Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy

Clin. Psychol. Psychother. 19, 78–90 (2012)

Published online 11 February 2011 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/cpp.740

Assessment
The Mini Questionnaire of Personal Organization
(MQPO): Preliminary Validation of a New Post-
Rationalist Personality Questionnaire
Bernardo Nardi,1* Emidio Arimatea,1 Sara Giovagnoli,2 Stefano Blasi,1
Cesario Bellantuono1 and Giorgio Rezzonico3
1
Psychiatric Unit, Neurosciences Department, Polytechnic University of Marche, Ancona, Italy
2
Psychological Faculty, Bologna University, Bologna, Italy
3
MHCL, Department of Experimental Medicine, Milano-Bicocca University, Milan, Italy

Background: The Mini Questionnaire of Personal Organization (MQPO) has been constructed in order
to comply with the inward/outward Personal Meaning Organization’s (PMO) theory. According to
Nardi’s Adaptive Post-Rationalist approach, predictable and invariable caregivers’ behaviours allow
inward focus and a physical sight of reciprocity; non-predictable and variable caregivers’ behavi-
ours allow outward focus and a semantic sight of reciprocity.
Methods: The 20 items of MQPO have been selected from 29 intermediate (n = 160) and 40 initial items
(n = 204). Psychometric validation has been conducted (n = 296), including Internal Validity (Item-Total
Correlation; Factor Analysis), Internal Coherence by Factor Analysis, two analyses in Discriminant
Validity (n = 132 and n = 80) and Reliability by Test-Retest Analysis (n = 49). All subjects have been
given their written informed consent before beginning the test.
Results: The validation of the MQPO shows that the ultimate version is consistent with its post-
rationalist paradigm. Four different factors have been found, one for each PMO. Validity of the con-
struct and the internal reliability index are satisfying (Alpha = 0.73). Moreover, the results obtained are
constant (from r = 0.80 to r = 0.89). There is an adequate agreement between the MQPO scales and the
clinical evaluations (72.5%), as well as an excellent agreement (80.0%) between the scores of the MQPO
and those of the Personal Meaning Questionnaire.
Conclusion: The MQPO is a tool able to study personality as a process by focusing on the relationships
between personality and developmental process axes, which are the bases of the PMO’s theory, accord-
ing to the APR approach. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Key Practitioner Message:

• Adaptive post-rationalist approach.
• Cognitive psychotherapy.
• Easy and quick subjective screening of personality.
• Personal Meaning Organizations construction supported by Mini Questionnaire of Personal
Organization.
• Workup in clinical practice and research.

Keywords: Adaptive Post-Rationalist Approach (APR), Personal Meaning Organizations (PMO), Mini
Questionnaire of Personal Organization (MQPO)

*Correspondence to: Bernardo Nardi, Psychiatric Unit, Neurosciences Department, Polytechnic University of Marche, Ancona, Italy.
E-mail: b.nardi@univpm.it

Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Mini Questionnaire of Personal Organization
BACKGROUND: THE POST-RATIONALIST
APPROACH
As known among cognitive constructivist approaches to
psychotherapy, the post-rationalist paradigm constitutes
one of the most innovative, proposing a useful epistemo-
logical theory of mental functioning with successful appli-
cations in clinical practice. The post-rationalist approach
was conceptualized by Guidano in the 1980s (Guidano and
Liotti, 1983; Guidano, 1987, 1991) and it was developed
‘from the perception of a discrepancy between the promising
results of a psychotherapeutic practice making wide use of behav-
iour therapy techniques and the limited explicative power of the
learning principles forming the theoretical foundation of those
techniques’ (1987). The main points of Guidano’s theory
are: (1) the importance of subject’s manner of arranging
and self-referring immediate experience to construct self-
identity and the lack of centrality and impartiality of ther-
apist-observer, and (2) the idea of the therapist as a
‘strategically oriented perturber’, which helps the subject to
reach a more adaptive mental functioning; however, this
result can be obtained only into the borders of his/her
invariant modalities structured during development. There
are ‘core organizing processes’ behind every human physio-
logical or pathological experience.
The knowledge of the ‘self-system’ is central in clinical
practice, influencing therapist’s attitude, assessment pro-
cedures, self-observation method and dynamics of thera-
peutic change. Furthermore, it allows a subject-centred
reconstruction of immediate experiencing, modifying
dysfunctional patterns of self-perception and achieving
substantive and lasting changes. In constructing the
therapeutic setting centred on the subjective way of self-
referring experience, Guidano (1991) proposed the ‘moviola
setting’, which consists in instructing clients to focus in a
significant scene, on the difference between ‘immediate
experiencing’ (‘how’) and their ‘explanations’ (‘why’) of it
during and after the scene. In fact, ‘the “how” has to do with
the subjective experiencing, both in terms of how it is made up,
that is, its ingredients (e.g., ongoing patterns of flowing
imagery; multifaceted, opposing feelings; the felt sense of self)
and in terms of how it comes about, that is, what perception of
events or circumstances brought it on’.
In this approach, the conceptualization of the ‘Personal
Meaning Organization’ (PMO, Guidano, 1987) individuates
the specific arrangement of personal meaning processes by
which each individual is provided with a sense of oneness
and historical continuity in the course of his/her lifespan
(Guidano, 1987). According to Guidano’s workup, by ana-
lysing the sequence of the images concerning a significant
episode (in the ‘moviola setting’, a kind of psychological
‘slow motion’) it is possible to reconstruct the subjective
immediate experiencing of perturbing events.
Recently, an adaptive post-rationalist (APR) approach was
developed by Nardi in order to study the physiological
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
79
and adaptive characteristics of the PMO (Nardi, 2007;
Nardi & Bellantuono, 2008). The construct on the basis
of APR and Mini Questionnaire of Personal Organiza-
tion (MQPO) was recently confirmed by functional
Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) and polymorphism
studies also of our group (Nardi et al., 2008; Nardi and
Bellantuono, 2008; Nardi et al., 2010), that demonstrated
significant differences in emotional activations between
the inward and outward subjects.
In fact, moving from previous studies (Guidano, 1987,
1991; Arciero, 2006) on inward and outward developmen-
tal processes, Nardi pointed out that in overlapping
situations concerning laugh, angry, fear or sleep, the child
perceives caregiver (and, in general, his/her environ-
ment) as stable and predictable. In these conditions, it is
easy to recognize and to predict experience. Furthermore,
it is easy to decode caregiver’s and self facial expres-
sions concerning basic feelings (fear, anger, sadness, and
happiness).
Constancy and predictability of caregiver’s behaviors
and emotional expressions allow a precocious decoding
of his/her own similar activations. For example, the
subject begins to perceive in which situations he/she
feels sure or in danger conditions, protected or alone and,
therefore, he/she reads through his/her internal activa-
tions what happens in the environment (internal focus:
‘Inward’ lecture of experience).
On the contrary, when caregiver’s behaviors and expres-
sions are perceived as more complex and changing,
depending from external situations, they result less pre-
dictable and more difficult to decode. The child needs to
memorize more data and needs to update them continu-
ally; also nuclear scenes must be updated and reframed;
emotional activations are connected to a self-evaluating
cognitive schemata (guilt, sense of self-inadequacy,
shame). In these conditions, the self develops moving
from a preliminary evaluation of environment, that
orients recognition of internal activations and self-percep-
tion (external focus: ‘Outward’ lecture of experience).
Therefore, along the process, developmental primary
axis concerning inward/outward focus, predictability
and variability of caregiver (and, more in general, of envi-
ronment) drive each individual to reach the better adapta-
tion that is possible; likewise, they drive the subject to
construct invariant skills in assimilating and self-referring
experience in order to maintain internal coherence. In
fact, there is not an adaptive pre-eminence of inward or
outward focus, but each one provides specific skills in
decoding the self and the environment, in relation with
the main aspects perceived through attachment: inward
focus results more useful when the external world is per-
ceived as stable, predictable and, therefore, its changes
can generally be easily decoded in terms of physic protec-
tion or loneliness; outward focus, on the contrary, is
suitable when environmental characteristics seem vague,
Clin. Psychol. Psychother. 19, 78–90 (2012)
80
complex or changing and, therefore, needing the assimila-
tion of more cognitive parameters. The development of
emotional patterns is according with this aspect: in general
(when there are not emergency situations for surviving),
inward activations consist essentially of basic feelings,
that don’t need complex cognitive evaluation to be
expressed, while cognitive processes are developed after,
to explain the feeling perceived by the subject (i.e., why
he/she gets frightened or sad). On the contrary, in outward
activations, cognitive self-evaluation is essential to per-
ceive emotions, that are more complex and expressed as
emotional schemata (i.e., pride, shame or guilt needs a
preliminary evaluation of one’s own behaviour).
Inward/outward patterns are along the same process
axis of development related to predictability and variabil-
ity of caregiver; therefore, they appear more or less
evident in different subjects, but in each individual one of
the two is in any case prevalent, at least in specific catego-
ries of experience.
In inward development the same emotional reciprocity
patterns are expressed in the same situations, and ability
in changes decoding is conditioned by one’s own per-
ceived managing skills. Communication is centred on
physical reciprocity: distance, availability of caregiver in
terms of protection or detachment; therefore, reciprocity
develops along a process axis, from high to low patterns
of physical reciprocity (high protections and reassurance
– loss and loneliness).
The evolutionary inward development allows to centre
behaviour on perceiving and managing how one is pro-
tected or alone, orienting consequently his/her explora-
tory detachment. In fact, inward subjects can handle: a)
situations of proximity, availability of help, dependence,
and social sharing or, b) situations of distance, unavaila-
bility of help, independence, and social isolation.
In inward development, when physical reciprocity is
high (not depending on the quality – positive or negative
– of significant relationships), identity is constructed
controlling how the subject perceives his/her need of
protection or freedom: separation from caregiver and
environmental exploration are possible when the subject
feels the situation under control and, therefore, when
he/she is sure of him/herself. In all these cases, that
are inward with high physical reciprocity, the ‘controller’
PMO becomes stable.
In inward development, when physical reciprocity is
low (not depending on the quality – positive or negative
– of significant relationships), identity is constructed
managing detachment and loneliness that the subject
perceives as the habitual condition of his/her life-span,
trying to find the necessary resources to realize him/
herself. In all these cases, that are inward with low physi-
cal reciprocity, the ‘detached’ PMO become stable.
As above mentioned, in outward development com-
plexity and variability or ambivalence of environmental
