Abstract
The presence of dysfunctional cognitions about how individuals see themselves and others is a hallmark of psychopathology. The Brief Core Schemas Scale (BCSS) was developed to evaluate adaptive and dysfunctional beliefs about the self and others. This study describes the first psychometric analysis of the BCSS in the Portuguese population. Participants were recruited from community (N = 320, Mage=27.31, DP = 12.75). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to confirm the BCSS factorial structure. Four-factor model revealed moderate to adequate goodness-of-fit indices (χ2/df = 717.1, (246) p = .01; SRMR = .044; RMSEA = .077; CFI/TLI < .90). Negative views of the self and others correlated positively with early maladaptive schemas, distress, and symptomatology and correlated negatively with psychological well-being. An inversed correlational pattern was found with the positive views of the self and others. Despite the model's moderate adherence to the data, results suggest that the BCSS may be an asset in the assessment of dysfunctional and adaptive cognitions about the self and others. Further analysis is required to deepen the psychometric properties of the BCSS in the Portuguese population.
Introduction
The role of adaptive and maladaptive cognitions about the self and others have been consistently described in the cognitive behavior therapy literature (Beck et al., 1980; Dobson, 2009; Young et al., 2003). The way individuals judge themselves and others may be a core aspect of how individuals make sense of their internal worlds and the surrounding contexts. These self and other evaluations may belong to a fundamental human psychological response to environmental stressors, which are associated with a wide range of cognitive, affective, behavioral, and interpersonal reactions that characterize neurobiological functioning (Beck, 2008; Beck et al., 2004; Greenberg & Goldman, 2017; Young et al., 2003). The concept of dysfunctional self and other schemas can be defined as deeply-rooted core beliefs that individuals hold about themselves, others, and the world, which influence how humans think, feel, and behave in different contexts and situations (Beck, 2008; Young et al., 2003). The concept of core beliefs and dysfunctional schemas was described half a century ago in Aron Beck's (1967) groundbreaking work on depression studies. Recent schema theorists have postulated that one of the most important issues in schema formation is the early frustration of core emotional needs which tend to foster the developement of early maladaptive schemas (Young et al., 2003). Early maladaptive schemas are dysfunctional patterns of cognitions, memories, emotions and bodily sensations regarding the oneself and others (Young et al., 2003). These both definitions appear to share the notion of deeply rooted beliefs that shape how individuals interpret themselves, others, the world and the future, providing a coherent psychological explanation of how past and current events influence cognitive, behavioral and emotional responses to situational stressors (Beck et al., 1980; Young et al., 2003). Furthermore, recent research has consistently shown the intrinsic and complex relationships between early maladaptive schemas and the way individuals regulate their psychological needs (Faustino et al., 2020; Faustino & Vasco, 2020b, 2020a, 2020c), which is consistent with Young's schema model.
One of the most used instruments to assess early maladaptive schemas is the Young Schema Questionnaire (YSQ-S3). This instrument was translated and adapted to several languages such as French, Italian, German, Dutch, Korean, Japanese, Norwegian, Turkish, Finnish, and Portuguese (Dobson, 2009). Overall, the YSQ-S3 showed adequate psychometric properties, regarding factorial structure, temporal stability, convergent, and divergent validity in the Portuguese population (Rijo, 2017). Despite the YSQ-S3's adequate psychometric properties, this instrument has 90 items making it a long and time-consuming instrument. This effect may be more evident when the YSQ-S3 is applied to individuals in clinical samples where frustration tolerance and distress levels tend to be higher than invididuals in non-clinical samples. Moreover, other instruments focused on the assessment of negative cognitions, such as, Personality Belief Questionnaire (Beck et al., 2001), Dysfunctional Attitude Scale (Brown et al., 1995), Evaluative Beliefs Scale (Chadwicket al. 1999), Schema Quesionnaire (Schmidt et al., 1995) and the Dysfunctional Working Models Scale (Perris et al., 1998) can potentially have the same cost-time effects.
