Search

Intolerance of Uncertainty is a fundamental transdiagnostic personality construct hierarchically organized with a core general factor underlying diverse clinical manifestations. The current study evaluated the construct validity of the Intolerance of Uncertainty Inventory, a two-part scale separately assessing a unitary Intolerance of Uncertainty disposition to consider uncertainties to be unacceptable and threatening (Part A) and the consequences of such disposition, regarding experiential avoidance, chronic doubt, overestimation of threat, worrying, control of uncertain situations, and seeking reassurance (Part B). Community members (N = 1046; Mean age = 36.69 ± 12.31 years; 61% females) completed the Intolerance of Uncertainty Inventory with the Beck Depression Inventory-II and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Part A demonstrated a robust unidimensional structure and an excellent convergent validity with Part B. A bifactor model was the best fitting model for Part B. Based on these results, we compared the hierarchical factor scores with summated ratings clinical proxy groups reporting anxiety and depression symptoms. Summated rating scores were associated with both depression and anxiety and proportionally increased with the co-occurrence of depressive and anxious symptoms. By contrast, hierarchical scores were useful to detect which facets mostly separated between for depression and anxiety groups. In sum, Part A was a reliable and valid transdiagnostic measure of Intolerance of Uncertainty. The Part B was arguably more useful for assessing clinical manifestations of Intolerance of Uncertainty for specific disorders, provided that hierarchical scores are used. Overall, our study suggest that clinical assessments might need to shift toward hierarchical factor scores. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Intolerance of Uncertainty (IU) is a key trans-diagnostic personality construct strongly associated with anxiety symptoms. Traditionally, IU is measured through self-report measures that are prone to bias effects due to impression management concerns and introspective difficulties. Moreover, self-report scales are not able to intercept the automatic associations that are assumed to be main determinants of several spontaneous responses (e.g., emotional reactions). In order to overcome these limitations, the Implicit Association Test (IAT) was applied to measure IU, with a particular focus on reliability and criterion validity issues. The IU-IAT and the Intolerance of Uncertainty Inventory (IUI) were administered to an undergraduate student sample (54 females and 10 males) with a mean age of 23 years (SD=1.7). Successively, participants were asked to provide an individually chosen uncertain event from their own lives that may occur in the future and were requested to identify a number of potential negative consequences of it. Participants' responses in terms of cognitive thoughts (i.e., cognitive appraisal) and worry reactions toward these events were assessed using the two subscales of the Worry and Intolerance of Uncertainty Beliefs Questionnaire. The IU-IAT showed an adequate level of internal consistency and a not significant correlation with the IUI. A path analysis model, accounting for 35% of event-related worry, revealed that IUI had a significant indirect effect on the dependent variable through event-related IU thoughts. By contrast, as expected, IU-IAT predicted event-related worry independently from IU thoughts. In accordance with dual models of social cognition, these findings suggest that IU can influence event-related worry through two different processing pathways (automatic vs. deliberative), supporting the criterion and construct validity of the IU-IAT. The potential role of the IU-IAT for clinical applications was discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Two studies were conducted to examine the factor structure of attitude toward ambiguity, a broad personality construct that refers to personal reactions to perceived ambiguous stimuli in a variety of context and situations. Using samples from two countries, Study 1 mapped the hierarchical structure of 133 items from seven tolerance–intolerance of ambiguity scales (N = 360, Italy; N = 306, United States). Three major factors—Discomfort with Ambiguity, Moral Absolutism/Splitting, and Need for Complexity and Novelty—were recovered in each country with high replicability coefficients across samples. In Study 2 (N = 405, Italian community sample; N =366, English native speakers sample), we carried out a confirmatory analysis on selected factor markers. A bifactor model had an acceptable fit for each sample and reached the construct-level invariance for general and group factors. Convergent validity with related traits was assessed in both studies. We conclude that attitude toward ambiguity can be best represented a multidimensional construct involving affective (Discomfort with Ambiguity), cognitive (Moral Absolutism/Splitting), and epistemic (Need for Complexity and Novelty) components. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]