CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 132Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychometric Methodologies and TestingMental Health Research Topics

Seeking certainty about intolerance of uncertainty: Addressing old and new issues through the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale-Revised

Open access
Bottesi, Gioia, Noventa, Stefano, Freeston, Mark H., Ghisi, Marta·2019·PLoS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0211929PMC PMC6370219
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Intolerance of Uncertainty is a trans-diagnostic process that spans a range of emotional disorders and it is usually measured through the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale-12. The current study aims at investigating some issues in the assessment of Intolerance of Uncertainty (IU) through the Italian Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale-Revised, a measure adapted from the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale-12 to assess IU across the lifespan. In particular we address the factor structure among a large community sample, measurement invariance across gender, age, and over time, together with reliability and validity of the overall scale and its subscales. The questionnaire was administered to community (N = 761; mean age = 35.86 ± 14.01 years) and undergraduate (N = 163; mean age = 21.16 ± 2.64 years) participants, together with other self-report measures assessing constructs theoretically related to IU. The application of a bifactor model shows that the Italian Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale-Revised possesses a robust general factor, thus supporting the use of the unit-weighted total score of the questionnaire as a measure of the construct. Furthermore, measurement invariance across gender, age, and over time is supported. Finally, the Italian Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale-Revised appears to possess adequate reliability and validity. These findings support the unidimensionality of the measure, a conceptually reasonable result in line with the trans-diagnostic nature of Intolerance of Uncertainty. In addition, this study and comparison with published factor structures of the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale-12 and of the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale-Revised identify some issues for the internal structure of the measure. In particular, concern is expressed for the Prospective IU subscale. In light of the promising psychometric properties, the use of the Italian Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale-Revised as a univocal measure is encouraged in both research and clinical practice.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0211929

Cites

103 of 103 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?

  • The mean level of intolerance to uncertainty in the sample (32.16) was significantly above the pre-pandemic Italian mean (26.73) reported by Bottesi et al. (Z = 17.6; p < 0.01).

    “The mean level of intolerance to uncertainty (M = 32.16; SD = 9.59), instead, was significantly above the mean score found by Bottesi et al. [43] before the COVID-19 pandemic in the Italian context (M = 26.73; SD = 8.2; Z = 17.6; p < 0.01).”

    From Impact of Stress during COVID-19 Pandemic in Italy: A Study on Dispositional and Behavioral Dimensions for Supporting Evidence-Based Targeted Strategies (2024) · cites this paper as Bottesi et al. [43]

    The Participants and procedure section describes an Italian community sample whose data were collected in 2012–2017, supporting the pre-pandemic Italian context. The retrieved passages do not report an intolerance-of-uncertainty mean of 26.73 or SD of 8.2, so the numerical baseline attributed to Bottesi et al. is not verified. The comparison with the citing paper’s sample and its Z statistic are the citing authors’ analysis, not a result attributed to Bottesi et al. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The IUS is best represented by the total score (IUS-12 item), rather than the subscales (i.e., P-IU or I-IU).

    “Such findings support prior work suggesting that the IUS is best represented by the total score (IUS-12 item), rather than the subscales (i.e., P-IU or I-IU) (42,77).”

    From I Doubt It Is Safe: A Meta-analysis of Self-reported Intolerance of Uncertainty and Threat Extinction Training (2021) · cites this paper as [42]

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

1 of the 104 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [29]Gerlach AL, Andor T, Patzelt J. The significance of intolerance of uncertainty in generalized anxiety disorder: Possible models and development of a German version of the intolerance of uncertainty scale. Z Klin Psychol Psychother. 2008; 37: 190– 199. German.
  2. [68]Sica C, Musoni I, Chiri LR, Bisi B, Lolli V, Sighinolfi C. Social Phobia Scale (SPS) and Social Interaction Anxiety Scale (SIAS): Italian translation and adaptation. B Psicol Appl. 2007; 252: 59– 71.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Bottesi, G., Noventa, S., Freeston, M. H., & Ghisi, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Padua (IT)
  • University of Tübingen (DE)
  • Newcastle University (GB)
Corresponding author
Bottesi, Gioia
ORCID
Venue
PLoS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2019-02-11
Volume
14
Issue
2
Pages
e0211929
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0211929
PMC
PMC6370219
OpenAlex
W2913615924
Cited by
132
References
104
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 4
FWCI
18.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Padua Research Archive (University of Padova) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity) (cc-by)
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, psychometric properties, factor structure, bifactor model, measurement invariance, reliability and validity, Italian adaptation, community sample, undergraduate students
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Models, Psychological, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Uncertainty, Self Report

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