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
B. Nardi et al.
signals orientate the construction of emotional schemata
through a relevant importance of cognitive self-evalua-
tion. The subject learns to read information from his/her
significant environment to update internal perceptions, in
terms of acceptance or refusal, high or low amiability, and
importance or insignificance. Communication is centred
on semantic reciprocity, in terms of approval, decoding,
rules, and values; therefore, reciprocity develops along a
process axis, from high to low patterns of semantic
reciprocity.
The evolutionary outward development allows to centre
behaviours on perceiving and managing how one is pro-
tected or alone, orienting consequently his/her explora-
tory behaviour. By allowing to focus others’ internal
world, it promoted two other essential abilities of Homo
Sapiens: a) to utilize (when it is possible, anticipating too)
external judgements and opinions, producing successful
behaviours, and to update them when styles and modes
are changing, or b) to find patterns and theories to under-
stand human experience, adequately reordering it, despite
the contradictions observed and one’s own cognitive
limits.
In outward development, when semantic reciprocity is
high (not depending on quality – positive or negative – of
the relationships), identity is constructed ‘in real-time’,
step by step, basing on signals perceived from the external
context, in terms of approval or disapproval, agreement
or disagreement, and success or failure. A relevant impor-
tance is given to comparison with others, to the results
achieved and to the adaptive research of persons, situa-
tions, and activities which enable to draw the better
self-esteem possible. In all these cases, that are outward
with high semantic reciprocity, the ‘contextualized’ PMO
become stable.
In outward development, when semantic reciprocity is
low (not depending on quality – positive or negative – of
the relationships), identity is constructed on precepts,
rules, criteria about what is right or wrong, good or
bad, and useful or useless. The subject orients his/her
strategies to individuate a set of positive thought and
behaviours, to reach certainties stabilizing perception of
the self and the world, and, at the same time, to keep out
negative thoughts and behaviours. The fundamental
parameters to evaluate his/her behaviour are not the
results (as for contextualized outwards), but the self-
commitment. Research of reciprocity (consistent with own
emotional self-evaluative schemata) is performed; the
subject appears consenting to instructions and rules, but
he/she is also looking for a new and original theory on
life, concerning significance of skills, relations, and goals.
In all these cases, that are outward with high semantic
reciprocity, the ‘principle oriented’ PMO become stable.
Therefore, each individual has variable and constant
modalities of self referring experience, typical of each
specific PMO; furthermore, in many cases, is it possible
Clin. Psychol. Psychother. 19, 78–90 (2012)
Mini Questionnaire of Personal Organization
observe that one subject can show secondary modalities,
evident in some situations during the life-span, that are
typical of another PMO (‘mixed’ PMO). Aim of this work
is to present the process of construction and validation of
a quick and new self-report questionnaire, the MQPO,
based on adaptive and evolutive Nardi’s personality
approach, which investigate the inward PMO: ‘controller’
and ‘detached’ and the outward PMO: ‘contextualized’
and ‘principle oriented’.
METHODS
The MQPO Construction
The questionnaire was constructed following the above
mentioned model, in order to assess the personality
profile. With respect to other questionnaires, based on a
rigid description of personality, MQPO was made to
define personality as an evolving process.
Through a initial ‘interview to experts’ (Kline, 1993; APA,
1999), a pool of five experienced post-rationalist thera-
pists of the Adolescence Centre for the Promotion of
Youth Welfare of Ancona (Polytechnic University of
Marche) has chosen the themes in order to constructs the
initial 40 MQPO items. Selection of the self-report replies
was made to obtain a questionnaire employable both in
clinical practice and in researches that need to investigate
the PMO quickly and according to standardized criteria.
As instruction of the questionnaire, it was requested to
choose among different options the one in which the
replying person would better recognize himself/herself,
with the aim to catch, for each item, aspects close to the
self and its functioning. In almost all the items, the mental
states were described in specific situations concerning the
investigated themes: the specificity of situation character-
ized the related subjective point of view.
The first formulation of the questionnaire included four
scales and a sufficiently large number of items (40).
According to the Nardi’s framework (2007), the four
scales were the following.
Contextualized Scale
It included 10 early items concerning outward and high
semantic reciprocity aspects. Items of this scale especially
described the role of external environment on subjects.
Questions investigated both personal adequacy themes
obtained from others’ expectations and research of approval
concerning himself/herself in general or his/her own point
of view. Disapproval and others’ criticism were focused for
the fact that, in contextualized subjects, they were perceived
mainly as an evidence of personal inadequacy and loss of
value. The last theme was the need to be considered, which
in such subjects is often associated to self-esteem, as described
in the theory. In these 10 items, feelings of adequacy or
inadequacy and shame were submitted. In the choice of
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
81
items, positive feeling concerning adequacy was preferred
for two reasons. The first was that in general, as for many
other questionnaire items, positive feelings give a neutral
tone to questions; on the contrary, negative feelings involve
trouble, with a consequent evaluation of the specified situa-
tion. The second reason was the research of ‘social desirabil-
ity’ of contextualized subjects; in fact, to be approved and
accepted, they could invalidate the truthfulness of their
replies.
Principle Oriented Scale
It included 10 early items concerning outward and low
semantic reciprocity aspects. On this scale, items mainly
described the importance to internalize criteria and rules,
drawn by external context. The main themes of these
items were the effort in achieving an aim independently
by the result obtained, the personal sense of equity,
honesty and impartiality, and the support of personal
beliefs with respect to other’s sentences. In some of these
items, emotional activations in doubt or ‘choice’ situa-
tions were investigated; in fact, in principle oriented
subjects, logical and analytical abilities are preferred to
achieve sureness in personal choices.
Controller Scale
It included 10 early items concerning inward and high
physical reciprocity aspects. These items focused on the
following themes: freedom, perceived as the faculty to
move without imposed bonds, and control, perceived as
the personal ability to cope with situations, especially
when they could be new and unexpected. In fact, in con-
troller subjects, these two themes (concerning freedom
and control) are closely connected. Items investigated the
physical trouble perceived when there is an impossibility
to move freely, the positive sense of freedom when the
subject controls a situation, the opposite sense of con-
straint when the others are those who control a situation.
It was investigated if perception of others is a reliable
basis of protection or a cause of coercive bond. These
subjects have a clear and strong perception of their physi-
cal conditions, while their ability in emotional recognition
is lower; therefore, they employ the former ones to repre-
sent the latter ones. The items choice was thus directed
just on these physical aspects.
Detached Scale
It included 10 early items concerning inward and low
physical reciprocity aspects. In these subjects, lecture con-
cerning both the self and the environmental situations
is made moving from the inner perception of emotional
activations. The self is drawn from the ability to manage
detachment; loneliness is perceived as the basic condition
in life, but in physiological conditions, it does not implicate
a negative view of himself/herself. Need of self-resolution
and autonomy are important in the self-confirmation. The
Clin. Psychol. Psychother. 19, 78–90 (2012)
82
main theme of this scale was loneliness; it is perceived in
difficult situations as the destiny to be without help or it is
used as an adaptive response when others are absent,
distant, unreliable or unsympathetic.
Construction of the First Formulation of
the Questionnaire
The first formulation of the questionnaire, pilot study,
aimed to verify in a different way the main features that
would have characterized the questionnaire. Checking the
construct validity of the questionnaire, 14 nursing science
students (5 males and 9 females; mean age = 21.35; SD =
