RESEARCH PAPER
Adaptation of the Chabot Emotional Differentiation Scale: Turkish version validity and reliability study
| 1 | Fatih Sultan Mehmet Vakıf University, Istanbul, Turkey |
Submission date: 2020-09-18
Final revision date: 2020-12-18
Acceptance date: 2020-12-28
Online publication date: 2021-02-12
Publication date: 2021-03-31
Current Issues in Personality Psychology 2021;9(1):53–65
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Background:
The aim of the study was to adapt the Chabot Emotional Differentiation Scale (CED) for use in Turkey and to contribute to the Turkish literature by conducting a validity and reliability study on the scale.
Participants and procedure:
The study sample consisted of 369 volunteers between 18 and 52 years of age: 279 females (75.6%) and 90 males (24.4%), selected by the convenience sampling method. The construct validity of the scale was first tested with exploratory factor analysis and subsequently with confirmatory factor analysis. The Depression Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS-42) and the Differentia-tion of Self Inventory-Short Form (DSI-SF) were used to test the convergent validity of the scale. The reliability of the scale was calculated by internal consistency and test-retest methods.
Results:
Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis revealed that the scale has a single factor structure. In the Turkish version of the scale, the 14th item was removed from the scale due to its low factor loading. The Cronbach’s α internal consistency coefficient of the scale was found to be .86 while the test-retest reliability coefficient was calculated as .76.
Conclusions:
The analysis indicates that the Turkish version of the Chabot Emotional Differentiation Scale constitutes a reliable and valid measurement tool for use with a sample in Turkey.
The aim of the study was to adapt the Chabot Emotional Differentiation Scale (CED) for use in Turkey and to contribute to the Turkish literature by conducting a validity and reliability study on the scale.
Participants and procedure:
The study sample consisted of 369 volunteers between 18 and 52 years of age: 279 females (75.6%) and 90 males (24.4%), selected by the convenience sampling method. The construct validity of the scale was first tested with exploratory factor analysis and subsequently with confirmatory factor analysis. The Depression Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS-42) and the Differentia-tion of Self Inventory-Short Form (DSI-SF) were used to test the convergent validity of the scale. The reliability of the scale was calculated by internal consistency and test-retest methods.
Results:
Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis revealed that the scale has a single factor structure. In the Turkish version of the scale, the 14th item was removed from the scale due to its low factor loading. The Cronbach’s α internal consistency coefficient of the scale was found to be .86 while the test-retest reliability coefficient was calculated as .76.
Conclusions:
The analysis indicates that the Turkish version of the Chabot Emotional Differentiation Scale constitutes a reliable and valid measurement tool for use with a sample in Turkey.
REFERENCES (47)
1.
Anderson, S. A., & Sabatelli, R. M. (1990). Differentiating differentiation and individuation: Conceptual and operation challenges. American Journal of Family Therapy, 18, 32–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/019261....
2.
Anderson, S. A., & Sabatelli, R. M. (1992). The Differentiation in the Family Systems Scale (DIFS). American Journal of Family Therapy, 20, 77–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/019261....
3.
Bellur, E., & Dinçyürek, S. (2020). Adaptation of the Chabot Emotional Differentiation Scale to Turkish lan-guage and examination of emotional differentiation levels of married people. Current Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144....
4.
Biadsy-Ashkar, A., & Peleg, O. (2013). The relationship between differentiation of self and satisfaction with life amongst Israeli women: a cross cultural perspective. Health, 5, 1467–1477. https://doi.org/10.4236/health....
5.
Bilgel, N., & Bayram, N. (2010). Turkish version of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale (DASS-42): Psychomet-ric properties. Nöropsikiyatri Arşivi, 47, 118–126. https://doi.org/10.4274/npa.53....
7.
Bentler, P. M. (1980). Multivariate analysis with latent variables: Causal modeling. Annual Review of Psycholo-gy, 31, 419–456. https://doi.org/10.1146/annure....
8.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance struc-tures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2....
9.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Overall fit in covariance structure models: Two types of sample size effects. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 256–259. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2....
10.
Bray, J. H., Williamson, D. S., & Malone, P. E. (1984). Personal authority in the family system: Development of a questionnaire to measure personal authority in intergenerational family processes. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 10, 167–178. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752....
12.
Chabot, D. (1993). Preliminary psychometric properties of the Chabot Emotional Differentiation Scale. Un-published manuscript, Fordham University.
13.
Drake, J. R., Murdock, N. L., Marszalek, J. M., & Barber, C. E. (2015). Differentiation of Self Inventory-Short Form: Development and preliminary validation. Contemporary Family Therapy, 37, 101–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591....
14.
Ercan, İ., & Kan, İ. (2004). Ölçeklerde güvenirlik ve geçerlik [Reliability and validity in scales]. Uludag Universi-tesi Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi, 30, 211–216.
15.
Franks, T. H., & Chabot, D. (2004). Normative patterns of religious orientation and psychological differentia-tion in vowed male religious life. Unpublished manuscript, Fordham University.
16.
Garbarino, J., Gaa, J. P., Swank, P., McPherson, R., & Gratch, L. V. (1995). The relation of individuation and psychological development. Journal of Family Psychology, 9, 311–318. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3....
17.
