Interesting new measures

Today, I present abstracts regarding three instruments that may be of interest to those who do psychological testing. First, Laslo-Roth & George-Levi (2024) published “The Development and Validation of the Emotional Entitlement Questionnaire (EEQ)” in Emotion. Here’s the edited abstract:

Beliefs about what one is entitled to emotionally may make a unique contribution to emotional and interpersonal experiences. In the present study, we introduce the concept of emotional entitlement, the degree to which people believe they have the right to experience different emotions (e.g., the right to feel happy, angry, sad, etc.). Our aim was to develop and validate the Emotional Entitlement Questionnaire (EEQ). In the first study (N = 200), we constructed a three-factor, 15-item EEQ, in Hebrew. Factor analysis revealed a three-factor structure of emotional entitlement to positive emotions (EEP), emotional entitlement to negative emotions (EEN), and the maladaptive aspect of emotional entitlement which we termed uncompromised emotional entitlement (EEU). The second study (N = 672) replicated this three-factor structure in a new independent sample and established test–retest reliability using two timepoints. In the third study (N = 495), we translated the EEQ into English and replicated the three-factor structure in another independent sample while establishing initial validity using the entitlement questionnaire, the positive and negative affect schedule, and the interpersonal emotion regulation questionnaire. Different dimensions of the EEQ were related to different levels of life satisfaction and loneliness, above and beyond the contribution of global entitlement. Overall, we would suggest that EEP represents an adaptive aspect of emotional entitlement, EEU represents a maladaptive aspect, and EEN has both adaptive and maladaptive aspects. The results indicate that emotional entitlement is a multidimensional construct and that the EEQ is a reliable and valid tool with good psychometric properties. 

I likethe three factors – emotional entitlement to positive emotions, negative emotions, and uncompromised entitlement, as well as their initial findings. The next measure looks at personality in adolescents. Wu, Allman, Balzen, Hutsebaut & Sharp (2024) published “First Psychometric Evaluation of the Level of Personality Functioning Scale—Brief Form 2.0 in adolescents” in Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment. Here’s the edited abstract:

Reflecting the recent consensus that challenges in personality functioning often onsets in adolescence, and the move toward dimensional models of personality pathology such as the level of personality functioning (LPF) of the alternative model for personality disorders, it is important to have validated measures that can assess LPF in young people. The Level of Personality Functioning Scale—Brief Form 2.0 (LPFS-BF 2.0) is the briefest measure of LPF and may be particularly well suited for assessing LPF in youth; however, it has yet to be formally validated in youth. Therefore, the current investigation evaluated the psychometric properties of the LPFS-BF 2.0 in adolescents drawn from a community sample of ethnically diverse North American youth (N = 194, age 12–18; 58% female). Factor structure, gender invariance, reliability, convergent validity, incremental validity, and criterion validity were evaluated. Results demonstrated support for the LPFS-BF 2.0’s unidimensional factor structure, as well as high internal consistency. Configural, metric, and scalar measurement invariance was supported across male and female genders, as well as convergent validity. Relative to the Personality Inventory for the DSM-5 Brief Form and Levels of Personality Functioning Questionnaire 12–18, the LPFS-BF 2.0 demonstrated additional variance in predicting borderline personality features, and internalizing and externalizing problems. Study findings support the English version of the LPFS-BF 2.0 as a brief and psychometrically sound instrument for assessing LPF in youth and adolescents. 

This one introduces a new measure that incorporates a dimensional approach to personality and may be helpful in predicting borderline personality, internalizing and externalizing problems. Finally, Kemp et al. (2024) published “The Inventory of Callous-Unemotional Traits (ICU) self-report version: Factor structure, measurement invariance, and predictive validity in justice-involved male adolescents” in Psychological Assessment. Here are the edited abstract and impact statements:

The Inventory of Callous-Unemotional Traits (ICU) is a widely used measure of callous-unemotional (CU) traits that may aid in the assessment of the diagnostic specifier “with limited prosocial emotions,” which has been added to diagnostic criteria for conduct disorder. Though there is substantial support for use of the ICU total score, the scale’s factor structure has been highly debated. Inconsistencies in past factor analyses may be largely attributed to failure to control for method variance due to item wording (i.e., half of the items being worded in the callous direction and half worded in the prosocial direction). Thus, the present study used a multitrait–multimethod confirmatory factor analytic approach that models both trait and method variance to test the factor structure of the ICU self-report in a clinically relevant, high-risk sample of justice-involved male adolescents (N = 1,216). When comparing the fit of empirical and theoretical models, goodness of fit indices (χ² = 1105.877, df = 190, root-mean-square error of approximation = .063, comparative fit index = .916, Tucker–Lewis index = .878, standardized root-mean-square residual = .051) provided support for a hierarchical four-factor model (i.e., one overarching callous-unemotional factor, four latent trait factors) when accounting for method variance (i.e., covarying positively worded items). This factor structure is consistent with the way the ICU was constructed and with criteria for the limited prosocial emotions specifier. In addition, measurement invariance of this factor structure across age, race, and ethnicity was supported, and the predictive validity of the ICU was supported across these demographic groups in predicting self-reported antisocial behavior and rearrests over a 5-year period following an adolescent’s first arrest. 

Callous-unemotional traits have been integrated into recent diagnostic classification systems as a specifier for conduct disorder, which requires well-validated measures of this construct. The present findings support the construct validity of one of the most widely used measures of callous-unemotional traits, the Inventory of Callous-Unemotional Traits, including support for its measurement invariance and predictive utility across younger and older adolescents and across racial and ethnic groups. 

This time, the measure isn’t new but the research lends support to those who may wish to examine predictors of conduct disorder. As of the creation of the post, I only have access to pre-publication abstracts. If you are interested in the instruments, you will have to search for more complete information.