Fowler et al. (2006), noted that, despite the diversity of measures that assess schema concepts, only a few were able to separate the schematic elements in order to provide a direct and coherent assessment of the negative self and other constructs. Therefore, the Brief Core Schema Scales (BCSS, Fowler, et al., 2006) was developed as a direct measure of how individuals evaluate themselves and others in the form of core beliefs. With a four-dimensional structure, the BCSS was conceptualized to assess self-other positive and negative appraisals corresponding to the semantics of the item content previously described in the literature. Fowler et al. (2006) stated that item content in the negative assessment of the self was derived from the Depressed States Checklist (Teasdale & Dent, 1987; Teasdale & Cox, 2001), reflecting the established concept of the negative schema models of the self. Fowler et al. (2006) also stated that the negative dimension of the BCSS has conceptual similarities with the Evaluative Beliefs Scale (Chadwicket al. 1999). Nevertheless, the negative other of the BCSS was focused on the appraised threat from others (e.g., others are malevolent) rather than appraised hostility (Fowler et al., 2006).
One major contribution of the BCSS to schema assessment was the addition of the adaptive/positive dimensions of self and others. Typically, schema assessment instruments are focused on the dysfunctional cognitions ignoring the potential adaptive aspect of the schema appraisals. Thus, adaptive aspects of the schema development (e.g., adaptive states of mind) showed to explain more variance of symptomatology in a non-clinical sample than early maladaptive schemas (Faustino and Vasco, 2021). This suggests that schema development may be viewed as a dialectical process resulting from adaptive and maladaptive experiences during lifetime (Faustino, in prep). Recently the positive schema questionnaire (Louis, et al., 2018) was developed to complete the YSQ-S3, which suggests that authors are gaining awareness of this critical aspect (see Louis, et al., 2018 for details).
In the former study by Fowler et al. (2006), the BCSS showed to have satisfactory psychometric properties. Alpha coefficients of the positive and negative self schemas in the non-clinical and clinical samples were .78 (.79) and .86 (.84), and for the positive and negative-other schemas scales were .88 (.84) and .88 (.87), respectively, (Fowler et al., 2006). Test-retest reliability was studied with Pearson correlations and were all significant for the negative-self (r = .84), positive-self, (r = .82), negative-other (r = .71), and positive-other (r = .72). Concurrent and discriminant validities were assessed with bivariate Spearman’s correlations between BCSS subscales with the YSQ-S subscales and with the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES, Rosenberg, 1965) in a non-clinical sample. Overall, the positive self and other BCSS subscales were negatively correlated with maladaptive schemas (e.g., mistrust/abuse and defectiveness/shame), depression and anxiety measured by the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS; Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995) and positivly correlated with the RSES total score. An inversed correlational pattern was found with the negative self-other BCSS subscales, which were positively correlated with maladaptive schemas, depression, and anxiety from DASS. Also, BCSS has been used to study self-report schemata in individuals with psychotic disorders (Addington & Tran, 2009; Fowler et al., 2006, 2012; Freeman et al., 1998; Stowkowy et al., 2016; Taylor et al., 2014).
Despite the good psychometric qualities and several empirical studies, the BCSS has not been translated and adapted to European Portuguese. In this sense, this study aims to adapt the BCSS to the Portuguese Population and explore it´s basic psychometric properties. It is expected that the BCSS shows a four-factor dimensionality in confirmatory factor analysis. It is also expected that BCSS subscales correlate with early maladaptive schematic domains (YSQ-S3; Young, 2005), symptomatology (BSI-53, Degorois, 1993), psychological distress, and well-being measured with the Mental Health Index (MHI, Ware et al., 1993).
