Maladaptive and Adaptive Cognitions About the Self and Others: Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Brief Core Schemas Scales

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.

Keywords

brief core schemas scales confirmatory analysis convergent validity symptomatology

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.

Figure 1.

Confirmatory factor analysis of the brief core schemas scales (N = 320).

Table 1.

Standardized direct regression weights item-factor for BCSS subscales (N = 320).

	Positive Self Schemas	Positive Other Schemas	Negative Self Schemas	Negative Other Schemas
Other people are hostile				.69
Other people are harsh				.72
Other people are unforgiving				.73
Other people are bad				.87
Other people are devious				.90
Other people are nasty				.76
I am respected	.74
I am valuable	.83
I am talented	.45
I am successful	.78
I am good	.73
I am interesting	.78
Other people are fair		.74
Other people are good		.82
Other people are trustworthy		.61
Other people are accepting		.65
Other people are supportive		.36
Other people are truthful		.37
I am unloved			.26
I am worthless			.77
I am weak			.79
I am vulnerable			.50
I am bad			.65
I am a failure			.74

Convergent and Divergent Validities

Convergent and Divergent validities were explored with Pearson moment-to-moment correlations. Negative Self Schemas correlated positively with symptomatology measured by the BSI (r = .64, p < .05), YSQ-S3 (r = .68, p < .05), Psychological Distress (r = .17, p < .05), and correlated negatively with Psychological Well-Being (r = −.35, p < .05). Although Positive Self Schemas correlated negatively with BSI (r = −.50, p < .05), YSQ-S3 (r = −.54, p < .05), Psychological Distress (r = −.24, p < .05), and correlated positively and Psychological Well-Being (r = −.36, p < .05). A similar correlational pattern was found with Negative and Positive Other Schemas—see Table 2.

Table 2.

Pearson correlations between Brief Core Schemas subscales and psychological variable (N=176).

	Total Index BSI	Total Index YSQ	Distress	Well-Being
Negative self schemas	.64^**	.68^**	.17^*	-.35^**
Positive self schemas	−.50^**	−.54^**	−.24.^**	.36^**
Negative other schemas	.29^**	.36^**	,44^**	−.10
Positive other schemas	−.30^**	−.35^**	.13	.22^**

Note. *p < .01; **p < .05.

Negative Self Schemas correlated positively with Disconnection and Rejection (r = .68, p < .01), Impaired Autonomy (r = .64, p < .05), Others Domain (r = .52, p < .05), Impaired Limits (r = .39, p < .05) and Overvigilance and Inhibition (r = .53, p < .05). Although Positive Self Schemas correlated negatively with Disconnection and Rejection (r = −.56, p < .01), Impaired Autonomy (r = −.54, p < .05), Others Domain (r = −.39, p < .05), Impaired Limits (r = −.23, p < .05), and Overvigilance and Inhibition (r = −.44, p < .05). A similar correlational pattern was found with Negative and Positive Other Schemas—see Table 3.

Table 3.

Pearson correlations between Brief Core Schemas subscales and Early Maladaptive Schema domains (N=176).

	Disconnection and Rejection	Impaired Autonomy	Others Domain	Impaired Limits	Overvigilance and Inhibition
Negative self schemas	.68^**	.64^**	.52^**	.39^**	.53^**
Positive self schemas	−.56^**	−.54^**	−.39^**	−.23^**	−.44^**
Negative other schemas	.32^**	.34^**	.27^**	.25^**	.31^**
Positive other schemas	−.34^**	−.29^**	−.28^**	−.30^**	−.29^**

Note. *p < .01; **p < .05.

Concurrent Validity

Concurrent Validity was explored with t-test for independent samples. Through the use of 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), the main sample was divided into two different subsamples (non-clinical subsample with GSI values lower that 1.7, and clinical subsample with GSI values higher that 1.7). All mean values in the BCSS subscales were statistically different in both subsamples. Non-clinical subsample mean values were significantly higher than the clinical subsample mean values in the Positive Self and Other Schemas. Although the mean values in Negative Self and Other Schemas were significantly higher in the clinical subsample than the non-clinical subsample—see Table 4.

Table 4.

T-test for independent samples between non-clinical and clinical subsamples divided by BSI cut-off> 1.7.

