Cited by 193Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychometric Methodologies and TestingMental Health Research Topics

Defining distinct negative beliefs about uncertainty: Validating the factor structure of the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale.

Sexton, Kathryn A., Dugas, Michel J.·2009·Psychological Assessment

Abstract

This study examined the factor structure of the English version of the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale (IUS; French version: M. H. Freeston, J. Rhéaume, H. Letarte, M. J. Dugas, & R. Ladouceur, 1994; English version: K. Buhr & M. J. Dugas, 2002) using a substantially larger sample than has been used in previous studies. Nonclinical undergraduate students and adults from the community (M age = 23.74 years, SD = 6.36; 73.0% female and 27.0% male) who participated in 16 studies in the Anxiety Disorders Laboratory at Concordia University in Montreal, Canada were randomly assigned to 2 datasets. Exploratory factor analysis with the 1st sample (n = 1,230) identified 2 factors: the beliefs that "uncertainty has negative behavioral and self-referent implications" and that "uncertainty is unfair and spoils everything." This 2-factor structure provided a good fit to the data (Bentler-Bonett normed fit index = .96, comparative fit index = .97, standardized root-mean residual = .05, root-mean-square error of approximation = .07) upon confirmatory factor analysis with the 2nd sample (n = 1,221). Both factors showed similarly high correlations with pathological worry, and Factor 1 showed stronger correlations with generalized anxiety disorder analogue status, trait anxiety, somatic anxiety, and depressive symptomatology.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0015827

Cites

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?

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 62 · Cited by 193

Authors
Sexton, K. A., & Dugas, M. J.
Affiliations
Concordia University (CA)
Venue
Psychological Assessment
Published
2009-06
Volume
21
Issue
2
Pages
176-186
ISSN
  • 1040-3590 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-134X
OpenAlex
W2044025527
Cited by
193
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 14
FWCI
12.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Assessment (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Fonds de la Recherche en Santé du Québec
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
Keywords
intolerance of uncertainty, Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale, factor structure, pathological worry, generalized anxiety disorder, trait anxiety, somatic anxiety, depressive symptoms, anxiety disorders
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Anxiety Disorders, Depression, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Humans, Life Change Events, Male, Middle Aged, Models, Psychological, Personality Inventory, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Severity of Illness Index, Students, Reproducibility of Results

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