying factor of the CES (Berntsen & Rubin, 2006;Cunha et al, 2015;Galán et al, 2017;Matos et al, 2010). An overview of factors, languages, statistical methods, and used samples of the different studies can be found in Table 1.…”

Relaciones del maltrato en la infancia con el trastorno depresivo mayor, el trastorno de estrés postraumático y el trastorno de estrés postraumático complejo en la vida adulta

“…La CES ha sido administrada en contextos diversos como Alemania , Australia (Newby & Moulds, 2011), Brasil (Gauer et al, 2013), China (Zaragoza Scherman et al, 2015, Dinamarca (Staugaard et al, 2015), Estados Unidos (Berntsen & Rubin, 2007a;Robinaugh & McNally, 2011), España (Fernández Alcántara et al, 2015Galán et al, 2017), Inglaterra (Brooks et al, 2017), Italia (Ionio et al, 2018), México (Zaragoza Scherman et al, 2015), Noruega (Blix et al, 2013) y Portugal (Matos et al, 2011).…”