Cited by 91Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychometric Methodologies and TestingPsychological Testing and Assessment

The development of the short defeat and entrapment scale (SDES).

Open access
Griffiths, Alys W., Wood, Alex M., Maltby, John, Taylor, Peter J., Panagioti, Maria, Tai, Sara·2015·Psychological Assessment

Abstract

Previous research has suggested that defeat (conceptualized as a failed social struggle) and entrapment (conceptualized as a perceived inability to escape from aversive situations) form a single construct that reliably predicts psychopathological outcomes in clinical and community settings. However, scales designed to assess defeat and entrapment measure the constructs separately, whereas recent evidence suggests a single scale would be appropriate. Existing scales may also be too lengthy to have clinical utility. The present study developed and evaluated a scale that measured both defeat and entrapment. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses demonstrated that defeat and entrapment were best defined by a single factor, and 8 items were selected that best represented this construct to form the short scale. The scale had high internal consistency (α = .88 to .94), showed criterion validity with hopelessness (r = .45 to .93) and incremental validity for caregiver burden when controlling for depression and positive symptoms of psychosis when controlling for hopelessness (β = .45 to .60). Additionally, the scale had excellent test-retest reliability using single measures absolute agreement intraclass correlation coefficients across 12 months (ricc = .88 to .92) within 4 samples: people with posttraumatic stress disorder, people with psychosis, care home employees, and people from community settings. The scale demonstrated known group validity through discrimination between clinical and nonclinical groups of participants. This scale could be implemented within therapeutic settings to help clinicians identify patients experiencing defeat and entrapment, and incorporate these factors into their clinical assessment and case formulations for treatment.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/pas0000110

Cites

86 of 86 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • Defeat and entrapment both reflect a transdiagnostic psychological mechanism which underlies suicidal ideation, and we suggest that this underlying mechanism is goal conflict.

    “Furthermore, there is growing evidence that defeat and entrapment both reflect a transdiagnostic psychological mechanism which underlies suicidal ideation (Griffiths et al., 2015; Owen et al., 2018), and we suggest that this underlying mechanism is goal conflict.”

    From The Psychological Pathway to Suicide Attempts: A Strategy of Control Without Awareness (2021) · cites this paper as Griffiths et al., 2015

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Griffiths, A. W., Wood, A. M., Maltby, J., Taylor, P. J., Panagioti, M., & Tai, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Manchester (GB)
  • University of Stirling (GB)
  • University of Leicester (GB)
  • University of Liverpool (GB)
Venue
Psychological Assessment
Published
2015-12
Volume
27
Issue
4
Pages
1182-1194
ISSN
  • 1040-3590 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-134X
OpenAlex
W2323169431
Cited by
91
References
86
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 5
FWCI
4.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Psychological Assessment (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Leicester Research Archive (University of Leicester) (submittedVersion)
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 › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
Keywords
defeat, entrapment, scale development, hopelessness, caregiver burden, psychopathology prediction, post-traumatic stress disorder, psychosis, clinical evaluation, case formulation
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Depression, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychopathology, Psychotic Disorders, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, Reproducibility of Results, Caregivers, Young Adult

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