Psychometric properties of the Italian version of the Interpersonal Needs Questionnaire‐15 (INQ‐15‐I)

Abstract

Objective: The Interpersonal Needs Questionnaire (INQ-15) is a self-report measure of thwarted belongingness and perceived burdensomeness, two constructs associated with suicidal ideation. The objective of the current study was to translate the INQ-15 from English to Italian (INQ-15-I) and to test its factor structure, reliability, and validity in Italian samples. Method: We examined (a) whether the components of the hypothesized two-factor measurement model are invariant across a community sample (N = 510) and a clinical sample (N = 259); (b) the relations between the INQ-15-I factors and measures of depression (Beck Depression Inventory-II), hopelessness (Beck Hopelessness Scale), and suicidal ideation (Beck Scale for Suicide Ideation); (c) the reliability and psychometric properties of the INQ-15-I. Results: Results from multigroup confirmatory factor analyses supported the adequacy of the two-factor model to represent thwarted belongingness and perceived burdensomeness. The model is invariant across community and clinical groups, showing excellent fit. The two INQ-15-I scales measure highly intercorrelated constructs. Both significantly correlate with depression, hopelessness, and suicidal ideation, and correlations are high in the clinical sample.

Suicide‐related interpersonal needs of young Iranian people: A preliminary validation of thwarted belongingness and perceived burdensomeness constructs

“…INQ#9, that is, “These days, I rarely interact with people who care about me,” not only could not meet the criteria of ESEM, but it also showed the lowest association with SI. In contrast, INQ#9 showed adequate factor loading in community and clinical Italian samples (Iliceto et al, 2020) and young Singaporean people (Teo, Suárez, & Oei, 2018). Some scholars suggest that there may be some cultural and linguistic differences in INQ#9 (Hallensleben et al, 2016; Iliceto et al, 2020).…”

“…In contrast, INQ#9 showed adequate factor loading in community and clinical Italian samples (Iliceto et al, 2020) and young Singaporean people (Teo, Suárez, & Oei, 2018). Some scholars suggest that there may be some cultural and linguistic differences in INQ#9 (Hallensleben et al, 2016; Iliceto et al, 2020). Nonetheless, consistent with other studies (Brookings & Pederson, 2019; Mitchell et al, 2017), TB‐8, excluding INQ#9, showed sound internal consistency as well.…”

“…Moreover, MLR is a suitable estimator for non‐normal data, which results in the same regression weights as ML with robust standard errors (Li, 2016). However, CFA was conducted as per some previous studies (Hallensleben, Spangenberg, Kapusta, Forkmann, & Glaesmer, 2016; Iliceto et al, 2020) to further examine the measurement models of both constructs in terms of convergent/discriminant validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010).…”

“…Subsequently, different versions of the Interpersonal Needs Questionnaire (INQ), including INQ‐8, INQ‐10, INQ‐12, INQ‐15, INQ‐18, and INQ‐25, have been introduced to assess PB and TB (Hill et al, 2015). The INQ‐15, which includes six items for PB and nine items for TB, has been consistently recommended based on its superior validity and reliability (Allan, Gros, Hom, Joiner, & Stecker, 2016; Iliceto et al, 2020; Mitchell et al, 2017; Parkhurst, Conwell, & Van Orden, 2016; Podlogar, Ziberna, Postuvan, & Kerr, 2017; Van Orden et al, 2010). Indeed, INQ‐15 seems to be the well‐accepted version in the field because it has served as a benchmark in the available literature (Ma, Batterham, Calear, & Sunderland, 2019).…”

Psychometric Properties of Interpersonal Needs Questionnaire-15 for Predicting Suicidal Ideation among Migrant Industrial Workers in China

“…The Interpersonal Needs Questionnaire (INQ) was developed to assess the main constructs (TB and PB) of the IPTS for predicting suicidal desire [ 14 ]. The factor structure of the INQ has been validated by many researchers and among different populations [ 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 ]. However, results have been inconsistent, with most studies validating a better model fit for the two dimensions of the INQ [ 18 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 ], and some studies validating a better model fit for the three dimensions of the INQ [ 27 ].…”