	Subsample	N	Mean	ST	t	p
Negative self schemas	Non-clinical	132	1.44	.38	−8334	.01
	Clinical	44	2.20	.57
Positive self schemas	Non-clinical	132	2.91	.56	6295	.01
	Clinical	44	2.32	.52
Negative other schemas	Non-clinical	132	1.77	.59	−3906	.01
	Clinical	44	2.21	.66
Positive other schemas	Non-clinical	132	2.61	.59	2632	.04
	Clinical	44	2.36	.52

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.

ORCID iD

Bruno Faustino

Author Biography

Bruno Faustino, Ph.D. is an assistant professor and director of the master’s course in clinical and health psychology at the Faculty of Psychology and Life Sciences at Lusophone University. He is a clinical psychologist and neuropsychologist in private practice and his research focuses on integrative psychotherapy and affective neuroscience.

References

Addington

Tran

(2009). Using the brief core schema scales with individuals at clinical high risk of psychosis. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 37(2), 227–231. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1352465809005116

Beck

A. T

(1967). Depression: Clinical, experimental, and theoretical aspects. Harper and Row. Republished as: Beck, A. T. (1970). Causes and treatment. Philadelphia:University of Pennsylvania Press.

Beck

A. T.

(2008). The evolution of the cognitive model of depression and its neurobiological correlates. Am J Psychiatry, 165(8), 969–77. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2008.08050721. 18628348.

Beck

A. T.

Brown

G. K.

Steer

R. A.

Kuyken

Grisham

(2001). Psychometric properties of the Beck Self-esteem Scales. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 39(1), 115–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(00)00028-0

Beck

A. T.

Freeman

Davis

D. D

(2004). AssociatesCognitive therapy of personality disorders. Guilford Press.

Beck

A. T.

Rush

A. J.

Shaw

B. F.

Emery

(1980). Cognitive therapy of depression. John Wiley & Sons.

Brown

G. P.

Hammen

C. L.

Craske

M. G.

Wickens

T. D.

(1995). Dimensions of dysfunctional attitudes as vulnerabilities to depressive symptomsdysfunctional attitudes as vulnerabilities to depressive symptoms. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 104(3), 431–435. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-843x.104.3.431

Canavarro

M. C.

(1999). Inventário de sintomas psicopatológicos –BSI. In M. R. Simões[Inventory of psycological symptoms]. In Gonçalves

Almeida

L. S.

(Eds), Testes e Provas Psicológicas em Portugal. Braga: APPORT/SHO (Vol. II, pp. 95–109).

Chadwick

Trower

Dagnan

(1999). Measuring negative person evaluations: the Evaluative Beliefs Scale. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 23(3), 549–559. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018776522497

10.

Derogatis

L. R.

(1993). BSI: Brief symptom inventory (3rd edn). National Computers Systems

11.

Dobson

(2009). Handbook of cognitive-behavioral therapies (3rd ed.). The Guilford Press

12.

Faustino

(In preparation). Introducing Dialectical Core Schemas Theory through Mediation Models. International peer review journal.

13.

Faustino

Vasco

A. B.

(2020a). Schematic functioning, Interpersonal dysfunctional cycles and cognitive fusion in the complementary paradigmatic perspective: Analysis of a clinical sample. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 1(50), 47–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10879-019-09422-x.

14.

Faustino

Vasco

A. B.

(2020b). Early maladaptive schemas and cognitive fusion on the regulation of psychological needs. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 1(50), 105–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10879-019-09446-3.

15.

Faustino

Vasco

A. B.

(2020c). Relationships between emotional processing difficulties and early maladaptive schemas on the regulation of psychological needs. Advance online publication. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.2464.

16.

Faustino

Vasco

A. B.

Silva

A. N.

Marques

(2020). Relationships between emotional schemas, mindfulness, self-compassion and unconditional self-acceptance on the regulation of psychological needs. Research in Psychotherapy: Psychopathology, Process and Outcome, 23(2). https://doi.org/10.4081/ripppo.2020.442.

17.

Faustino

Vasco

A. B.

(2021). Emotional schemas mediate the relationship between emotion regulation and symptomatology. Advance online publication. Current Psychology: A Journal for Diverse Perspectives on Diverse Psychological Issues. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01560-7.

18.

Fowler

Freeman

Smith

Kuipers

Bebbington

Bashforth

Coker

Hodgekins

Gracie

Dunn

Garety

(2006). The brief core schema scales (BCSS): psychometric properties and associations with paranoia and grandiosity in non-clinical and psychosis samples. Psychological Medicine, 36(6), 749–759. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291706007355

19.

