Reliability and Validity of the German Version of the Schema Mode Inventory

Abstract

This study presents an evaluation of the German version of the Schema Mode Inventory (SMI) including reliability and validity analyses. Psychometric properties were assessed. We analyzed the factor structure, internal reliability as well as intercorrelations between the subscales, and compared it to the results of the original version. This was done in a sample of N = 432 nonpatients, psychiatric patients with axis I and axis II diagnoses, and forensic patients. Results indicated a 14-factor structure of the SMI and good-to-excellent internal reliabilities of the 14 subscales (Cronbach’s α from .70 to .95). Furthermore, groups of nonpatients and psychiatric patients could be differentiated by their modes in the SMI as theoretically predicted. A first description of the mode presentations of forensic patients is presented.

A Contribution to Validation of the Short Schema Mode Inventory in an Italian Clinical Versus Non-clinical Population

“…The mean item loadings of each subscale were also acceptable, with a global item loading mean of .62. Similar results were obtained in previous research Reiss et al 2012Reiss et al , 2015, with lower results for the same item. The mean inter-item correlations varied from .19 to .59 and had a low mean of .32.…”

“…Finally, RMSEA had an acceptable value. This finding was successfully confirmed by previous researchers Reiss et al 2012;Reiss et al 2015). The results confirmed both configural invariance of the 14-factor model across clinical and nonclinical participants (χ 2 = 30633.164 (13388, n = 654), p < .001; NNFI = .919; CFI = .922; RMSEA = .060) and the equality of factor loadings and factor correlations across groups (χ 2 = 32419.233 (13597, n = 654, p < .001; NNFI = .917; CFI = .919; RMSEA = .063; ΔCFI = .003), showing an adequate fit (Cheung and Rensvold 2002).…”

“…For each group of the sample, Table 6 depicts the average scores and the SD of all the subscales of the SMI. According to the previous results of Reiss et al (2012), our data showed higher scores in the clinical group than the control group for the maladaptive modes and lower scores in the clinical group than the control group for the adaptive modes. Furthermore, with the exception of the Self-Aggrandizer mode scale, the values of all subscales showed significant linear trends (p < .001) over the four groups; this indicated a monotonic increase (linear relationships) of scores in all maladaptive subscales in the following order: from control group (N = 477), to Axis I patients (N = 67), to Axis II patients (N = 93) and to Axis I-II patients (N = 70).…”

“…Two other studies conducted by Reiss et al (2012Reiss et al ( , 2015 replicated the psychometric surveys used in the Dutch study to validate a German and a Danish version of the short SMI. Consistent with the findings from the study of , the 14-factor model was confirmed over the 8 and the 4 models, and the internal reliability showed adequate results, as well as intercorrelation between the subscales.…”

Burnout amongst clinical and counselling psychologist: The role of early maladaptive schemas and coping modes as vulnerability factors

“…Items are rated in a 6‐point Likert scale ranging from 1 ( never or almost never ) to 6 ( all of the time ). Preliminary psychometric investigations suggest that the SMI has adequate reliability and validity in a Dutch sample (Lobbestael, Vreeswijk, Spinhoven, Schouten, & Arntz, ) and German sample (Reiss et al, ), with the latter reporting a Cronbach's alpha of 0.85. For this study, the internal consistency of subscales ranged from acceptable ( α = 0.71 for bully and attack) to good ( α = 0.89 for detached protector).…”