Cited by 171Personality Disorders and PsychopathologyAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPersonality Traits and Psychology

The Young Schema Questionnaire 3 Short Form (YSQ-S3): Psychometric Properties and Association With Personality Disorders in a Danish Mixed Sample

Bach, Bo, Simonsen, Erik, Christoffersen, Peter, Kriston, Levente·2017·European Journal of Psychological Assessment

Abstract

Abstract. Early Maladaptive Schemas, as measured with the Young Schema Questionnaire (YSQ), are proposed to underlie a variety of mental health problems, in particular Personality Disorders. The latest short version of the instrument measuring all 18 schemas, the YSQ-S3, has only been examined to a limited extent, and its associations with Personality Disorders have not yet been tested in a psychiatric setting. We investigated psychometric properties of the Danish YSQ-S3 including its associations with Personality Disorders. A mixed Danish sample of clinical and nonclinical participants (N = 567) completed the YSQ-S3, whereas a clinical subsample (n = 142) was also assessed with a diagnostic interview for Personality Disorders. We performed reliability analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, regression analysis, and tested for group differences using analysis of variance. The Danish YSQ-S3 proved to be a reliable and valid measure. Its theoretical factorial structure was weakly but sufficiently supported. Its scales were meaningfully associated with specific Personality Disorders and discriminated between relevant groups. We conclude that the YSQ-S3 is a psychometrically valuable instrument for the assessment of Early Maladaptive Schemas in both clinical and research settings. Findings are discussed in relation to Personality Disorders and the Schema Therapy model.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1027/1015-5759/a000272

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 55 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bach, B., Simonsen, E., Christoffersen, P., & Kriston, L.
Affiliations
  • Region Zealand (DK)
  • University of Copenhagen (DK)
  • Psychiatric Clinic, Slagelse, Denmark
  • University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (DE)
Venue
European Journal of Psychological Assessment
Published
2017-03
Volume
33
Issue
2
Pages
134-143
ISSN
  • 1015-5759 (ISSN-L)
  • 2151-2426
OpenAlex
W1950331061
Cited by
171
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
14.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • European Journal of Psychological Assessment (publishedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
Keywords
Young Schema Questionnaire, early maladaptive schemas, personality disorders, schema therapy, psychometric properties, reliability statistics, factor structure, Danish version

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review