Seeking certainty about Intolerance of Uncertainty: Addressing old and new issues through the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale-Revised

Abstract

Intolerance of Uncertainty is a trans-diagnostic process that spans a range of emotional disorders and it is usually measured through the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale-12. The current study aims at investigating some issues in the assessment of Intolerance of Uncertainty (IU) through the Italian Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale-Revised, a measure adapted from the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale-12 to assess IU across the lifespan. In particular we address the factor structure among a large community sample, measurement invariance across gender, age, and over time, together with reliability and validity of the overall scale and its subscales. The questionnaire was administered to community (N = 761; mean age = 35.86 ± 14.01 years) and undergraduate (N = 163; mean age = 21.16 ± 2.64 years) participants, together with other self-report measures assessing constructs theoretically related to IU. The application of a bifactor model shows that the Italian Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale-Revised possesses a robust general factor, thus supporting the use of the unit-weighted total score of the questionnaire as a measure of the construct. Furthermore, measurement invariance across gender, age, and over time is supported. Finally, the Italian Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale-Revised appears to possess adequate reliability and validity. These findings support the unidimensionality of the measure, a conceptually reasonable result in line with the trans-diagnostic nature of Intolerance of Uncertainty. In addition, this study and comparison with published factor structures of the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale-12 and of the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale-Revised identify some issues for the internal structure of the measure. In particular, concern is expressed for the Prospective IU subscale. In light of the promising psychometric properties, the use of the Italian Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale-Revised as a univocal measure is encouraged in both research and clinical practice.

Differentiating the roles of intolerance of uncertainty and negative beliefs about worry across emotional disorders

“…Overall, the results of our current study highlight the distinct associations between IU and NBW with emotional disorder symptoms. Our results also contribute to the existing body of literature demonstrating that prospective and inhibitory aspects of IU differentiate emotional disorder symptoms and are meaningfully different constructs (Boelen & Lenferink, 2018;Bottesi et al, 2019;Fetzner et al, 2013Fetzner et al, , 2014Hong & Lee, 2015;Jensen et al, 2016;Mahoney & McEvoy, 2012a;McEvoy & Mahoney, 2011;Raines et al, 2019;Shihata et al, 2018;Wright et al, 2016). Further, our results demonstrate the importance of considering NBW in addition to IU when examining relationships with emotional disorders and support the idea that NBW are both transdiagnostic and specific across various emotional disorders (Khawaja & McMahon, 2011;Koerner et al, 2015;van der Heiden et al, 2010).…”

“…IU has been recently defined as “an individual’s dispositional incapacity to endure the aversive response triggered by the perceived absence of salient, key, or sufficient information, and sustained by the associated perception of uncertainty” (Carleton, 2016, p. 31). As discussed by Shihata et al (2018; see also Bottesi et al, 2019; Hale et al, 2016), following the development of the 12-item version of the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale (IUS-12; Carleton et al, 2007), researchers began exploring the proposed IU subfactors of prospective IU and inhibitory IU.…”

“…One proposed reason for the lack of consistent results has been the use of the IUS-12 prospective and inhibitory subscales. Several recent studies have found that a bifactor model of IU yields the best fit, wherein overall trait IU accounts for the majority of variance in IUS-12 scores (Bottesi et al, 2019; Coranacchio et al, 2018; Hale et al, 2016; Lauriola et al, 2016; Saulnier et al, 2019; Shihata et al, 2018; Yao et al, 2020). As discussed by Shihata et al (2018), it has been suggested that only the IUS-12 total score should be used in IU-related research, rather than the prospective and inhibitory subscale scores.…”

Towards a model of uncertainty distress in the context of Coronavirus (COVID-19)

“…In other words, the construct measured by the IUS-12 can be conceptualised as a general IU factor explaining most of the reliable variance across the items. Thus, both prospective IU and inhibitory IU may contribute to the IU construct, but the general IU factor is likely to have higher utility than the two dimensions separately (see Bottesi et al, 2019b, for review and additional evidence).…”

Personality factors and vulnerability to post‐traumatic stress responses after childbirth

“…Finally, the unpredictable nature of birth means that women inevitably experience a lot of uncertainty when they give birth for the first time. Individuals with higher levels of intolerance of uncertainty are more likely to interpret and respond to ambiguous events as threatening (Dugas, Schwartz, & Francis, 2004) and experience higher levels of distress in uncertain situations (Bottesi, Noventa, Freeston, & Ghisi, 2019). This may have a detrimental impact on women’s experience of birth.…”