Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T09:24:56.309Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Factor Structure and Convergent Validity of the Portuguese version of the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems – 32

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 December 2020

Bruno Faustino Open the ORCID record for Bruno Faustino [Opens in a new window]  and
António Branco Vasco Open the ORCID record for António Branco Vasco [Opens in a new window]
Bruno Faustino*
Affiliation:
Department of Cognitive, Behavioral and Integrative Psychotherapy, Faculty of Psychology, University of Lisbon, Portugal
António Branco Vasco
Affiliation:
Department of Cognitive, Behavioral and Integrative Psychotherapy, Faculty of Psychology, University of Lisbon, Portugal
*
Address for correspondence: Bruno Faustino, Department of Cognitive, Behavioral and Integrative Psychotherapy, Faculdade de Psicologia, Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal. Email: brunofaustino.research@gmail.com
Get access

Abstract

The identification of dysfunctional patterns in individuals’ interpersonal interactions is a cornerstone of psychotherapy. The Inventory of Interpersonal Problems (IIP-32) is one of the most used measures to explore individuals’ interpersonal styles. However, an IIP-32 Portuguese version is missing. Therefore, this study describes a preliminary psychometric study of an IIP-32 Portuguese version in a nonclinical sample. In a cross-sectional correlational design, 250 participants (M age = 20.67, SD = 4.88, males = 33, females = 217) were assessed with self-report questionnaires. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA), convergent, and divergent validities of the IIP-32 were tested with the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI). Relationships with symptomatology were also tested with the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI-53). The EFA showed a theoretically coherent eight-factor structure. Almost all of the IIP-32 subscales were positively correlated with personal discomfort and with BSI-53 subscales. Vindictive/self-centred, socially inhibited, domineering/controlling and self-sacrificing subscales predicted symptomatology. Promising preliminary psychometric properties were found that may support the IIP-32 as a reliable instrument to assess interpersonal styles. However, more research is required to deepen the analysis of the IIP-32 in the Portuguese population.

Keywords

Inventory of Interpersonal Problems-32factor structureconvergent validitypsychometrics
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Relationships Research , Volume 11 , 2020 , e18
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