Gharehbaghy, F. (2011). An investigation into Bowen family systems theory in an Iranian sample. Iranian Journal of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, 5, 56–63.
18.
Haber, J. E. (1984). An investigation of the relationship between differentiation of self, complementary psycho-logical need patterns, and marital conflict. Doctoral dissertation, New York University.
19.
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6, 53–60.
20.
Hovestadt, A. J., Anderson, W. T., Piercy, F. P., Cochran, S. W., & Fine, M. (1985). A family-of-origin scale. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 11, 287–297. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752....
21.
Hu, 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, 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/107055....
22.
Jankowski, P. J., & Hooper, L. M. (2012). Differentiation of self: a validation study of the Bowen theory con-struct. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice, 1, 226–243. https://doi.org/10.1037/a00274....
23.
Jankowski, P. J., & Sandage, S. J. (2012). Spiritual dwelling and well-being: The mediating role of differentiation of self in a sample of distressed adults. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 15, 417-434. https://doi.org/10.1080/136746....
24.
Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Scientific Software International.
25.
Karasick, S. (2004). Individuation, differentiation, and psychological adjustment in orthodox Jewish college students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Fordham University.
27.
Lampis, J., Cataudella, S., Speziale, R., & Elat, S. (2020). The role of differentiation of self dimensions in the anxiety problems. The Family Journal, 28, 90–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/106648....
28.
Licht, C., & Chabot, D. (2006). The Chabot Emotional Differentiation Scale: a theoretically and psychometri-cally sound instrument for measuring Bowen’s intrapsychic aspect of differentiation. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 32, 167–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752....
29.
Lovibond, P. F., & Lovibond, S. H. (1995). The structure of negative emotional states: Comparison of the De-pression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) with the Beck Depression and Anxiety Inventories. Behaviour Re-search and Therapy, 33, 335–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7....
30.
Magnotti, M. A. (2004). The effects of separation from parents, attachment to parents, triangulation in marital conflict, and parental social support on college adjustment. Doctoral dissertation, Fordham University.
31.
McCollum, E. E. (1991). A scale to measure Bowen’s concept of emotional cutoff. Contemporary Family Ther-apy, 13, 247–254. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf0089....
32.
Moon, W. H., & Kim, J. Y. (2020). Stress and depression in the Korean college students: Mediated effects of self-differentiation and self-efficacy. In A. Bhoi, P. Mallick, C. M., & V. Balas (Eds.), Bio-inspired neurocompu-ting (pp. 151–161). Springer.
33.
Murdock, N. L., & Gore, P. A. (2004). Stress, coping, and differentiation of self: a test of Bowen theory. Con-temporary Family Therapy, 26, 319–335. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:coft....
34.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
35.
Peleg-Popko, O. (2002). Bowen theory: a study of differentiation of self, anxiety and physical symptoms. Con-temporary Family Therapy, 24, 355–369. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1015....
36.
Peleg, O., & Rahal, A. (2012). Physiological symptoms and differentiation of self: a cross-cultural examination. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36, 719–727. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijin....
37.
Reynolds, K., & Chabot, D. (2004). Assessing Bowenian interpersonal aspects of individuation within an Ital-ian sample. Unpublished manuscript, Fordham University.
38.
Ross, A. S., & Murdock, N. L. (2014). Differentiation of self and well-being: The moderating effect of self-construal. Contemporary Family Therapy, 36, 485–496. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591- 014-9311-9.
39.
Sarıkaya, Y., Boyacı, M., İlhan, T., & Aldemir, A. (2018). Adaptation of the Differentiation of Self Inventory Short Form (DSI-SF) to Turkish: Validity and reliability study. Bartın Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 7, 365–380.
40.
Schnarch, D., & Regas, S. (2012). The crucible differentiation scale: Assessing differentiation in human relation-ships. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 38, 639–652. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752....
41.
Skowron, E. A., & Friedlander, M. L. (1998). The Differentiation of Self Inventory: Development and initial val-idation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45, 235–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0....
42.
Skowron, E. A., & Schmitt, T. A. (2003). Assessing interpersonal fusion: Reliability and validity of a new DSI fusion with others subscale. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 29, 209–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752....
43.
Takagishi, S. C. (1996). Assessing Murray Bowen’s concept of differentiation: The development of a measure of intrapersonal differentiation. Unpublished master’s thesis, Fordham University.
44.
Takagishi, S. C. (1999). An examination of young adults as they separate from their parents: a six-factor ap-proach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Fordham University.
45.
Titelman, P. (2008). The concept of the triangle in Bowen theory: an overview. In P. Titelman (Ed.), Triangles: Bowen family systems theory perspectives (pp. 3–62). Routledge.
46.
Uncu, Y., Bayram, N., & Bilgel, N. (2006). Job related affective well-being among primary health care physi-cians. European Journal of Public Health, 17, 514–519. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub....
47.
Yousefi, N., Etemadi, O., Bahrami, F., Fatehezade, M. A., Ahmadi, S. A., & Beshlideh, K. (2009). Structural rela-tionships between self-differentiation and subjective wellbeing, mental health and marital quality: Fitting Bowen’s theory. Iranian Journal of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, 3, 4–14.
Copyright: © Institute of Psychology, University of Gdansk This is an Open Access journal, all articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/), allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license.
RELATED ARTICLE
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.