Volume 25, Issue 1 (6-2026)
JRUMS 2026, 25(1): 19-36 |
Back to browse issues page
Ethics code: IR.UMA.REC.1404.004
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Basharpoor S, Ahmadi S. Investigating the Factor Structure and Validation of the Dysfunctional Personality Beliefs Questionnaire in Iranian Students: A Descriptive Study. JRUMS 2026; 25 (1) :19-36
URL: http://journal.rums.ac.ir/article-1-7872-en.html
URL: http://journal.rums.ac.ir/article-1-7872-en.html
University of Mohaghegh Ardabili
Abstract: (2 Views)
Background and Objectives: Despite the important theoretical role of dysfunctional personality beliefs in explaining psychopathology, the limited evidence regarding a stable factor structure and the adequacy of measuring this construct within the Iranian cultural context underscores the necessity of validating related assessment instruments.The present study was conducted with the aim of investigating the factor structure and validation of the Dysfunctional Personality Beliefs Questionnaire in Iranian students.
Materials and Methods: The current study was descriptive and correlational. The statistical population included all students of the University of Mohaghegh Ardabili in the academic year 2025, from whom 300 participants were selected using a multistage cluster random sampling method. Data were collected using the Dysfunctional Personality Beliefs Questionnaire. To examine convergent and divergent validity, the Five-Factor Personality Questionnaire and the Dysfunctional Attitudes Scale were also administered. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and inferential methods, including confirmatory factor analysis, reliability assessment, convergent and divergent validity, and Pearson’s correlation coefficient.
Results: The results showed that this scale had a desirable internal consistency (α=0.82). The fit indices in exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses also confirmed its appropriate validity. Furthermore, no significant relationship was observed between the five‑factor personality dimensions and dysfunctional personality beliefs (p>0.05), indicating desirable divergent validity. In contrast, a significant correlation was found between dysfunctional attitudes and the dimensions of dysfunctional personality beliefs, indicating appropriate convergent validity of the scale (p<0.01).
Conclusion: The results of the current study indicated that the Dysfunctional Personality Beliefs Questionnaire has satisfactory validity and reliability and can be used as a reliable instrument for assessing this construct.
Keywords: Factor analysis, Dysfunctional personality beliefs, Students
Funding: This study was funded by Mohaghegh Ardabili University of Medical Sciences.
Conflict of interest: None declared.
Ethical considerations: The Ethics Committee of Mohaghegh Ardabili University of Medical Sciences approved the study (IR.UMA.REC.1404.004).
Authors’ contributions:
- Conceptualization: Sajjad Basharpoor, Shirin Ahmadi
- Methodology: Shirin Ahmadi
- Data collection: Shirin Ahmadi
- Formal analysis: Shirin Ahmadi
- Supervision: Sajjad Basharpoor, Shirin Ahmadi
- Project administration: Sajjad Basharpoor
- Writing- original draft: Shirin Ahmadi
- Writing – review & editing: Sajjad Basharpoor, Shirin Ahmadi
Materials and Methods: The current study was descriptive and correlational. The statistical population included all students of the University of Mohaghegh Ardabili in the academic year 2025, from whom 300 participants were selected using a multistage cluster random sampling method. Data were collected using the Dysfunctional Personality Beliefs Questionnaire. To examine convergent and divergent validity, the Five-Factor Personality Questionnaire and the Dysfunctional Attitudes Scale were also administered. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and inferential methods, including confirmatory factor analysis, reliability assessment, convergent and divergent validity, and Pearson’s correlation coefficient.
Results: The results showed that this scale had a desirable internal consistency (α=0.82). The fit indices in exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses also confirmed its appropriate validity. Furthermore, no significant relationship was observed between the five‑factor personality dimensions and dysfunctional personality beliefs (p>0.05), indicating desirable divergent validity. In contrast, a significant correlation was found between dysfunctional attitudes and the dimensions of dysfunctional personality beliefs, indicating appropriate convergent validity of the scale (p<0.01).
Conclusion: The results of the current study indicated that the Dysfunctional Personality Beliefs Questionnaire has satisfactory validity and reliability and can be used as a reliable instrument for assessing this construct.
Keywords: Factor analysis, Dysfunctional personality beliefs, Students
Funding: This study was funded by Mohaghegh Ardabili University of Medical Sciences.
Conflict of interest: None declared.
Ethical considerations: The Ethics Committee of Mohaghegh Ardabili University of Medical Sciences approved the study (IR.UMA.REC.1404.004).
Authors’ contributions:
- Conceptualization: Sajjad Basharpoor, Shirin Ahmadi
- Methodology: Shirin Ahmadi
- Data collection: Shirin Ahmadi
- Formal analysis: Shirin Ahmadi
- Supervision: Sajjad Basharpoor, Shirin Ahmadi
- Project administration: Sajjad Basharpoor
- Writing- original draft: Shirin Ahmadi
- Writing – review & editing: Sajjad Basharpoor, Shirin Ahmadi
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Psychiatry
Received: 2025/10/29 | Accepted: 2026/05/23 | Published: 2026/06/20
Received: 2025/10/29 | Accepted: 2026/05/23 | Published: 2026/06/20
References
1. García LF, Gutiérrez F, García O, Aluja A. The alternative model of personality disorders: Assessment, convergent and discriminant validity, and a look to the future. J Annu Rev Clin Psychol 2024; 20(1): 431-55.
2. Bach B, Tracy M. Clinical utility of the alternative model of personality disorders: A 10th year anniversary review. J Personal Disord 2022; 13(4): 369-79.
3. Tracy M, Penney E, Norton AR. Group schema therapy for personality disorders: Systematic review, research agenda and treatment implications. J Psychother Res 2025: 35(6): 884-903.
