Professional Documents
Culture Documents
pr0 95 1 291-303
pr0 95 1 291-303
sure irrational beliefs of adults. There are 15 items under the three subdi-
mensions including Approval, Human Relations and Self. Coefficient alpha
of internal consistency of the scale administered to 498 university students
was .75. Test-retest reliability coefficient for the scale was found to be .81
over a 10-wk. interval. The correlation between the scale scores and those on
the Turkish version of the Beck Depression Inventory was .16. The correla-
tions between the scale and the Turkish version of the Dysfunctional Atti-
tude Scale was .40.
Married L$e Questionnaire (Tezer, 1986).-This scale was developed to
measure conflict behaviors between married individuals. The scale provides
four different scores: Conflict Intensity, Conflict Frequency, Stress Level,
and Loading on himselfherself and spouse of incidents involving conflict.
The Conflict Frequency score indicates the number of conflicts spouses ex-
perience and the Conflict Intensity score indicates the intensity of couples'
conflicts. The scale discriminated married and divorced people in terms of
the number of conflicts and conflict intensity. The test-retest reliability coef-
ficient for Conflict Frequency was .75 for over a 3-mo. interval and for Con-
flict Intensity 3 9 .
Interpersonal Cognitive Distortions Scale.-This scale measures cognitive
distortions in individuals who are in relationships and has 19 statements re-
lated to cognitive distortion. The scale uses a 5-point Likert-type scale, an-
chored by 1= I strongly disagree and 5 = I strongly agree. High scores repre-
sent high cognitive distortion in personal relationships.
RESULTS
ICDS Development
During the development of the scale, 30 university students from differ-
ent classes were asked to write sentences using words that would remind
them of relationships (llke humans, close relations, in a relationship) on an
open-ended form. Using the sentences obtained from students and the clas-
sifications related to relationships beliefs from the literature (Baucom, et al.,
1989; Ellis, et al., 1989; Kayser & Himle, 1994) and Beck's definitions of
cognitive errors (DeRubeis, Tang, & Beck, 2001), there were 71 distorted
statements. One psychiatrist, two clinical psychologists and two counselors
evaluated the items to assess whether items include cognitive distortions.
When they thought that an item included a cognitive distortion about rela-
tionships, they described the appropriateness of items using a 3-point Li-
kert-type scale using anchors 3 = appropriate, 2 = partially appropriate and 1
=not appropriate. After evaluation, 45 items with an average rating above
2.5 were included in the scale.
Factor Structure of the ICDS
Principal components analysis was used to examine the factor structure
296 Z. HAMAMCI & $. BUYUKOZTURK
of the ICDS. This is a statistical technique for a single set of variables when
the researcher is interested in discovering which variables in the set form co-
herent subsets that are relatively independent of one another (Tabachnick &
Fidell, 2001). In this analysis, factor loadings greater than .6 are generally
considered high or moderately high if they are above .3 (Kline, 2000). Ac-
cording to Tabachnick and Fidell (2001) only variables with loadings of .32
and above are interpreted. In this study, only variables that had factor load-
ings greater than .3 were included. The results showed that items in the
scale have high loadings on multiple factors. However, in attempting to cre-
ate simple structures that can be defined by factor analysis, it is necessary to
isolate items with high loadings on one factor only (Tabachnick & Fidell,
2001). Therefore, items which had high loadings on more than one factor
were not included in the scale. Consequently, in choosing items, the differ-
ence between the loading values of the items in the factors and other factor
loading values was limited to a maximum of 2 0 .
Principal components analysis was conducted to determine the factor
structure of the ICDS and indicated that there were 16 factors whose eigen-
values were > 1.00, explaining 60.2% of the variance. To observe the factor
structure of the scale more clearly and decrease the correlation between the
factors, principal component analysis was conducted again using varimax ro-
tation. Following this analysis, the items that had low loading values (< .30
loading) on single factors or high loading values on more than one factor
were removed from the scale, and the analysis was then repeated. At the
conclusion of analysis, after 20 items were removed from the scale, the scale
was made up of 25 items in four factors. However, four of the five items
making up the fourth dimension overlapped with the other factors in terms
of content. One item containing a realistic statement (not a cognitive distor-
tion) in the second factor was also observed. Following expert opinion after
the conclusion of the analysis, the items in the fourth factor and an item in
the second factor which did not contain cognitive distortions were removed
from the scale. Then a scale of three factors comprising 19 items featuring
cognitive distortions was obtained.