2.74), 22 physiotherapy science students (7 males and 15
females; mean age = 41.13; SD = 7.22) of Medicine and
Surgery Faculty, Marche Polytechnic University and 31
childhood subjects from the Adolescence Centre for the
Promotion of Youth Welfare of Ancona (11 males and 20
females, in short therapy for different neurotic problems;
mean age = 19.16; SD = 4.85) have been tested. These sub-
jects were included in the study for the fact that their PMO
was known, in order to have an external evaluation. In
the first phase of the research, a clinical session, focusing
significant episode in ‘moviola’, was done in order to have
been used to know the PMO of each subject (according to
the Guidano’s criteria modified by Nardi. During the com-
pilation, every item of the questionnaire was analysed with
each subject asking him/her what he/she understood
about the item and which mental processes addressed
him/her to the given answer as ‘thinking aloud’. This
group of 67 subjects represented about the 30% of the initial
sample (n = 204). This group allowed a preliminary qualita-
tive screening on the items comprehensibility.
In addition, further 137 subjects (45 males and 92 females;
mean age = 26.9; standard deviation [SD] = 16.2) were
considered in order to obtain a quantitative analysis on the
40 initial items. They were 68 pupils of ‘Giovanni Pascoli’
secondary school of Ancona (26 males and 42 females;
mean age = 13.7; SD = 0.37) and 69 of their parents (19 males
and 50 females; mean age = 42.94; SD = 4.03), all following
a welfare promotion course. All the subjects gave consent
to personal data elaboration (in the case of minors, consent
was given by their parents), according to Italian law D.L.
196/03. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
(SPSS) 15.0 was used for the data analysis. The Frequency
Analysis of each items (n = 204) allowed to evaluate if the
items were discriminant and what was the answers distri-
bution in the sample evaluated (Nunnally, 1978; APA,
1999). Besides, thanks to information come from cognitive
interview, it was possible to find the incomprehensible or
controversial items. The 40 items were administrated con-
sidering that their number would later be reduced on the
basis of validity and effectiveness indexes, according to
the aim to verify the viability of a very short questionnaire.
The analysis of these initial items showed that 20 items
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
B. Nardi et al.
appeared extremely clear, easy to understand and discrimi-
nating enough the different PMO; 9 items were modified
and 11 were excluded in the second formulation of the
questionnaire because they were redundant, unclear or
because some questions were too related to social desirabil-
ity and suggested a specific kind of answer. In the first
version of the questionnaire, subjects answered on a five-
points Likert scale. Administration allowed to evaluate the
main answer value for each item: ‘neither true nor false’
(the intermediate value number 3) was often chosen when
a subject did not understand the question or he/she was
uncertain. Therefore, the intermediate answer was excluded
and answer options were distributed on 6 values; the total
number of items was reduced to 29. The Table 1 summa-
rizes the validation steps and the corresponding popula-
tion samples.
Construction of the Second Formulation of
the Questionnaire
In the second formulation of the questionnaire consisting
of 29 items, a sample of 160 subjects (mean age = 36.6;
SD = 12.4), 65 males (mean age = 38.9; SD = 13.3) and 95
females (mean age = 35.0; SD = 11.5) was used for data
analysis. The subjects did not know their own PMO before
the evaluation and they did not show any psychopathol-
ogy. All the subjects gave consent and authorization to
personal data elaboration (in the case of minors, consent
was given by their parents), according to law DL 196/03.
Thirty-five subjects (22%) 15 male and 20 female (mean
age = 46.6; SD = 12.2) came from northern Italy (Liguria,
Lombardia and Emilia Romagna), while 23 subjects
(14.5%), 13 male and 10 female (mean age = 37.6; SD =
13.6) came from southern Italy (Puglia, Campania and
Molise); the other subjects (63.5%) 37 males, 65 females
(mean age = 33.1; SD = 10.5) came from central Italy, in
particular from the Marche Region. Data obtained from
this questionnaire’s version were analysed in order to
make a further selection of the items, following the litera-
ture’s commonly accepted directions (Nunnally, 1978;
APA, 1999). Frequency Analysis of all the items has per-
mitted to find the item where more than 75% of subjects
gave the same answer at the item’s negative limits (1 or
2) and the item’s positive limits (5 or 6).
This operation has permitted to find the not-discrimi-
nating items, in which all the subjects tended to give the
same answer because of social desirability or a not clear
formulation and/or banality of the question. Anyway,
some items showing a high percentage of answer at posi-
tive or negative limits were included all the same because
they resulted theoretically important for the description
and the determination of a specific PMO (item 29, 27, 23,
17, 11, 9 and 4).
This analysis has permitted to delete nine items (2, 3, 6,
7, 10, 14, 15, 18 and 25) because they did not show a good
Clin. Psychol. Psychother. 19, 78–90 (2012)
Mini Questionnaire of Personal Organization
Table 1. Mini Questionnaire of Personal Organization (MQPO) validation steps and corresponding population samples
Step of the validation Number of items Sample (n)
1st step 40 204
2nd step 29 160
3rd step 20 296
result distribution (Frequency Analysis) and did not dis-
criminate the PMO (see final version of the questionnaire,
Appendix). The SPSS 15.0 was used for data analysis. The
choice of the definitive items has also been confirmed
by the Factor Analysis. This analysis was done using the
Maximum Likelihood extraction method and the Varimax
rotation’s method (with the Kaiser normalization). Results
obtained confirmed the good coherence of the question-
naire’s inner structure with respect to the PMO factors
(Table 2).
The remaining 20 items (showed in Table 2, five for each
PMO) were used for the next analysis: Controller PMO
scale was made up of the items 22, 23, 24, 27 and 29;
Detached PMO scale was made up of the items 4, 8, 12, 16
and 20; Contextualized PMO scale was made up of the
items 1, 5, 9, 13 and 17; Principle Oriented PMO scale was
made up of the items 11, 19, 21, 26 and 28.
Validation of the Final Formulation of
the Questionnaire
Sample
For the final version of the instrument, which is made
up of 20 items (five for each PMO), a sample of 296 sub-
jects was tested (mean age = 35.3; SD = 12.0): 108 males
(mean age = 37.5; SD = 12.9) and 188 females (mean age
= 34.1; SD = 11.3). The subjects have been recruited among
staff and friends of the Adolescence Centre for the
Promotion of Youth Welfare of Ancona (n = 222; 75.3%),
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
83
External evaluation Main statistic analysis
Clinical session with an Frequency analysis
episode in ‘moviola’
(n = 67)
None Frequency analysis;
Varimax rotation’s method for
factor analysis
Discriminant validity: Pearson correlation analysis for
PMQ (n = 80); item-total correlation;
Clinical session with an Bartlett’s test of sphericity and
episode in ‘moviola’ Varimax rotation’s method
(n = 132) for factor analysis;
Cronbach’s alpha for internal
coherence;
Correlation Analysis for test–
retest analysis;
Frequency Analysis for
correctional grid;
Index % of discriminant
function for discriminant
validity
among students of the Marche Polytechnic University
(n = 34; 11.5%) and among colleagues psychologists
and psychiatrists (n = 39; 13.2%); they had not a post-
rationalist theoretical education and, therefore, they
didn’t know their own PMO before the evaluation, and
they did not show any psychopathology. All the subjects
gave the consensus for the personal data use in com-
pliance with the Italian law DL 196/03.
Internal Validity: Item-Total Correlation
The internal homogeneity of the subscales was tested
with the item-total Correlation Analysis, in which the
relation between each item and its own subscale total
was analysed. Items with non-significant correlation
index with their own subscale were rejected. Moreover,
Correlation Analysis between each item and the total
score of all subscales was used to verify how the item was
linked with the other questionnaire subscales (items
belonging to a specific PMO that were significant in other
subscales were rejected or submitted to check).
Internal Validity: Factor Analysis
The questionnaire inner structure was studied by means
of factor analysis. This analysis permitted to evaluate if
and how the questionnaire’s items were grouped in
factors, which should reflect the questionnaire’s basic
theory. Therefore, the items distribution was evaluated
in function of the four PMO. The SPSS 15.0 statistical
package (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences; IBM
Corporation, Route 100 Somers, NY 10589, State of New
Clin. Psychol. Psychother. 19, 78–90 (2012)
84 B. Nardi et al.

