Short defeat and entrapment scale : A psychometric investigation in three German samples

GND
1218102306
LSF
60281
Affiliation
Department of Clinical Psychology, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Northrhine-Westphalia, Germany. Electronic address: inken.hoeller@uni-due.de.
Höller, Inken;
GND
139400990
Affiliation
Mental Health Research and Treatment Center, Department of Psychology, Ruhr-University of Bochum, Bochum, Northrhine-Westphalia, Germany.
Teismann, Tobias;
GND
1053778864
Affiliation
Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, University of Cologne, Cologne, Northrhine-Westphalia, Germany.
Cwik, Jan Christopher;
GND
129531731
Affiliation
Department of Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Saxony, Germany.
Glaesmer, Heide;
GND
102925964X
Affiliation
Department of Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Saxony, Germany.
Spangenberg, Lena;
Affiliation
Department of Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Saxony, Germany.
Hallensleben, Nina;
GND
1218102926
LSF
60462
Affiliation
Department of Clinical Psychology, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Northrhine-Westphalia, Germany.
Paashaus, Laura;
GND
1194064035
LSF
60681
Affiliation
Department of Clinical Psychology, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Northrhine-Westphalia, Germany.
Rath, Dajana;
GND
1114742317
Affiliation
Department of Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Saxony, Germany.
Schönfelder, Antje;
GND
123406455
Affiliation
Research Department of Neuroscience, Ruhr-University of Bochum, Bochum, Northrhine-Westphalia, Germany.
Juckel, Georg;
GND
137232632
LSF
59807
Affiliation
Department of Clinical Psychology, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Northrhine-Westphalia, Germany.
Forkmann, Thomas

Background:
The present study aimed to validate the German version of the Short Defeat and Entrapment Scale (SDES).

Methods:
Validity and reliability were established in an online (N = 480), an outpatient (N = 277) and an inpatient sample (N = 296). Statistical analyses included confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) and group differences in defeat and entrapment.

Results:
For the online and the inpatient sample, the CFA indicated a two-factor solution, whereas for the outpatient sample both one- and two-factor solutions fitted the data equally well. Scale properties for the two-factor solution (defeat and entrapment subscale) were excellent. Thus, further analyses were based on this solution. For the online and the outpatient sample, suicidal ideators and suicide attempters scored significantly higher in defeat and entrapment than non-ideators and non-attempters.

Limitations:
Limiting factors of the study were the different measures across the samples and the cross-sectional design of the study.

Conclusion:
Though results were partly mixed, we found support for a two-factor solution of the instrument showing excellent psychometric properties in all three samples. The two-factor solution is further expected to have higher clinical utility than a one-factor solution. Suicidal ideators and suicide attempters in the online and outpatient sample showed higher scores in defeat and entrapment than non-ideators and non-attempters, emphasizing these two concepts as predictors for suicidal ideation. All in all, the present study supports the general validity and reliability of the SDES. However, future investigations based on prospective data are warranted.

Cite

Citation style:
Could not load citation form.

Rights