American Psychological Association (APA). (2014). Standards for Educational and Psychological Tests. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
Alden, L.E., Wiggins, J.S., & Pincus, A. (1990). Construction of circumplex scales for the inventory of interpersonal problems. Journal of Personality Assessment, 55, 34–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Akyunus, M., & Gençöz, T. (2016). Psychometric properties of the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems Circumplex Scales short form: A reliability and validity study. Journal of Psychiatry and Neurological Sciences, 29, 36–48.Google Scholar
Akyunus, M., Gençöz, T., & Aka, B.T. (2019). Age and sex differences in basic personality traits and interpersonal problems across young adulthood. Current Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-0165-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ambwani, S., Slane, J.D., Thomas, K.M., Hopwood, C.J., & Grilo, C.M. (2014). Interpersonal dysfunction and affect-regulation difficulties in disordered eating among men and women. Eating Behaviors, 15, 550–554.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bailey, C., Abate, A., Sharp, C., & Venta, A. (2018). Psychometric evaluation of the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems 32. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 82, 93–113.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barkham, M., Hardy, G.E., & Startup, M. (1996). The IIP-32: A short version of the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 35, 21–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benjamin, L.S. (2006). Interpersonal reconstructive therapy: An integrative personality-based treatment for complex cases. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Benjamin, L.S. (2010). Structural analysis of social behavior and the nature of nature. In Strack, S. & Horowitz, L. (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal psychology: Theory, research, assessment, and therapeutic interventions (pp. 325–341). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Benjamin, L.S. (2018). Interpersonal reconstructive therapy for anger, anxiety and depression: It's about broken hearts, not broken brains. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bjerke, E., Solbakken, O.A., & Monsen, J.T. (2014). Are there specific relationships between symptom patterns and interpersonal problems among psychiatric outpatients? Journal of Personality Assessment, 96, 237–244.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bordin, E.S. (1994). Theory and research on the therapeutic working alliance: New directions. In Horvath, A.O. & Greenberg, L.S. (Eds.), The working alliance: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 13–37). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Davis, M.H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, M.H. (1996). Empathy: A social psychological approach. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
Davis, M.H. (2006). Empathy. In Stets, J.E. & Turner, J.H. (Eds.), Handbook of the sociology of emotions (pp. 443–466). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derogatis, L.R. (1993). BSI: Brief Symptom Inventory (3rd ed.). Bloomington, MN: National Computers SystemsGoogle Scholar
Dimaggio, G., Montano, A., Popolo, R., & Salvatore, G. (2015). Metacognitive interpersonal therapy for personality disorders: A treatment manual. London, UK: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dimaggio, G., Semerari, A., Carcione, A., Nicolo, G., & Procacci, M. (2007). Psychotherapy of personality disorders: Metacognition, states of mind and interpersonal cycles. London: RoutledgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eubanks-Carter, C., Muran, J.C., & Safran, J.D. (2015). Alliance-focused training. Psychotherapy, 52, 169–173.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Faustino, B., Lopes, P., Oliveira, J., Campaioli, G., Rondinone, M., Bomfim, H., & Germano, L. (2019). Psychometric and rash analysis of the UCLA Loneliness Scale-16 in a Portuguese sample of older adults. Psychological Studies, 64, 140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faustino, B., Vasco, A.B., Oliveira, J., Lopes, P., & Fonseca, I. (2019). Metacognitive self-assessment scale: Psychometric properties and clinical applications. Applied Neuropsychology: Adult. doi:10.1080/23279095.2019.1671843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faustino, B., & Vasco, A.B. (2020). Schematic functioning, interpersonal dysfunctional cycles and cognitive fusion in the complementary paradigmatic perspective: Analysis of a clinical sample. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 50, 47–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flückiger, C., Del Re, A.C., Wampold, B.E., & Horvath, A.O. (2018). The alliance in adult psychotherapy: A meta-analytic synthesis. Psychotherapy, 55, 316–340.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flückiger, C., Del Re, A. C., Wlodasch, D., Horvath, A. O., Solomonov, N., & Wampold, B. E. (2020). Assessing the alliance–outcome association adjusted for patient characteristics and treatment processes: A meta-analytic summary of direct comparisons. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 67, 706–711.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flasbeck, V., Gonzalez-Liencres, C., & Brüne, M. (2018). The brain that feels into others: Toward a neuroscience of empathy. In Stevens, L. & Woodruff, C.C. (Eds.), The neuroscience of empathy, compassion, and self-compassion (pp. 23–51). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, R.E., Hilsenroth, M.J., Owen, J.J., & Gold, J.R. (2013). Psychotherapy integration and alliance: Use of cognitive-behavioral techniques within a short-term psychodynamic treatment model. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 23, 373–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holtforth, Grosse, Altenstein, M., Krieger, D., Wright, T., Fluckiger, A. G. C., & Caspar, C., F. (2014). Interpersonal differentiation within depression diagnosis: Relating interpersonal subgroups to symptom load and the quality of the early therapeutic alliance. Psychotherapy Research, 24, 429–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gurtman, M.B., & Lee, D. (2009). Sex differences in interpersonal problems: A circumplex analysis. Psychological Assessment, 21, 515–527.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gude, T., Moum, T., Kaldestad, E., & Friis, S. (2000). Inventory of Interpersonal Problems: A three dimensional balanced and scalable 48-item version. Journal of Personality Assessment. 74, 296–310.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haker, H., & Rossler, W. (2009). Empathy in schizophrenia: Impaired resonance. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, 259, 352–361.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hartmann, A., Zeeck, A., & Barrett, M.S. (2010). Interpersonal problems in eating disorders. International Journal of Eating. Disorders. 43, 619–627.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hatcher, S.L., Favorite, T.K., Hardy, E.A., Goode, R.L., Deshetler, L.A., & Thomas, R.M. (2005). An analogue study of therapist empathic process: Working with difference. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 42, 198–210.Google Scholar