The three factors of the ICDS were named in accordance with the con-
tent of the items in the factors; the first factor explaining 15.5% of the
variance with eight items, the second factor explaining 13.1% of the vari-
ance and containing eight items, and the third factor explaining 9.5% of the
variance with three items were respectively labeled Interpersonal Rejection,
Unrealistic Relationship Expectation, and Interpersonal Misperception. Table
1 presents the item factor loadings for the three factors determined through
the factor analysis.
INTERPERSONAL COGNITIVE DISTORTIONS SCALE 297
TABLE 1
FACTOR OF FINAL19 ITEMS
LOADINGS OF THE ICDS
Factor/Item Factor
Interpersonal Rejection
2. People do not understand me.
19. It is always useful to keep superficial our relationships with
others.
13. It is beneficial to be alert to people around us.
12. I believe that people do not accept me when I am in a social
environment.
4. There are no real friends in this life.
3. I believe that I will be rejected if I reveal my feelings and
thoughts to people around me.
10. People do not keep their promises.
1. Being intimate with people usually creates problems.
Unrealistic Relationship Expectation
17. I always want people to show understanding to me.
9. To feel ood, other people's thoughts and feelings about me
should Ee positive.
5. I want people that I am in contact with to share their feel-
ings and thoughts with me.
16. I always want somebody to be around me.
11. I should always belong to a social group.
18. People should meet each others' expectations in relation-
ships.
14. I should be tolerant of others in order not to offend them.
15. I should behave as others want me to behave in order to
make them happy.
Interpersonal Misperception
7. I feel what they think even if people do not show it.
6. I understand from someone's eyes what kind of a person
they are.
8. Other people should know what I think even if I do not re-
veal my thoughts.
Total Variance 38.03
Item Analysis
The correlation values between each item's factor and other factors were
measured (Table 2). The corrected item-total correlations ranged from .49 to
2 0 , and bivariate correlations between the items and other factors ranged
from .05 to .20. To control for Type I error across correlations, the alpha
level of significance was adjusted from .05 to .0008 according to Bonferroni
correlation. This more conservative alpha level was derived by dividing the
standard alpha level (.05) by the total number of comparisons made (Green,
Salkind, & Akey, 1997).
Correlations Between Factors
Table 3 presents the correlations measured between the factors of the
298 Z. HAMAMCI & '$. BuYUKOZTURK
TABLE 2
ITEM-TOTAL
CORRELATIONS
WITHINICDS FACTORS
-
Factor/Item Factor
1 2 3
-
Interpersonal Rejection
2. People do not understand me.
19. It is always useful to keep superficial our relationships with
others.
13. It is beneficial to be alert to people around us.
12. I believe that people do not accept me when I am in a social
environment.
4. There are no real friends in this life.
3. I believe that I will be rejected if I reveal my feelings and
thoughts to people around me.
10. People do not keep their promises.
1. Being intimate with people usually creates problems.
Unrealistic Relationship Expectation
17. I always want people to show understanding to me.
9. To feel ood, other people's thoughts and feelings about me
should Ee positive.
5. I want peo le that I am in contact with to share their feel-
ings and tioughts with me.
16. I always want somebody to be around me.
11. I should always belong to a social group.
18. People should meet each others' expectations in relation-
ships.
14. I should be tolerant of others in order not to offend them.
15. I should behave as others want me to behave in order to
make them happy.
Interpersonal Misperception
7. I feel what they think even if people do not show it.
6. I understand from someone's eyes what kind of a person
they are.
8. Other people should know what I think even if I do not re-
veal my thoughts.
scale, the average scores on the factors, and standard deviations. The bivari-
ate correlations between the different factors of the ICDS ranged between
.O7 and .15, which shows that the correlations between the factors are very
low.
TABLE 3
CORRELATIONS
BETWEEN
FACTORS
OF THE ICDS AND MEANS
AND STANDARD
DEVIATIONS
Factor M SD r
Principal components analysis was performed both on the first and sec-
ond halves of the sample after items were eliminated. The results show that
three factors of the scale were extracted for both samples. The item factor
loadings for the factors on the first half of the sample ranged from .38 to .66
for Interpersonal Rejection, .36 to .65 for Unrealistic Relationship Expecta-
tion, and .60 to .81 for Interpersonal Misperception, respectively. The ex-
plained total variance on the first half of the sample was 39.9% for the three
factors: 17.4% for Interpersonal Rejection, 12.8% for Unrealistic Relation-
ship Expectation, and 9.6% for Interpersonal Misperception.