Table 2. Factorial matrix by Varimax rotation’s method on 29 items (n = 160)

Item Factor I Factor II Factor III Factor IV

Controller Personal Meaning Contextualized Detached Principle Oriented
Organizations (PMO) PMO PMO PMO
M1 0.023805 0.708384 −0.0666 −0.10577
M2 0.236626 0.130991 0.16372 −0.00162
M3 −0.01088 0.178705 −0.13174 −0.08642
M4 −0.00773 0.030349 0.580523 0.071402
M5 0.123372 0.836059 −0.03164 0.025103
M6 0.287194 −0.58845 0.171368 0.0863
M7 0.16114 −0.35986 0.156799 0.556754
M8 0.115266 0.074063 0.627241 0.044495
M9 0.083932 0.298134 −0.28655 −0.06944
M10 0.622672 0.001247 −0.05686 0.182061
M11 0.197308 −0.39373 0.1691 0.335095
M12 0.471671 −0.12682 0.389477 −0.01992
M13 −0.02456 0.707913 0.159814 −0.19662
M14 0.328945 0.180415 0.126586 −0.03323
M15 0.142142 −0.4851 0.094254 0.365774
M16 0.157634 −0.09967 0.62478 0.061228
M17 0.233506 0.63419 −0.01147 −0.21337
M18 0.218602 0.138079 0.021076 −0.14664
M19 0.237396 −0.29913 −0.07986 0.444834
M20 0.2825 −0.13418 0.450093 0.111444
M21 0.369634 −0.20345 0.241397 0.431251
M22 0.51305 0.014031 0.034508 0.045422
M23 0.599559 0.205849 −0.01217 0.34404
M24 0.642756 −0.06992 0.060467 0.094477
M25 0.519253 0.059456 0.249068 −0.1417
M26 0.0974 −0.10627 0.121472 0.602137
M27 0.588449 −0.04373 0.12309 0.305886
M28 0.165522 −0.19706 0.288239 0.366259
M29 0.635495 0.003308 0.127562 0.109371

York, United States) was used for data analysis. To esti-
mate the parameters that more likely caused the model,
the maximum likelihood methods was used. Besides,
to simplify factor’s interpretation, factors were rotated
by means of Varimax rotation’s method with Kaiser
normalization.
Reliability: Internal Coherence
The internal validity represents the questionnaire’s
internal coherence; in other words, a good internal coher-
ence shows that questionnaire subscales measure differ-
ent aspects of the same construct (according to the criteria
described in Methods, ‘The MQPO costruction’). Both the
four subscales reliability and the full questionnaire were
studied by means of Cronbach’s alpha model.
Discriminant Validity
The final purpose of this research was to obtain a useful
and effective tool to discriminate and classify subjects in
their own PMO; in other words, our expectation was that
subjects belonging to one specific organization would
get high scores in the items relevant to the specific
subject’s PMO, in order to allow a correct classification of
subjects.
To verify the Discriminant Validity of the MQPO, in
order to assign the subjects to the ‘right’ PMO, it was
necessary that the comparison between obtained results
in the questionnaire and subject’s assessed PMO came
from different evaluations. The Discriminant Validity
was verified using the classifications obtained from the
‘Personal Meaning Questionnaire’ (PMQ) as reference
(Picardi, 2003). The comparison between results obtained
by MQPO and PMQ gave us a percentage index of agree-
ment. The PMQ is a standardized and validated instru-
ment, effective for the valuation of subject’s PMO; the
dependability of its results was used as an estimation of
the MQPO efficiency. The choice of using the PMQ as
reference for the efficiency valuation of the MQPO clas-
sification system was made because they shared the same
theoretical paradigm, which was the reference for the
creation of the two different instruments. A sample of 80
subjects was used (mean age = 35.6; SD = 11.3; male = 25
and female = 55); each person of the sample completed
both questionnaires (PMQ and MQPO). The PMQ’s

Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Clin. Psychol. Psychother. 19, 78–90 (2012)
Mini Questionnaire of Personal Organization 85

classification divided the sample in 24 subjects des-
cribed with ‘Phobic organization’ (that according to
the Nardi’s paradigm corresponded to the controller
PMO), 27 subjects described with ‘Eating disorder
organization’ (that according to the Nardi’s paradigm
corresponded to the contextualized PMO), 23 subjects
described with ‘Obsessive organization’ (corresponding
to the principle oriented PMO) and 6 subjects described
with ‘Depressive organization’ (corresponding to the
detached PMO).
Furthermore, the Discriminant Validity has been
evaluated using the external and shared diagnosis of two
different clinical session, focusing significant episode in
‘moviola’ obtained from the expert psychotherapists’
interview.
The comparison between the questionnaire obtained
results and the ‘real’ subject’s PMO came from different
external diagnosis, giving us a percentage index of agree-
ment. For this valuation, a sample of 132 subjects was
used (mean age = 37.6; SD = 12.4; male = 53 and female =
79). The external diagnosis divided the sample in 66
contextualized PMO subjects, 20 principle oriented PMO
subjects, 31 controlled PMO subjects and 14 detached
PMO subjects.
Reliability: Test–Retest Analysis
The test’s final version was proposed to 49 subjects (19
males and 30 females; mean age = 38.1; SD = 11.2) in two
different times to verify the obtained results time stability.
The time elapsed between the two test administrations,
about 3 months, was chosen for not being much too long
(to avoid changed effects caused to life events), nor much
too short (to avoid learning effects, or rather to avoid that
the subjects could answer in a coherent way just because
they perfectly remembered the answers given at the first
compilation of the questionnaire).
Correctional Grid
For the subjects’ classification and assignation to the
different PMO, the normative values of the used sample
were calculated, as they were considered adequately rep-
resentative of the general population. By means of average
and variance calculation for each subscale (Frequency
Analysis), each subject was assigned to his/her own PMO
on the basis of the obtained questionnaire’s score. If the
subject obtained a better value than the average of the
general population (total sum of the score for each
subscale), he/she was assigned to that specific PMO (as
probability of belonging to it).
RESULTS
Internal Validity: Item-Total Correlation
As shown in Table 3, the Pearson correlation analysis
showed significant scores concerning the relations
between each subscale and the items concerning that sub-
scale. In fact, the relation between each item and the total
score of the other subscales was adequate at the structure
in four subscales of the questionnaire.

Table 3. Factorial matrix by Varimax rotation’s method on 20 items (n = 296)

Item Factor I Factor II Factor III Factor IV

Controller Personal Meaning Contextualized Detached Principle Oriented
Organizations (PMO) PMO PMO PMO
M22 0.724 0.009 0.111 −0.089
M23 0.601 0.282 −0.008 0.350
M24 0.645 0.018 0.086 0.173
M27 0.565 0.081 0.179 0.266
M29 0.570 0.160 0.046 0.170
M1 0.020 0.644 −0.010 −0.313
M5 0.059 0.828 −0.008 −0.188
M9 0.101 0.413 −0.158 −0.007
M13 0.087 0.545 0.183 −0.454
M17 0.143 0.574 −0.001 −0.219
M4 −0.058 −0.020 0.664 0.062
M8 0.062 0.057 0.731 −0.009
M12 0.222 −0.057 0.514 0.170
M16 0.078 −0.070 0.687 0.031
M20 0.186 −0.055 0.519 0.242
M11 0.159 −0.226 0.039 0.376
M19 0.147 −0.171 0.031 0.553
M21 0.287 −0.150 0.151 0.543
M26 0.049 −0.108 0.104 0.446
M28 0.136 −0.175 0.187 0.440

Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Clin. Psychol. Psychother. 19, 78–90 (2012)
86 B. Nardi et al.

