CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 25Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychometric Methodologies and TestingMental Health Research Topics

Cross-Cultural and Gender Invariance of Transdiagnostic Processes in the United States and Singapore

Open access
Zainal, Nur Hani, Newman, Michelle G., Hong, Ryan Y.·2021·Assessment
DOI 10.1177/1073191119869832PMC PMC7082183
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The Research Domain Criteria define cognitive and emotional processes (e.g., rumination, intolerance of uncertainty, anxiety sensitivity, emotion dysregulation) as key transdiagnostic elements of psychopathology. However, there is currently a dearth of construct equivalence studies on measures of these processes. We thus aimed to validate the latent structures of five transdiagnostic constructs using established and newer measures: two-factor Rumination–Reflection Questionnaire, six-factor Perseverative Cognitions Questionnaire, two-factor Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale, three-factor Anxiety Sensitivity Index–3, two-factor Cognitive and Behavioral Processes Questionnaire (CBPQ). Measurement equivalence was examined across 292 American and 144 Singaporean undergraduates. Cross-cultural confirmatory factor analyses revealed strict invariance for all measures, with interfactor association differences on the Perseverative Cognitions Questionnaire and CBPQ. Across gender, full invariance was found on all measures except the CBPQ. Theoretical and clinical implications are discussed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1073191119869832

Cites

92 of 92 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Persons with versus without generalized anxiety disorder were more reactive to the negative emotions of others during social interactions.

    “Interpersonally, persons with (versus without) GAD were more reactive to the negative emotions of others during social interactions [27].”

    From Treatment condition as a moderator and change in trait mindfulness as a mediator of a brief mindfulness ecological momentary intervention for generalized anxiety disorder (2024) · cites this paper as [27]

    The Method section describes measures of anxiety sensitivity and emotion dysregulation, while the Discussion compares patterns across gender and culture. Neither those passages nor searches for GAD and reactivity to others’ negative emotions yielded a comparison of people with versus without GAD during social interactions. No page numbers were available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Browne MW, & Cudeck R (1993). Alternate ways of assessing model fit In Bollen KA & Long JS (Eds.), Testing equation models (pp. 136– 162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  2. Carter JA (2010). Worry and rumination: measurement invariance across gender (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/805/
  3. De Beuckelaer A, & Swinnen G (2011). Biased latent variable mean comparisons due to measurement non-invariance: A simulation study In Davidov E, Schmidt P & Billiet J (Eds.), Methods and applications in cross-cultural analysis (pp. 117– 148). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
  4. Kline RB (2016b). Global fit testing In Kline RB (Ed.), Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (pp. 262– 299). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
  5. Sandin B, Valiente RM, Chorot P, & Santed MA (2007). ASI-3: A new scale for the assessment of anxiety sensitivity. Spanish Journal of Clinical Psychology, 12, 91– 104.
  6. Tolin DF (2016). Doing CBT: A comprehensive guide to working with behaviors, thoughts, and emotions. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Zainal, N. H., Newman, M. G., & Hong, R. Y.
Affiliations
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
  • National University of Singapore (SG)
Corresponding author
Zainal, Nur Hani
ORCID
Venue
Assessment
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2019-09-20
Volume
28
Issue
2
Pages
485-502
ISSN
  • 1073-1911 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-3489
DOI
10.1177/1073191119869832
PMC
PMC7082183
OpenAlex
W2973774530
Cited by
25
References
91
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 1
FWCI
3.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Assessment (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • ScholarSphere (Penn State Libraries) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • ScholarSphere (Penn State Libraries) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH115128)
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
transdiagnostic mechanisms, measurement invariance, cross-cultural validation, gender invariance, rumination, perseverative cognition, intolerance of uncertainty, anxiety sensitivity, emotional dysregulation, Research Domain Criteria, Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale, Anxiety Sensitivity Index-3, undergraduate students
MeSH terms
Anxiety, Cross-Cultural Comparison, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Humans, Psychometrics, Singapore, United States

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