Method
Participants
The sample consists of three hundred and twenty participants where, 121 were man (37, 8%) and 199 were women (62.2%). The age of the men varied between 18 and 62 years (mean = 29.3, SD = 13.15) and the age of the women varied between 18 and 64 years (mean = 23.27, SD = 10.19). Educational level frequencies were 14 (4.4%) with basic years of study, 182 (56.9%) with 12th grade, 89 (27.8%) with a Bachelor’s degree and 35 (10.8%) with a Master’s or Doctoral degree. Relationship status were 241 (75.3%) were single, 28 (8.8%) married, 24 (7.5%) living together, 15 (4.7%) divorced, and 12 (3.8%) widow.
Instruments
Brief core schemas scales
The Brief Core Schemas Scales (BCSS, Fowler, et al., 2006, translated and adapted to Portuguese by Faustino, this issue), is a self-report instrument focused on the as sessment of self-other positive and negative cognitions with a five-point rating scale (0–4). It has 24 items divided into four dimensions. In the present study, internal consistency was the following: negative self schemas (α = .77), positive self schemas, (α = .77), negative-other schemas (α = .88), and positive-other schemas (α = .92), being considered adequate.
Young Schema Questionnaire – S3
The Young Schema Questionnaire, (YSQ-S3, translated and adapted to Portuguese by Rijo, 2009, 2017) is a self-report questionnaire focused on the assessment of early maladaptive schemas with a six-point rating scale (1–6). It has 90 items divided throughout 18 schemas and five schema domains, namely, disconnection and rejection, impaired autonomy and performance, other’s domain, impaired limits, and overvigilance and inhibition. Only schema domains were used in the statistical analysis and interpretations. Cronbach’s alpha values were the following: rejection and disconnection (α = .95), impaired autonomy and performance (α = .90), impaired limits (α = .80), other´s domain (α = .86), and overvigilance and inhibition (α = .88) being considered adequate.
Mental Health Index
The Mental health Index, (MHI-5, translated and adapted to Portuguese by Ribeiro 2001), is a self-report questionnaire focused on the assessment of general psychological well-being and distress. It has five items on a Likert scale of five or six points. Cronbach’s alpha was considered adequate (α = .76 for psychological distress and α =.70 for well-being).
Brief Symptoms Inventory
The Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI-53; Derogatis, 1993, translated and adapted to Portuguese by Canavarro, 1999) is a self-report inventory, with 53 items, on a five-point Likert scale (0–4), focused on the assessment of psychopathological symptoms. Cronbach’s alpha total score was considered very good (α = .96).
Procedures
Three hundred and twenty participants were recruited from the community through social media (e.g., Linkedin). Ethical considerations were aligned with American Psychological Association (APA) and with the Portuguese Professional Psychologists Order (Ordem dos Psicólogos Portugueses, OPP in Portuguese). Informed consent, assurances of confidentiality, the voluntary participation, and the study aims were introduced in the recruitment message. The study was revised and accepted by ethical commission of the Faculty of Psychology of University of Lisbon. After giving informed consent, participants were asked to fulfill a small sociodemographic questionnaire with some closed questions (yes or no) about self-report diagnosis (e.g., “do you have a diagnosed neurocognitive disorders?”). After completing the sociodemographic questionnaire, the study protocol was applied. Individuals were able to quit the study at any given moment. Inclusion criteria were being over 18 years and less than 65 years old, speaking Portuguese as a native language and not having a neurocognitive disorder.
Analytical Strategy
Descriptive statistics were used for the basic description of the sample. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to test factorial structure. Pearson moment-to-moment correlations were used to test convergent and divergent validity. A t-test for independent samples was used to test concurrent validity. Since all participants were able to stop at any point in time, 320 participants completed the BCSS completely, while only 176 completed the full study protocol. Therefore, the CFA was performed with 320 participants, while the subsequent analysis was with 176 participants (Mage = 22.5, SD = 9.1). Finally, the sample with 176 participants was split based on the cut-off value of BSI> 1.7 which is a valid criterion to identify individuals with clinically significant symptoms in the Portuguese population (Canavarro, 1999). Accordingly, two subsamples were derived to explore whether the mean values of the BCSS subscales were significantly lower/higher in the non-clinical subsample than the mean values of the BCSS subscales in the clinical subsample. All analyses were performed in the 25 version of the SPSS and AMOS software.