Hayden, M., Müllauer, P., & Andreas, S. (2017). A systematic review on the association between adult attachment and interpersonal problems. Journal of Psychology and Psychotherapy, 7, 296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, D., Henrich, G., & Klug, G. (2007). The Inventory of Interpersonal Problems (IIP): Sensitivity to change. Psychotherapy Research, 17, 474–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horvath, A.O., Del Re, A.C., Flückiger, C., & Symonds, D. (2011). Alliance in individual psychotherapy. Psychotherapy, 48, 9–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Horowitz, L.M., Alden, L.E., Wiggins, J.S., & Pincus, A.L. (2000). The Inventory of Interpersonal Problems. Menlo Park, CA: Mind Garden Publishing.Google Scholar
Horowitz, L.M., Rosenberg, S.E., Baer, B.A., Ureño, G., & Villaseñor, V.S. (1988). Inventory of interpersonal problems: Psychometric properties and clinical applications. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 885–892.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hughes, J., & Barkham, M. (2005). Scoping the inventory of interpersonal problems, its derivatives and short forms: 1988–2004. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 12, 475–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y., Pilkonis, P.A., & Barkham, M. (1997). Confirmatory factor analysis of the personality disorder subscales from the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems. Journal of Personality Assessment, 69, 284–296.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klerman, G.L., Weissman, M.M., Rounsaville, B.J., & Chevron, E. (1984). Interpersonal psychotherapy of depression. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Lambert, M.J., Horowitz, L.M., & Strupp, H.H. (1997). Conclusions and recommendations. In Strupp, H.H., Horowitz, L.M., & Lambert, M.J. (Eds.), Measuring client changes in mood, anxiety, and personality disorders: Toward a core battery (pp. 491–502). Washington, DC: American Psychological AssociationCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Limpo, T., Alves, R.A., & Castro, S.L. (2010). Medir a empatia: Adaptação portuguesa do Índice de Reatividade Interpessoal. Laboratório de Psicologia, 8, 171–184.Google Scholar
Lo Coco, G., Mannino, G., Salerno, L., Oieni, V., Di Fratello, C., Profita, G., & Gullo, S. (2018). The Italian version of the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems (IIP-32): Psychometric properties and factor structure in clinical and non-clinical groups. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McEvoy, P.M., Burgess, M.M., Page, A.C., Nathan, P., & Fursland, A. (2013). Interpersonal problems across anxiety, depression, and eating disorders: A transdiagnostic examination. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 52, 129–147.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Main, A., Walle, E.A., Kho, C., & Halpern, J. (2017). The interpersonal functions of empathy: A relational perspective. Emotion Review, 9, 358–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norcross, J.C., & Wampold, B.E. (Eds.). (2019). Psychotherapy relationships that work (vol. 2, 3rd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pinheiro, S. (2015). The influence of attachment styles and early maladaptive schemas on interpersonal relationships — A study with couples (Unpublished master's thesis). Institute of Applied Psychology, Lisbon, Portugal. http://repositorio.ispa.pt/bitstream/10400.12/4215/1/22830.pdfGoogle Scholar
Safran, J.D., & Muran, J.C. (2000). Negotiating the therapeutic alliance: A relational treatment guide. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Safran, J.D., Muran, J.C., & Eubanks-Carter, C. (2011). Repairing alliance ruptures. Psychotherapy, 48, 80–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Safran, J.D., & Segal, Z.V. (1990).Therapy Adherence Rating Scale. Interpersonal process in cognitive therapy. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Salazar, J., Marti, V., Soriano, S., Beltran, M., & Adam, A. (2010). Validity of the Spanish version of the inventory of interpersonal problems and its use for screening personality disorders in clinical practice. Journal of Personality Disorders, 24, 499–515.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salzer, S., Pincus, A.L., Hoyer, J., Kreische, R., Leichsen-ring, F., & Leibing, E. (2008). Interpersonal subtypes within generalized anxiety disorder. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90, 292–299.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Soldz, S., Budman, S., Demby, A., & Merry, J. (1995). A short form of the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems Circumplex scales. Assessment, 2, 53–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sun, Q.-W., Jiang, G.-R., & Zhang, Q.-J. (2010). A report on the application of Inventory of Interpersonal Problems (IIP-32) to 1498 college students. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 18, 466–468.Google Scholar
Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.Google Scholar
Thimm, J.C. (2013). Early maladaptive schemas and interpersonal problems: A circumplex analysis of the YSQ–SF. International Journal of Psychology & Psychological Therapy, 13, 113–124.Google Scholar
Thomas, A., Kirchmann, H., Suess, H., Bräutigam, S., & Strauss, B.M. (2012). Motivational determinants of interpersonal distress: How interpersonal goals are related to interpersonal problems. Psychotherapy Research, 22, 489–501.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, T.F., & Simms, L.J. (2016). Personality disorder models and their coverage of interpersonal problems. Personality Disorders, 7, 15–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vanheule, S., Desmet, M., & Rosseel, Y. (2006). The factorial structure of the Dutch translation of the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems: A test of the long and short versions. Psychological Assessment, 18, 112–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaki, J., Bolger, N., & Ochsner, K. (2008). It takes two: The interpersonal nature of empathic accuracy. Psychological Science, 19, 399–404.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed