The Beck Hopelessness Scale

Abstract

Abstract. The aim of the present study was to examine the construct and cross-cultural validity of the Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS; Beck, Weissman, Lester, & Trexler, 1974 ). Beck et al. applied exploratory Principal Components Analysis and argued that the scale measured three specific components (affective, motivational, and cognitive). Subsequent studies identified one, two, three, or more factors, highlighting a lack of clarity regarding the scale’s construct validity. In a large clinical sample, we tested the original three-factor model and explored alternative models using both confirmatory and exploratory factor analytical techniques appropriate for analyzing binary data. In doing so, we investigated whether method variance needs to be taken into account in understanding the structure of the BHS. Our findings supported a bifactor model that explicitly included method effects. We concluded that the BHS measures a single underlying construct of hopelessness, and that an incorporation of method effects consolidates previous findings where positively and negatively worded items loaded on separate factors. Our study further contributes to establishing the cross-cultural validity of this instrument by showing that BHS scores differentiate between depressed, anxious, and nonclinical groups in a Hungarian population.

Psychometric properties and measurement invariance of the Beck hopelessness scale (BHS): results from a German representative population sample

“…For a bi-factor model accounting for the optimism and pessimism method factors recently suggested by Szabó and colleagues [17] excellent model fit could be attested (χ 2  = 562.577***, df = 150, CFI = 0.985, TLI = 0.981, RMSEA = 0.034, 95% CI [0.031, 0.036]). Composite reliability in the form of McDonald’s coefficient omega was ω = 0.90 (for the general factor).…”

“…A similar item behavior was observed by Durham [7] who found that item #13 had the same item difficulty in a student sample as in psychiatric samples. In the following studies, one or more of the problematic items exhibited low item-total correlations or very low factor loadings: Aloba, Ajao, Alimi and Esan [37], Fisher and Overholser [38], Perczel Forintos, Sallai and Rózsa [39], Pompili, Tatarelli, Rogers and Lester [40], Steed [41], Szabó et al [17], Tanaka, Sakamoto, Ono, Fujihara and Kitamura [15], Young, Halper, Clark, and Scheftner [35]. However, the undesired properties of these items are not universal.…”

“…Recently the influence of method factors (optimism and pessimism, due to item wording) has been introduced in the discussion regarding the BHS factor structure. Therefore, we also tested a one-factorial, bi-factor model as suggested by Szabó and colleagues [17] [one content factor (all items), two method factors: Negatively worded items (2,4,7,9,11,12, 16, 17, 18, 20) and Positively worded items (1,3,5,6,8,10,13,15,19)] as well as a multitrait-multimethod model suggested by Boduszek & Dhingra [18] [three correlated trait factors (as suggested by Beck and colleagues), and two correlated method factors] .…”

“…Szabó and colleagues [17] recently investigated a bi-factor model with one content related and two method-factors in a clinical population from Hungary. Boduszek and Dhigra [18] have recently investigated the factor structure in a large student sample building on the work of Szabó and colleagues [17] suggesting a three dimensional multi trait multi method model (MTMM).…”

“…Boduszek and Dhigra [18] have recently investigated the factor structure in a large student sample building on the work of Szabó and colleagues [17] suggesting a three dimensional multi trait multi method model (MTMM). In addition to replicating the results from other large European studies and validating the German version of the BHS, this study is furthermore the first to combine the recently favored methodological approach (i.e.…”