Results
Translation
BCSS was translated into Portuguese by a bilingual speaker (English–Portuguese). Then a back-translation was performed by another independent bilingual speaker. The final version was then compared with the original. Only very minor corrections were made.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
The data from 320 participants (total sample) was used in the CFA analysis. Only a four model factor struture was tested to match the original study by Foweler and colleagues (2006). According to Kline (2016), the model chi-square, the RMSEA, the CFI, and the SRMR are the indices that should be reported to explore model fit. In this sense, results showed the following indices: χ2 = 717.1, χ2/df = 246, TLI = .85, CFI = .89, SRMR = .044, RMSEA = .077 (.069–.083)—see Figure 1. These results represent a moderate to adequate fit to the data (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Table 1 Showed the standardized direct regression weights item-factor. All items showed to load on the respective factor. Confirmatory factor analysis of the brief core schemas scales (N = 320). Standardized direct regression weights item-factor for BCSS subscales (N = 320).
Convergent and Divergent Validities
Pearson correlations between Brief Core Schemas subscales and psychological variable (N=176).
Note. *p < .01; **p < .05.
Pearson correlations between Brief Core Schemas subscales and Early Maladaptive Schema domains (N=176).
Note. *p < .01; **p < .05.
Concurrent Validity
T-test for independent samples between non-clinical and clinical subsamples divided by BSI cut-off> 1.7.
Note: St: Standard Deviations.
Discussion
The aim of the present study was achieved. Several psychometric procedures were carried out for the first time with the BCSS in a Portuguese community sample. Results did not fulfill all expectations which means that some aspects need further confirmation. The confirmatory analysis did support a four-dimensional structure described in the original study (Fowler et al., 2006). Despite ch sq/df, SRMR, and RMSEA values seem adequate, the CFI and TFI values were marginal to the suggested standards by Hu and Bentler (1999). Perhaps new items could be developed and/or removed, or perhaps translation processes could be improved. However, a likely explanation might be about the nature of the sample and the content of the items. The BCSS asks for individuals to rate themselves in very extreme forms of negative self (e.g., judging oneself to be inadequate, useless, weak, and worthless) and others (e.g., judging others to be untrustworthy, bad, and/or devious). These extreme forms of cognitions represent core beliefs that may have extremely dysfunctional impacts on how individuals perceive themselves and others and may be better found in clinical samples, namely in individuals with affective and psychotic disorders (Addington & Tran, 2009; Fowler et al., 2006, 2012; Taylor, et al., 2014). The sample under study was recruited from the community, which means that the majority of the individuals may not hold particularly extreme views on themselves and others. To capture non-clinical beliefs about the self and others, maybe some item restructuring can be performed. Moreover, the BCSS subscales showed good internal consistency, which suggests that the four-dimensional model may be measuring four different aspects of mental structures that reflect self and other evaluations. Nevertheless, more research is required to test the dimensionally in other non-clinical and clinical samples.