The item-factor loadings for the factors on the second half of the sam-
ple ranged from .45 to .63 for Interpersonal Rejection, .35 to .60 for Unreal-
istic Relationship Expectation, and .28 to .83 for Interpersonal Mispercep-
tion, respectively. The explained total variances on the second half of the
sample were 37.9% for the three factors: 15.8% for Interpersonal Rejection,
12.1% for Unrealistic Relationship Expectation, and 9.8% for Interpersonal
Misperception.
Also, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to examine if
there was a defined model with three factors using LISREL 8.30. Confirma-
tory factor analysis produces many indicators of the model fit. Some of these
are Chi-square Goodness of Fit (x2),Goodness of Fit Index (GFI), Adjusted
Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI), Root Mean Square Residuals (RMR), Root
Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) (Mars & Hocevar, 1988;
Joreskog & Sorbom, 1993). For acceptable fit the ratio x2/df should be be-
low 5, GFI and AGFI above 0.90, and RMR and RMSEA below 0.05. The
300 Z. HAMAMCI & S. BUYUKOZTURK
TABLE 5
SUMMARY
OF CONFIRMATORY
FACTORANALYSIS
ON THE ICDS
Indices First Half of Second Half of
Sample (n = 212) Sample (n = 2 13)
x2 (df) 288.99t (149) 280t (149)
x2/df 1.94 1.88
GFI 0.87 0.88
AGFI 0.84 0.84
RMR 0.09 0.12
RMSEA 0.06 0.06
results of the confirmatory factor analysis in Table 5 confirmed that the pro-
posed model fits the data well enough for both samples.
Validity of the ICDS
The validity of the scale was estimated by the correlation between the
scores on the ICDS and the Automatic Thoughts Questionnaire (n=80)
which measures automatic thoughts related to depression. To provide more
data about validity of the scale, the correlation between ICDS and the Irra-
tional Beliefs Scale ( n = 80), measuring general beliefs, was calculated. More-
over, since we expected that if there were more cognitive distortions related
to relationships there would be more tendency to conflict for individuals,
the correlation between the ICDS and the Conflict Tendency Scale ( n = 85)
was calculated. Pearson correlations are presented in Table 6.
TABLE 6
PEARSON OF ICDS WITHRELATED
CORRELATIONS SCALES
Irrational Automatic Conflict
Beliefs Thoughts Tendency
Total ICDS .54+ .53$ .53$
Interpersonal Rejection .36$ .51$ .47$
Unrealistic Relationship Expectation .34t .94$ 32
Interpersonal Misperception .26" .28t .17t
tionship Expectation (t = 5.15, p < .05), and the Total ICDS (t = 2.37, p < .05)
but not on Interpersonal Misperception (t = 0.82, p > .05) of the ICDS than
the group of couples with Low Conflict Frequency. The group of couples
with High Conflict Intensity had significantly lower scores on Interpersonal
Rejection (t = 2.59, p < .05), Unrealistic Relationship Expectation (t = 2.10, p <
.05), and the Total ICDS ( t = 2.56, p < .05) but not on Interpersonal Misper-
ception (t=O.43, p > .05), than the group of couples with Low Conflict
Intensity.
DISCUSSION
The current study investigated the psychometric characteristics of the
ICDS. The factor analysis showed that the scale could be defined by a three-
factor structure. The first factor, labeled Interpersonal Rejection, comprised
eight items. This factor showed that the individuals in question have nega-
tive attitudes toward others. In addition, if they are very close to others in
their relationships, this situation can have negative consequences. The sec-
ond factor, Unrealistic Relationship Expectation, comprised eight items and
implies that the individuals have high expectations in their relationships con-
cerning both their own behavior and the behavior of others. The third fac-
tor, ~ L t e r ~ e r s o n Misperception,
al comprised three items. The items of this
scale imply the idea of attempting to understand interpersonal relationships,
feelings, and thoughts using unrealistic methods.
The rotated factor loadings for the 19 items of the ICDS show high
loading on their own factors and low loading on the other factors. In ortho-
gonal rotations the factors are rotated by using the same angles. This means
that factors would be uncorrelated. This result suggests that each of these
factors are relatively independent of one another and may measure different
aspects of a construct "cognitive distortions related to relationships" (Kline,
2000). The variance explained by the three factors of the scale was 38.2%
and the variance not explained 63 %. This result is considered a limitation of
the scale.
