Preliminary Reliability and Validity of the DMRS-SR-30, a Novel Self-Report Measure Based on the Defense Mechanisms Rating Scales

Abstract

Defense mechanisms are psychological factors that influence emotional distress and quality of life. There are a number of measures assessing the construct of defense mechanisms, but only few available instruments reflect the gold-standard theoretical hierarchical organization of defenses. We report on the development of a novel 30 item self-report questionnaire, the DMRS-SR-30, based on the parent instrument, the Defense Mechanism Rating Scales (DMRS). This study tested preliminary reliability and validity of the Italian version of the DMRS-SR-30. We first extracted 30 items from the DMRS Q-sort version (DMRS-Q) and adapted them for a self-reported format. We then applied the DMRS quantitative scoring algorithms to provide proportional scores for the 28 individual defenses and summary scores for seven defense levels and overall defensive functioning (ODF) scores. A dynamic interview was used for assessing participant’s defense mechanisms with the observer-rated DMRS and DMRS-Q. We examined internal consistency of the scales along with criterion, concurrent, convergent and discriminant validity among participants (N = 94) who completed the DMRS-SR-30, SCL-90, BDI, and IES-R. Results showed very good internal consistency for ODF (Cronbach’s alpha = .890) and the high adaptive defense level, whereas some subscales with few items had lower values. Correlation analyses between DMRS-SR-30 and the two DMRS-based observer-rated measures showed very good criterion and concurrent validity for ODF and moderate to high for defense levels subscales. Correlations between the DMRS-SR-30 ODF and SCL-90 GSI, BDI and IES=R (r = −.456, r= −.540, r = −.402, respectively, all p <.001), indicated good convergent validity. Despite the well-known limitations of self-report methods of psychodynamic phenomena, self-report measures are highly practicable for assessing large samples. The DMRS-SR-30 is the first self-assessed measure describing the whole hierarchy of 28 defense mechanisms and providing scores for ODF, defensive categories, defense levels, and individual defenses. Preliminary examination of the Italian version of the DMRS-SR-30 showed promising results of internal consistency, criterion and concurrent validity, and convergent validity and of the measure. Further validation is needed to confirm these findings and explore other aspects of validity and reliability.

Mindfulness, Age and Gender as Protective Factors Against Psychological Distress During COVID-19 Pandemic

“…Furthermore, the economic downturn caused by this emergency is more likely to impact sectors with high female employment shares, together with the increasing needs in childcare (Alon et al, 2020). Finally, our findings suggested that lockdown duration has a negative impact on mental health; a previous study displayed in the first phase of the Italian quarantine had already reported that individuals in quarantine experienced negative psychosocial changes such as sleep disturbances, post-traumatic symptoms, depression, and anxiety which all have a massive impact on wellbeing (Brooks et al, 2020;Cellini et al, 2020;Wang et al, 2020;Di Giuseppe et al, 2020d).…”

Identifying Predictors of Psychological Distress During COVID-19: A Machine Learning Approach

“…The levels, ranging from most to least adaptive, are: adaptive/mature, obsessional, neurotic, minor image-distortion/narcissistic, disavowal, major imagedistortion/borderline, and action. The psychometric properties of this DMRS-SR-30 are robust, with internal consistency ranging from good to excellent across all subscales and strong convergent and divergent validity (Di Giuseppe et al, 2020b). Somatization was measured with the PHQ-15 (Kroenke et al, 2002) which asks about 15 somatic symptoms that account for 90% of the symptoms reported in outpatient settings (Kroenke, 2003).…”

The Psychodynamic Approach During COVID-19 Emotional Crisis

“…Understanding how the ongoing pandemic is influencing human reactions to such a stressful event is essential for developing ad hoc effective interventions. The systematic assessment of unconscious psychological aspects of personality should be promoted for the early detection of vulnerable individuals and for improving research and clinical practice toward a personalized therapeutic approach (Lingiardi and McWilliams, 2015 ; Lingiardi et al, 2015 ; Tanzilli et al, 2016 ; Barber and Solomonov, 2019 ; Talia et al, 2019 ; Di Giuseppe et al, 2020c ; Zilcha-Mano and Ramseyer, 2020 ).…”