Moreover, evidence of convergent, divergent, and concurrent validities was found. BCSS subscales correlated with maladaptive schema domains, symptomatology, psychological distress, and psychological well-being matching theoretical predictions. These correlational patterns suggest that the BCSS is measuring schema-related constructs associated with psychopathological symptoms and mental health. Specifically, self and other negative core appraisals may represent the cognitive content of early maladaptive schemas which are deeply rooted mental structures that contain cognitive, affective, physiological, and behavioral tendencies underlying psychopathological disorders (Young et al., 2003). Thus, the associations between maladaptive schemas and symptomatology are consistently reported in the literature (Faustino et al., 2020; Faustino & Vasco, 2020a, 2020b, 2020c, 2021). The positive self and other core appraisals may represent another dimension of schematic development, which can be observed by the negative correlations between self and other positive schemas and early maladaptive schema domains. In this sense, it is fair to speculate that the schematic development may be conceptualized in a continuum with two opposite dialectical polarities (adaptive and maladaptive views of the self and others). During lifetime, most individuals have both adaptive and non-adaptive experiences, which can lead to the development of opposing views of themselves and others. On one hand, repeated experiences of frustration, trauma, loss, rejection and subjugation can promote maladaptive views of self and others. On the other hand, recurrent experiences of acceptance, achivement, emotional fulfillment, and praise/worth can promote adaptive views of self and others. In this sense, the dialectical polarities measured by the BCSS may represent self and other mental dimensions that reflect the oppositional adaptive and non-adaptive core appraisals, based on the adaptive and maladaptive experiences. Thus, this is the main ideia of the Dialectical Core Schema Theory (DCST), which suggests that individuals during lifetime live both adaptive and maladaptive experiences fostering oppositional views of self and other. These contraditory beliefs are articulated dialectilly and lie at the core of internal conflicts when activated (Faustino, in prep). Furthermore, the development of the Positive Schemas Questionnaire (Louis et al., 2018, 2020) represents a similar perspective about schemata development based on Young’s schema model. However, more research is required to test these theoretical assumptions.
Differences in mean values of the BCSS subscales were found to be statistically different between the non-clinical and clinical subsample. This result adds value to the present study because, on one hand, it shows that individuals who have low to moderate symptoms (below BSI-53 cut-off >1.7), tend to score lower in the negative self and other BCSS subscales and higher in the positive self and other BCSS subscales. On the other hand, individuals with high symptoms (above the BSI-53 cut-off) tend to score higher in the negative self and other BCSS subscales and lower in the positive self and other BCSS subscales. These results are consistent with cognitive theories where individuals with psychopathology/psychopathological symptoms hold dysfunctional cognitions about the self, others, world and the future (Beck, 1967; Beck et al., 2004; Young et al., 2003).
Some limitations can be described. The first limitation is the use of the terms “positive” and “negative” schemas in the BCSS to describe schema constructs. Contemporary psychological literature suggests that psychological variables tend to be better conceptualized in terms of adaptive or maladaptive value, rather than the simplistic use of “positive” and “negative” normally associated with statistical terms. Perhaps the terms “adaptive” and “maladaptive” (which are contemporary terms for describing schema constructs) should be used in BCSS in the future. One limitation regarding convergent validity resides in the use of the five-factor schema model proposed by Young and colleagues. Louis et al. (2020) described a four-factor solution for the schema model that proved more favorable than the hypothetical five. In the future, this four-factor solution must be tested with BCSS. Another limitation was the lack of comparisons with positive constructs such as positive schemas (Louis et al., 2018). Therefore, this issue should be addressed in the future. This study was conducted online, which prevents distractibility factors. The sample was composed with more women than men which may induce some bias in the responses. Future studies should re-examine the factorial structure of BCSS in non-clinical and clinical samples. The proposed confirmatory model did not present robust fit values, which suggests that other factor solutions can be explored. For example, it would be interesting to explore whether combinations between self-positive and self-negative schemas or other-positive and other-negative schemas enhance the factor structure of the BCSS. Also, further studies should focus on the relationships between BCSS and other measures of schema constructs such as emotional and interpersonal schemas to disentangle overlapping or differential latent factors.
Conclusion
The present study assessed the preliminary psychometric properties of the Brief Core Schemas Scales in a community sample of the Portuguese population. Results were challenging and further analysis is required to continue the enhancement of this measure. This preliminary study showed that improvements are required for the BCSS before it can be recognized as a valid instrument that has been subjected to psychometric scrutiny. The assessment of self-other core positive and negative appraisals may be an asset in case conceptualization and clinical decision-making.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Ethical Approval
This study was revised and accepted by ethical commission of the Faculty of Psychology of University of Lisbon.