Fowler

Hodgekins

Garety

Freeman

Kuipers

Dunn

Smith

Bebbington

P. E.

(2012). Negative cognition, depressed mood, and paranoia: A longitudinal pathway analysis using structural equation modeling. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 38, 1063–1073. https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbr019.

20.

Freeman

Garety

Fowler

Kuipers

Dunn

Bebbington

Hadley

(1998). The London-East anglia randomized controlled trial of cognitive-behaviour therapy for psychosis IV: Self-esteem and persecutory delusions. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 37(4), 415–430. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8260.1998.tb01399.x.

21.

Greenberg

L. S

Goldman

(2017). Emotion-focused therapy: Revisioned edition. American Psychological Association.

22.

L. t.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

23.

Kline

R. B.

(2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Press.

24.

Louis

J. P.

Davidson

Lockwood

Wood

(2020). Positive perceptions of parenting and their links to theorized core emotional needs. Journal of Child and Family Studies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-020-01807-0

25.

Louis

J. P.

Wood

A. M.

Lockwood

M.-H. R. R.

Ferguson

(2018). Positive clinical psychology and schema therapy (ST): The development of the young positive schema questionnaire (YPSQ) to complement the young schema questionnaire 3 short form (YSQ-S3). Psychological Assessment, 30(9), 1199–1213. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000567

26.

Lovibond

P. F.

Lovibond

S. H.

(1995). The structure of negative emotional states: comparison of the depression anxiety stress scales (DASS) with the beck depression and anxiety inventories. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 33(3), 335–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(94)00075-u

27.

Perris

Fowler

Skagerlind

Olsson

Thorsson

(1998). Development and preliminary application of a new scale for assessing dysfunctional working models of self and others (DWM-S) in severely disturbed patients. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 98(3), 219–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0447.1998.tb10070.x

28.

Ribeiro

J. L

Portuguesa (2001). Mental health inventory: Um estudo de adaptação à população. Psicologia, Saúde e Doença, 2(1), 77–99.

29.

Rijo

(2009). Esquemas mal-adaptativos precoces: Validação do conceito e dos métodos de avaliação. Coimbra: Faculdade de psicologia e de ciências da educação da universidade de coimbravalidation of the concept and evaluation methods. http://hdl.handle.net/10316/18486. Early maladaptive schemas.

30.

Rijo

(2017) O questionário de esquemas de Young (YSQ-S3). In Gonçalves

Simões

M. R.

Almeida

(Eds), Psicologia clínica e da saúde: instrumentos de avaliação . PACTOR (pp. 159–173)

31.

Rosenberg

(1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

32.

Schmidt

N. B.

Joiner

T. E.

Young

J. E.

Telch

M. J.

(1995). The schema questionnaire: Investigation of psychometric properties and the hierarchical structure of a measure of maladaptive schemas. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 19(3), 295–321. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02230402

33.

Stowkowy

Liu

Cadenhead

K. S.

Cannon

T. D.

Cornblatt

B. A.

McGlashan

T. H.

Perkins

D. O.

Seidman

L. J.

Tsuang

M. T.

Walker

E. F.

Woods

S. W.

Bearden

C. E.

Mathalon

D. H.

Heinssen

Addington

(2016). Core schemas in youth at clinical high risk for psychosis. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 44(2), 203–213. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1352465815000144

34.

Taylor

H. E.

Stewart

S. L. K.

Dunn

Parker

Fowler

Morrison

A. P.

(2014). Core schemas across the continuum of psychosis: A comparison of clinical and non-clinical groups. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 42(6), 718–730. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1352465813000593

35.

Teasdale

J. D.

Cox

S. G.

(2001). Dysphoria: Self-devaluative and affective components in recovered depressed patients and never depressed controls. Psychological Medicine, 31(7), 1311–1316. https://doi.org/10.1017/s003329170100424x

36.

Teasdale

J. D.

Dent

(1987). Cognitive vulnerability to depression: An investigation of two hypotheses. The British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 26(Pt 2), 113–126.

37.

Ware

Snow

Kosinski

Gandek

(1993). SF-36 health survey: Manual and interpretation guide, and interpretation guide. The Health Institute, New England Medical Center.

38.

Young

(2005). The young schema inventory, standardized items (3rd version). Schema Therapy Institute.

39.

Young

J. E.

Klosko

J. S.

Weishaar

M. E

(2003). Schema therapy: A practitioner'sguide. Guilford Press.