Table 4. Correlational matrix between extracted factors and Personal Meaning

Organizations (PMO)

PMO Factor I Factor II Factor III Factor IV

Contextualized Pearson correlation 0.133* 0.978** 0.254** 0.175**
p 0.034 0.000 0.000 0.005
Controller Pearson correlation 0.936** 0.166** −0.336** −0.088
p 0.000 0.008 0.000 0.161
Principle Oriented Pearson correlation −0.021 0.150* 0.203** 0.969**
p 0.736 0.017 0.001 0.000
Detached Pearson correlation −0.468** 0.267** 0.886** 0.194**
p 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Internal Validity: Factor Analysis show high correlation index with the other items. It was
possible to define factor III as a Detached factor.
The Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (χ = 2
The items relevant to the principle oriented profile,
1764.60; p < 0.001); therefore, the factorial model was
items 11, 19, 21, 26 and 28, showed the most high correla-
considered adequate to the data. The Factor Analysis was
tion index with factor IV and they showed low correlation
done with the 20 definitive items, five for each PMO.
index with the other extracted factors. Factor IV did not
By means of the Factor Analysis, with the use of the
show high correlation index with the other question-
maximum likelihood extraction method, and the Varimax
naire’s items. It was possible to define factor IV as a
rotation’s method with Kaiser normalization, four factors
Principle Oriented factor.
explaining the 42.21% of the total variance were extracted.
Moreover, correlation between each subscale and each
The Eigen values referred to these factors had, respec-
extracted factor coefficients, which were the factor’s
tively, a value of: 2.23, 2.16, 2.16 and 1.87. Each of these
score calculated for each subject, was evaluated. After
factors explained, respectively, the 11.17%, 10.84%, 10.82%,
the calculation of each factor’s value, subject for subject,
and 9.37% of the total variance. The coefficients of each
correlation analysis between the factorial values and
factor was analysed depending on its relation with each
the real total score calculated for each subscale was
other item. The observation of the factorial matrix showed
applied. As showed in Table 4, the correlation’s index
that the different items analysed had a good correlation
reflected the relationship showed from the factor analysis:
with the factor that represent their own PMO, while there
the controller PMO was significantly correlated with
were not high correlation indexes with factors that repre-
factor I, showing the higher correlation’s index with this
sent different PMO (Table 3).
factor (r = 0.936; p = 0.000); the contextualized PMO was
Items 22, 23, 24, 27 and 29, which represented the answer
significantly correlated with factor II, showing the higher
relevant to the controlled profile, showed the most high
correlation’s index with this factor (r = 0.978; p = 0.000).
correlation index with factor I, and they were scarcely
The detached PMO was significantly correlated with
correlated with the other factors extracted; factor I did not
factor III, showing the higher correlation’s index with
show high correlation with the other questionnaire’s
this factor (r = 0.886; p = 0.000). The principle oriented
items. It was possible to define factor I as a Controller
PMO was significantly correlated with factor IV and it
factor.
shows the higher correlation’s index with this factor
Items 1, 5, 9, 13 and 17, which should discriminate the
(r = 0.969; p = 0.000).
contextualized profile, resulted to be mostly linked to
factor II and they resulted to be scarcely correlated with
Reliability: Internal Coherence
the other extracted factors; factor II did not show high
correlation index with the other questionnaire’s items. It The internal validity has been evaluated through the
was possible to define factor II as a Contextualized factor. calculation of Cronbach’s alpha. The analysis showed
Items 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20, which were relevant to the good internal reliability index both for the total score
detached profile, showed a high correlation index with (Alpha = 0.73), and for each subscale.
factor III and they resulted to be not much correlated with Controller PMO scale = 0.78, Contextualized PMO scale
the other factors, thus also in this case, factor III did not = 0.78, Principle Oriented PMO scale = 0.68, Detached

Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Clin. Psychol. Psychother. 19, 78–90 (2012)
Mini Questionnaire of Personal Organization
PMO scale = 0.77 (Table 3). It is important to remember
that each subscale was made up of five items previously
selected by means of the answer’s frequency analysis, the
item-total correlation analysis and the subscale-item cor-
relation analysis.
Discriminant Validity
In order to analyse the discriminant function, two dif-
ferent kinds of subject’s external diagnosis was used as
dependent variables and the score obtained from the
four questionnaire subscales were used as independent
variables. By the discriminant function, the Discriminant
Validity (evaluated using the external shared diagnosis of
two different expert ‘moviola setting’ interviews) showed
that 72.5% of the sample was correctly classified (i.e., the
subjects were assigned to the same profile of the external
diagnosis used as reference). Considering that random
assignment of the samples would correctly assign subjects
to the correct PMO with a percentage of 25% (Klecka,
1980), the calculated percentage was satisfying.
When the Discriminant Validity has been verified using
as reference the classification obtained from the PMQ, the
calculation of the discriminant function was by means of
PMQ classification (used as independent variable) and
the 4 subscales scores (used as dependent variables).
Through the discriminant function, 80% of the subjects
were correctly classified. In other words, the subjects were
assigned to the same profile of the PMQ classification. The
excellent result showed the high efficacy of the classifica-
tion methods of the MQPO, which we verified by means
the comparison with a reliable and validate test like the
PMQ (Picardi, 2003).
Reliability: Test–Retest Analysis
The test reliability, that is the results’ time stability, has
been measured by means of correlation analysis. The
analysis obtained significant correlation’s index between
the score relevant to the two different test’s questionnaires
for each item measured. The correlation analysis between
the total score subscales of the two different test admin-
istrations was significant (Controller PMO scale r = 0.85;
p = 0.000, Contextualized PMO scale r = 0.80; p = 0.000;
Principle Oriented PMO scale r = 0.81; p = 0.000; Detached
PMO scale r = 0.89; p = 0.000). It is possible to conclude
that the instrument has showed a good reliability con-
cerning time stability of the results (Table 4).
DISCUSSION
The results obtained by the final version of the question-
naire were according to the theoretical APR approach. The
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
87
hypothesis to draw four different factors from the items
of the questionnaire through the factorial analysis has
been verified, checking how much the four different
factors have been found related to every PMO; on the
contrary, every factor has not showed tall indexes of
correlation with the other items of the questionnaire.
In accord with the theoretical model, the method of the
oblique factorial rotation has been selected, with the
purpose to make these factors not independent (Kline,
1993).
The good agreement among the classification obtained
by the MQPO and the clinical evaluation provided by the
experienced therapists supports the adequacy of the test.
Besides, the classification of the sample results very good
in comparison with the results obtained to the PMQ
(Picardi, 2003), which is made up of a wide number of
items (68). The results we obtained show the elevated
efficiency of the classification offered by the MQPO, veri-
fied by the comparison with the PMQ. Finally, good
outcome have been achieved in validity of the construc-
tion, inside validity, reliability of the test and stability in
time of results.
It has been difficult to recruit subjects with principle
oriented or detached PMO. This is in accord with clinical
experience: in fact, in the general population, the percent-
age of actually detached subjects is very low; never-
theless, the composition of the samples is suitable at the
methodological accuracy of a casual sampling and
homogeneous.
The questionnaire investigates some significant aspects
of personality; anyway, for the complexity and coherence
of personality processes, tests cannot substitute clinical
examination, which allows a detailed and meticulous
focus on unconscious and non-verbal subjective
functions.
MQPO is available in evaluating how the subject sees
himself/herself. For example, inwards make a prevalent
focus from inside, are centred more on sensory activations
than on introspection; therefore, during validation, their
choice of items narrowed centring on physical and practi-
cal aspects of subjective perceptions. For this reason, it
came up that inwards do not need much self-swindle. On
the contrary, for the outwards, others’ opinions are central
and they need a continuous tuning on significant external
signals. In this case, the fear of others’ evaluation could
affect the subject, even if he/she was not in a ‘face to face’
condition. For example, many contradictions between
clinical evaluation and PMO scales results can be
explained in this manner. In addition, many cases, in
which replies were distributed with high heterogeneity
among two or three different scales, were referable to
contextualized, who tried to give coherence and stability
to their personal meaning; in fact, the unconscious effort
of self-referring experience according to the positive or
negative sense of the self is driven by emotional schemata
Clin. Psychol. Psychother. 19, 78–90 (2012)
88
developed moving from the attachment relationship. The
self-report questionnaire turns around verbal component
and each item can individuate the correct PMO only if
emotional activation is coherent with the explanation of
that experience. Therefore, discrepancy between MQPO
and clinical evidence can be evaluated as a consequence
of the manner in which subject sees himself/herself as
‘self-expert’. As we observed in the course of cognitive
interviews, a change of emotional activation was possible
every time the relation between ‘how I feel myself’ and
‘how I see myself’ changes. In fact, the self-swindle pat-
terns, more than a specific limit of MQPO, can be consid-
ered the limit of all which belongs to explanations (i.e., to
narrative plots of the subject). By this point of view, any
reply is reliable, even where the discrepancy between
clinical profile and MQPO’ score becomes evident: what
the subject sees and tells about himself/herself has a great
importance in his/her comprehension; moreover, his/her
self-swindles are ‘true’ (in terms of motivation, social
desirability, introspection and self-observation proce-
dures). Self-representation is a genuine expression of the
subjective processes of becoming an individual and its
clinical utility must be evaluated by the expert: the results
must be carefully evaluated through the corrective grid
based on normative values and, when necessary, the
subject must be clinically evaluated to focus on his/her
pattern of immediate experiencing.
Concerning clinical implications, with the above men-
tioned precautions, MQPO can be used with advantage
to obtain a functional diagnosis according to the cognitive
post-rationalist approach, both in sane and pathological
population. In fact, the test can be used to draw a quick
and easy profile of PMO, despite complexity of the theo-
retical model. Finally, PMO can be considered as an
expression of the self, like an adequately constant descrip-
tive personality aspect. Since results were obtained by
four different categories, it is doubtless statistically
significant with respect to the simple inward/outward
evaluation. This result represents a meaningful support
contribution of the construct of PMO that can subse-
quently be integrated by further searches of fMRI, which
have already shown significant differences in emotional
activations between Inward and Outward subjects
(Bertolino et al., 2005; Rubino et al., 2007; Nardi et al.,
2008). Finally, another clinical implication of MQPO is to
study psychopathological dimensions in subjects with
inward or outward PMO affected by mental disorders.
CONCLUSIONS
The MQPO is a tool able to study the personality as a
process and it allows us to explore the subjectivity in
accord with standardized criteria. It is the first instrument
that focuses relationships between personality and the
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
B. Nardi et al.
developmental process axes, which are the bases of the
PMO, according to Nardi’s APR approach (Nardi, 2007;
Nardi & Bellantuono, 2008). Further investigations will be
useful to improve MQPO discriminating abilities. With
respect to other tests, in its actual version the MQPO
appears as a rapid and effective mean of investigation,
which supports the constructions related to the PMO and
the inward/outward modalities to perceive reciprocity,
both in normal and in pathological conditions.
COMPETING INTERESTS
The authors declare that they have no competing
interests.
AUTHORS’ CONTRIBUTIONS
BN, EA, GR and CB developed the initial design of the