In the current study, a moderate correlation was found between the
ICDS and the Automatic Thoughts Questionnaire. But the latter was desig-
nated to measure automatic thoughts related to depression. For this reason,
the correlation between the ICDS and the Irrational Beliefs Scale was exam-
ined, and a moderate correlation was found. The correlation between the
ICDS and the Conflict Tendency Scale demonstrates that the ICDS has cri-
terion-related validity. The correlations between Interpersonal Mispercep-
tion, -the Automatic Thoughts Questionnaire, the Irrational Beliefs Scale,
and the Conflict Tendency Scale were lower than correlations with Interper-
sonal Rejection and Unrealistic Relationship Expectation.
Except for Interpersonal Misperception, the Total ICDS score and oth-
er factor scores discriminated married individuals with High and Low Con-
302 Z. HAMAMCI & S. BUYUKOZTURK
flict Frequency and Intensity. This result can be considered another evi-
dence of validity of the ICDS.
The test-retest correlation of the ICDS was above .70 for the Total scale
and for each factor, which shows that the scale is stable over time. Cronbach
alpha for Unrealistic Relationship Expectation was relatively low, but accept-
able given that the test-retest correlations are high. Cronbach alpha for In-
terpersonal Misperception was not acceptable, as the items shared only 9.5 %
of their variance, possibly because the number of items was small.
This study demonstrates that the ICDS is valid and reliable for Inter-
personal Rejection and Unrealistic Relationship Expectation. But Interper-
sonal Misperception is not reliable and requires more development. This can
be seen to be a limitation of this study. Another limitation of this study was
that the scale was developed on scores of university students. The results
must not be generalized to all individuals with relationship problems. It wdl
require further validation of the measure on different groups.
REFERENCES
ADDIS,J., & BERNARD, M. E. (2002) Marital adjustment and irrational beliefs. Journal of Ra-
tional Emotive and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, 20, 3 - 13.
AYDIN,G., & AYDIN,0. (1990) Reliability and validity of the Turkish version of Automatic
Thoughts Questionnaire. The Turkish Psychology Journal, 7, 5 1-57.
BAUCOM, D. H., EPSTEIN, N., SAYERS,D., & SHER,T. S. (1989) The role of cognition in marital
relationships: definitional, methodological and conceptual issues. Journal of Counseling
and Clinical Psychology, 57, 3 1-38.
BECK,A. (1976) Cognitive therapy and emotional disorder. New York: Basic Books.
BECK,A. T., RUSH,A., SHAW,B. F., &EMERY,G. (1979) Cognitive therapy in depression. New
York: Guilford.
BERNARD, M. E., &JOYCE,M. R. (1984) Rational emotive therapy with children and adolescents.
New York: Wiley.
DEBORD,J., ROMANS, S. C., & KRIESHOK, T. (1996) Predicting dyadic adjustment from general
and relationship-specific beliefs. Journal of Psychology, 130, 263-280.
DERUBEIS, R. J., TANG,T. Z., &BECK,A. (2001) Cognitive therapy. In K. S. Dobson (Ed.), The
handbook of cognitive behavioral therapies. New York: Guilford. Pp. 3-39.
DIGUISEPPE, R., &ZEE,C. (1986) A rational emotive theory of marital dysfunction and marital
therapy. Journal of Rational Emotive Therapy, 4 , 22-37.
DOKMEN,U. (1986) [The effect of education about facial expression on the ability to recog-
nize facial expression and the tendency to experience communication conflict]. Unpub-
lished doctoral dissertation, Ankara Universitesi.
DRYDEN, W. (1985) Marital therapy: the rational-emotive approach. In W. Dryden (Ed.), Mari-
tal therapy in Britain. London: Harper & Row. Pp. 195-221.
EIDELSON, R. J., &EPSTEIN,N. (1982) Cognition and relationships maladjustment: development
of a measure of dysfunctional relationships beliefs. Journal of Counseling and Clinical Psy-
chology, 50, 715-720.
ELLIS,A. (1962) Reason and emotion in psychotherapy. Secaucus, NJ: Lyle Stuart.
ELLIS,A. (1986) Rational emotive therapy applied to relationships therapy. Journal of Rational
Emotive Therapy, 4, 14-21.
ELLIS,A., SICHEL, J., YEAGER, R., DIMATTIA,D., & DIGUISEPPE, R. (1989) Rational emotive cou-
ples therapy. New York: Pergamon.
EMMELKAMP, l? G., KROL,B., SANDERMAN, R., &RUPHAN,M. (1987) The assessment of relation-
ships beliefs in marital context. Personality and Individual Dzfferences, 8, 775-780.
INTERPERSONAL COGNITIVE DISTORTIONS SCALE 3 03