4. Li P, Lv Y, Wang R, Chen T, Gao J, Huang Z. How do illegitimate tasks affect hospitality employees’ adaptive performance? An explanation from the perspective of cognitive-affective system theory of personality. Int J Contemp Hosp 2024; 36(9): 3032-51.
5. Zachar P, Krueger RF, Kendler KS. Personality disorder in DSM-5: An oral history. J Psychol Med 2016; 46(1): 1-10.
6. Mischel W, Shoda Y. A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. J Psychol Rev 1995; 102(2): 246.
7. Beck JS, Freeman A. Cognitive therapy of personality disorders. In: Salkovskis PM, editor. Frontiers of cognitive therapy. New York: Guilford Press; 1996; 165-81.
8. Shoda Y, Mischel W. Personality as a stable cognitive-affective activation network: Characteristic patterns of behavior variation emerge from a stable personality structure. Connectionist models of social reasoning and social behavior: Psychology Press; 2014: 175-208.
9. Arntz A, Lobbestael J, Livesley J, Larstone R. Cognitive structures and processes in personality disorders. Handbook of personality disorders: Theory, research, and treatment. 2018: 141-54.
10. Jiang Y. A theory of the neural mechanisms underlying negative cognitive bias in major depression. Frontiers in Psychiatry 2024; 15(1): 1-12.
11. Popolo R, Dimaggio G, MacBeth A, Ottavi P, Centonze A. Management of the therapeutic relationship in a patient with Complex PTSD and Personality Disorder J Clin Psychol 2025; 81(1): 19-30.
12. Monaghan C, Bizumic B. Dimensional models of personality disorders: Challenges and opportunities. J fpsyt 2023; 14(1): 1-16.
13. Widiger TA, Smith M. Personality Disorders: Current Conceptualizations and Challenges. J Annu Rev Clin Psychol 2025; 21(1): 169-92.
14. Widiger TA, Rojas SL. Personality disorders. J Psychiatry 2015; 1(1): 1706-48.
15. Widiger TA, Hines A. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, alternative model of personality disorder. J Pers Disord Theory Res Treat 2022; 13(4): 347-57.
16. Williams T, Scalco M, Simms L. The construct validity of general and specific dimensions of personality pathology. J Psychol Med 2018; 48(5): 834-48.
17. Miller JD. Editorial for Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment. 2022.
18. Araújo E, Cruz OS, Moreira D. Maladaptive beliefs of young adults in interpersonal relationships: A systematic literature review. J Trauma, Violence Abuse 2023; 24(2): 646-61.
19. Salicru S. Schema Therapy: The Healthy Adult Meets Sherlock Holmes—An Enactivist and Embodied Cognition Perspective of Metaphor. J Psychol 2024; 15(2): 173-214.
20. Beck AT, Beck JS. The personality belief questionnaire. Unpublished assessment instrument Bala Cynwyd, PA: The Beck Institute for Cognitive Therapy and Research. 1991.
21. Moretti LS, Dominguez Lara SA, Trógolo MA, Conn H, Medrano L. Factor structure and reliability of the Personality Belief Questionnaire in Argentina. J Arch Psychiatry Psych 2018; 3(1): 79-86.
22. Leite DT, Lopes EJ, Lopes RFF. Psychometric characteristics of the personality belief questionnaire–Short form. J Rev BrasTer Comport Cogn 2012; 14(3): 70-87.
23. Türkçapar MH, Örsel S, Uğurlu M, Sargın E, Turhan M, Akkoyunlu S, et al. Kişilik İnanç Ölçeği Türkçe formunun geçerlik ve güvenirliği. Klinik Psikiyatri 2007; 10(1): 177-91.
24. Faustino B, Vasco AB. Emotional schemas mediate the relationship between emotion regulation and symptomatology. J Curr Psychol Rev 2023; 42(4): 2733-9.
25. Fournier JC, DeRubeis RJ, Beck AT. Dysfunctional cognitions in personality pathology: the structure and validity of the Personality Belief Questionnaire. J Psychol Med 2012; 42(4): 795-805.
26. Black W, Babin BJ. Multivariate data analysis: Its approach, evolution, and impact. The great facilitator: Reflections on the contributions of Joseph F Hair, Jr to marketing and business research: Springer; 2019: 121-30.
27. Chen X, He J, Fan X. Applicability of the Ego-Resilience Scale (ER89) in the Chinese cultural context: a validation study. J Psychoeduc Assess 2020; 38(6): 675-91.
28. Ahmadi S, Bsharpoor S, Atadokht A, Narimani M. Designing a Structural Relationship Pattern for Predicting Relapse Consumption Based on Dysfunctional Personality Beliefs The Mediating Role of Inhibition Control. J Appl Psychol Res 2023; 14(1): 1-14.
29. Weissman AN, Beck AT. Development and validation of the Dysfunctional Attitude Scale: A preliminary investigation. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association; 1978; Toronto, Canada.
30. Ebrahimi A, Neshatdoust H, Kalantari M, Moulavi H, AsadElahi G. Contributions of dysfunctional attitude scale and general health subscales to prediction and odds ratio of depression. Journal of Shahrekord University of Medical Sciences 2008; 4(3): 183-9.
31. McCrae RR, Costa Jr PT. Reinterpreting the Myers‐Briggs type indicator from the perspective of the five‐factor model of personality. J Pers 1989; 57(1): 17-40.
32. Anisi J, Majdian M, Joshanloo M, Gohari-kamel Z. Validity and reliability of NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) on university students. Int j Behav Sci 2012; 5(4): 351-5.
33. Kaiser HF. A revised measure of sampling adequacy for factor-analytic data matrices. Educ Psychol Meas 1981; 41(2): 379-81.
34. Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark 1981; 18(1): 39-50.
35.
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