study. SG and SB were responsible for data analysis.
All authors revised the manuscript and interpretation,
they agreed with the final submitted version of the
manuscript.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors thank Furio Lambruschi and Silvio Lenzi
(Centro Sinesis, ‘Scuola Bolognese di Psicoterapia
Cognitiva’) for the precious collaboration in the recruit-
ment of the sample. They thank, besides for the help in
the construction and in the administration of the ques-
tionnaires, the colleagues of the Adolescence Centre for
the Promotion of Youth Welfare in Ancona, Sara Rupoli,
Francesca Tittarelli, Daniela Simonetti, Roberta Rossini,
Stefania Macchiarolo, Laura Cucinella, Mery Mengarelli,
Marco Brandoni, Gianni Castellucci, Ilaria Capecci,
Marzia Di Nicolò, Sabrina Laurenzi, Matteo Cedraro and
Chiara Lucarelli.
REFERENCES
American Psychological Association. (1999). Standards for educa-
tional and psychological testing, revised. Washington, DC: AERA
(American Educational Research Association).
Arciero, G.P. (2006). Sulle Tracce di Sé. Torino: Bollati Boringhieri.
Bertolino, A., Arciero, G., Rubino, V., Latorre, V., De Candia, M.,
Mazzola, V., Blasi, G., Cario, G., Hariri, A., Kolochana, B.,
Nardini, M., Weinberger, D.R., & Scarabino T. (2005). Variation
of the human amygdala response during threading stimuli
as a function of 5′HTTLPR genotype and personality
style. Biological Psychiatry, 57, 1517–1525.
Guidano, V.F. (1987). Complexity of the self. New York:
Guilford.
Guidano, V.F. (1991). The self in progress. New York: Guilford.
Guidano, V.F., & Liotti, G. (1983). Cognitive processes and emotional
disorders. New York: Guilford.
Clin. Psychol. Psychother. 19, 78–90 (2012)
Mini Questionnaire of Personal Organization
Klecka, W.R. (1980). Discriminant analysis. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Kline, P. (1993). The handbook of psychological testing. London:
Routledge.
Nardi, B. (2007). CostruirSi (Self constructing). Milano: Franco
Angeli.
Nardi, B., & Bellantuono, C. (2008). A new adaptive and
evolutionary conceptualization of the Personal Meaning
Organization (PMO). In R. Krause, S. Sulz, J. Holmes (Eds),
European Psychotherapy (Vol. 8, pp. 5–16). Norderstedt:
Psychotherapy in Europe, CIP-Medien.
Nardi, B., Capecci, I., Fabri, M., Polonara, G., Mascioli, G.,
Cavola, G., Di Nicolò, M., Laurenzi, S., Rocchetti, D., Brandoni,
M., Rocchetti, G., Salvolini, U., Manzoni, T., & Bellantuono, C.
(2008). fMRI investigation of emotional activations during
visual processing of other or own facial expressions in subjects
with inward or outward personality. Rivista di Psichiatria,
43(4), 233–241.
Nardi, B., Rezzonico, G., & Bellantuono, C. (2010). Toward a
scientific framework for the personal meaning organization
(PMO) paradigm: neuroimaging and genetic studies. Italian
Journal of Psychiatry (QUIP), 29(3), 81–88.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.) New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Picardi, A. (2003). First steps in the assessment of cognitive-
emotional organization within the framework of Guidano’s
model of the self. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 72,
363–365.
Rubino, V., Blasi, G., Latorre, V., Fazio, L., D’Errico, I., Mazzola,
V., Caforio, G., Nardini, M., Popolizio, T., Hariri, A., Arciero,
G., & Bertolino, A. (2007). Activity in medial prefrontal cortex
during cognitive evaluation of threading stimuli as a function
of personality style. Brain Research Bulletin, 74, 250–257.
APPENDIX
The MQPO: English and Original Italian Text
1. (1.) To feel myself adequate, I don’t disappoint other’s
expectations (Per sentirmi adeguato/a è molto importante
per me non deludere le aspettative degli altri)
2. If I meet myself by chance in a little-known environ-
ment, I am looking for who can protect me rather than
who can accept me (Se mi trovo in un ambiente che
conosco poco, cerco di individuare non tanto chi mi accetta,
ma chi mi può proteggere dai pericoli)
3. When I must reach a decision, I spend much time in
chewing which can be the right decision for me
(Quando devo decidere passo molto tempo a rimuginare
sulla soluzione giusta per me)
4. (4.) For me loneliness is the basic life condition (Per
me la solitudine è la condizione di base della vita)
5. (5.) It’s important for me to understand if I have
other’s approval (Per me è importante capire se gli altri
mi approvano o meno)
6. It’s vital for me to be able to move freely, not depend-
ing on others’ opinions (Per me è fondamentale muovermi
liberamente, indipendentemente dal giudizio degli altri)
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
89
7. If I must chose between opposite solutions, I hold my
sureness rather than others’ recommendations (Se
devo scegliere tra soluzioni opposte, seguo le mie certezze
piuttosto che i consigli degli altri)
8. (8.) I generally think that I am alone and that there is
a great distance between me and others (È una mia
tendenza costante pensare di essere solo/a e che tra me e gli
altri ci sia un distacco notevole)
9. (9.) It’s important that my opinion is subscribed by
people that I hold in esteem (Per me è importante che il
mio punto di vista venga condiviso dalle persone alle quali
tengo)
10. I feel good with people who proved to me they are
reliable (Sto bene con persone che mi hanno dimostrato di
essere affidabili)
11. (3.) The commitment I put in doing things makes me
feel good, rather than others’ appreciation (Mi fa star
meglio l’impegno che metto nel fare una cosa, piuttosto che
la considerazione da parte degli altri)
12. (12.) I feel that I cannot rely on anyone, so I must
strongly commit myself to face reality, since results
only depend on me (Visto che non posso contare su
nessuno, quando devo affrontare qualcosa cerco di metter-
cela tutta, tanto dipende solo da me)
13. (13.) I feel embarrassed and inadequate when the
others criticize me (Quando gli altri mi criticano o mi
disapprovano mi fanno sentire a disagio e inadeguato/a)
14. I feel safe only in conditions in which I can quickly get
in touch with subjects that can protect me (Mi sento
sicuro/a in una situazione, solo quando so che posso rintrac-
ciare tempestivamente le persone che mi possono proteggere)
15. It’s more important for me to comply with what is
true than to be agreed or protected by others (È più
importante attenermi a quello che per me è vero piuttosto
che essere approvato/a o protetto/a dagli altri)
16. (16.) To be successful in life, one must strongly commit
him/herself facing his/her destiny of loneliness (Per
riuscire nella vita uno/a si deve impegnare a fondo con-
frontandosi con il proprio destino di solitudine)
17. (17.) I feel myself important if I am appreciated and
required by others (Essere apprezzato/a e ricercato/a dagli
altri mi fa sentire importante)
18. In my opinion one is alone especially if there is nobody
who protects him/her in necessity or risk situations (Per
me una persona è sola soprattutto quando non ha nessuno che
la può proteggere in caso di bisogno o di pericolo)
19. (7.) To feel myself fair and impartial, I take into con-
sideration more my internal rules more than other’s
opinion (Per sentirmi equo/a ed imparziale, mi capita
abitualmente di tenere più in considerazione le mie
norme interne, piuttosto che il parere di chi mi circonda)
20. (20.) In my life I always had to shift for myself, as I
cannot count on other’s help (Nella mia vita ho sempre
dovuto cavarmela da solo/a, non potendo contare sull’aiuto
degli altri)
Clin. Psychol. Psychother. 19, 78–90 (2012)
90
21. (11.) I usually don’t change my opinion when I am
criticized by others (Non tendo a cambiare le mie convin-
zioni quando vengo criticato/a dagli altri)
22. (2.) I have a feeling of constriction when I cannot
move freely (Quando non mi posso muovere liberamente
mi manca l’aria)
23. (6.) I feel free and not constricted when I have the situ-
ation under control (Mi fa sentire libero/a e non costretto/a
avere il controllo di una situazione)
24. (10). When I feel controlled, I generally feel myself
constricted and not free rather than disregarded
(Abitualmente, se vengo controllato/a, più che sentirmi
svalutato/a dagli altri, mi sento costretto/a e non
libero/a)
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
B. Nardi et al.
25. I feel good with people who don’t overrun my
space (Sto bene con persone che non entrano nei miei spazi)
26. (15). In doubt situations, others’ opinions are less
important than mine (Nelle situazioni di dubbio le idee
degli altri pesano meno rispetto alle mie)
27. (14). It’s essential for me to be able to come in and out
freely from a situation (Per me è fondamentale poter
entrare e uscire da una situazione liberamente)
28. (19.) When I have a doubt, I tend to ignore other’s
expectations (Quando ho una incertezza tendo ad ignorare
le aspettative degli altri)
29. (18.) I feel good with reliable people who don’t oppress
me with their requests (Sto bene con persone affidabili
che non mi opprimono con le loro richieste)
Clin. Psychol. Psychother. 19, 78–90 (2012)
Copyright of Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express
written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.