Cognitive Therapy and Research

, Volume 37, Issue 3, pp 647–656 | Cite as

Validation and Reliability of the Young Schema Questionnaire in a Flemish Inpatient Eating Disorder and Alcohol and Substance Use Disorder Sample

  • Els Pauwels
  • Laurence Claes
  • Dirk Smits
  • Eva Dierckx
  • Jennifer J. Muehlenkamp
  • Hendrik Peuskens
  • Walter Vandereycken
Original Article


This study focuses on the psychometric properties of Young Schema Questionnaire-Long Form (YSQL2, Young in Cognitive therapy for personality disorders: a schema-focused approach. Professional Resource Exchange, Sarasota, 1990) in a large Flemish sample of inpatients with an eating or substance use disorder. Eating disorders (ED) and alcohol/substance use disorders commonly co-occur and have been linked by several theoretical models, making it important to study the psychometric properties of the YSQL2 in these populations. In the present study, a confirmatory factor analysis was used to investigate the latent structure of the YSQL2 in a sample of ED patients (n = 218) and alcohol and substance use disorder (AD) patients (n = 351). Internal consistency, divergent, and convergent validity between early maladaptive schemas (EMS) and personality disorder symptoms were investigated. Results confirm the 16 factor structure of the YSQL2 as well as good internal consistency for all scales. Significant gender differences were observed for some scales within the AD sample, along with different patterns of correlations between age and select scales within the ED and AD groups. Convergent validity was supported by similar elevations on the schema scales and personality disorder symptoms in both subgroups separately. The YSQL2 appears to be a valid instrument to assess EMS among Flemish inpatients with an ED or an alcohol disorder.


Young Schema Questionnaire Validity Eating disorder Addiction Personality traits 


Conflict of interest



  1. Ball, S. A., & Cecero, J. J. (2001). Addicted patients with personality disorders: Traits, schemas, and presenting problems. Journal of Personality Disorders, 15, 72–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ball, S. A., & Young, J. E. (2000). Dual focus schema therapy for personality disorders and substance dependence: Case study results. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 7, 270–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bandalos, D. (2002). The effects of item parceling on goodness-of-fit and parameter estimate bias in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 78–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bandalos, D. L. (2008). Is parceling really necessary? A comparison of results from item parceling and categorical variable methodology. Structural Equation Modeling, 15, 211–240. doi: 10.1080/10705510801922340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baranoff, J., Oei, T. P. S., Kwon, S. M., & Cho, S. (2006). Factor structure and internal consistency of the young schema questionnaire (short form). Journal of Affective Disorders, 93, 133–140.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brotchie, J., Meyer, C., Copello, A., Kidney, R., & Waller, G. (2004). Cognitive representations in alcohol and opiate abuse: The role of core beliefs. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 43, 337–342.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Calvete, E., Estevez, A., Lopez de Arroyabe, E., & Ruiz, P. (2005). The Schema Questionnaire-short form: Structure and relationship with automatic thoughts and symptoms of affective disorders. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 21, 90–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cooper, S. E. (1989). Chemical dependency and eating disorders: Are they really so different? Journal of Counseling and Development, 68, 102–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Costa, P. J., Terracciano, A., & Mc Crae, R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: Robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 322–331.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Harrop, E. N., & Marlatt, G. A. (2010). The comorbidity of substance use disorders and eating disorders in women: Prevalence, etiology, and treatment. Addiction Behaviors, 35, 392–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hoffart, A., Sexton, H., Hedley, L. M., Wang, C. E., Holthe, H., Haugum, J. A., et al. (2005). The structure of maladaptive schemas: A confirmatory factor analysis and a psychometric evaluation of factor-derived scales. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 29, 627–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424–453. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (2004). LISRELL 8.71 [computer program]. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.Google Scholar
  15. Lee, C. W., Taylor, G., & Dunn, J. (1999). Factor structure of the Schema Questionnaire in a large clinical sample. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 23, 441–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nordahl, H. M., Holthe, H., & Haugum, J. A. (2005). Early maladaptive schemas in patients with or without personality disorders: Does schema modification predict symptomatic relief? Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 12, 142–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  18. Ohanian, V. (2002). Imagery rescripting within cognitive behavior therapy for bulimia nervosa: An illustrative case report. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 31, 352–357.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Petrocelli, J. V., Glaser, B. A., Calhoun, G. B., & Campbell, L. F. (2001). Cognitive schemas as mediating variables of the relationship between the self-defeating personality and depression. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 23, 183–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Reeves, M., & Taylor, J. (2007). Specific relationships between core beliefs and personality disorder symptoms in a non-clinical sample. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 14, 96–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rijkeboer, M. M., & van den Bergh, H. (2006). Multiple group factor analysis of the Young Schema Questionnaire in a Dutch clinical versus non-clinical population. Cognitive Therapy Research, 30, 263–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rijkeboer, M. M., van den Bergh, H., & van den Bout, J. (2005). Stability and discriminative power of the Young Schema Questionnaire in a Dutch clinical versus non-clinical population. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 36, 129–144.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Saariaho, T., Saariaho, A., Karila, I., & Joukamaa, M. (2009). The psychometric properties of the Finnish Young Schema Questionnaire in chronic pain patients and a non-clinical sample. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 40, 158–168.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8, 23–74.Google Scholar
  25. Schmidt, N. B., Joiner, T. E., Young, J. E., & Telch, M. J. (1995). The Schema Questionnaire: Investigation of psychometric properties and the hierarchical structure of a measure of maladaptive schemas. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 19, 295–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schotte, C. K. W., De Doncker, D., Vankerckhoven, C., Vertommen, H., & Cosyns, P. (1998). Self-report assessment of the DSM-IV personality disorders. Measurement of trait and distress characteristics: The ADP-IV. Psychological Medicine, 28, 1179–1188.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Stopa, L., Thorne, P., Waters, A., & Preston, J. (2001). Are the short and long forms of the Young Schema Questionnaire comparable and how well does each version predict psychopathology scores? Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 15, 253–272.Google Scholar
  28. Thimm, J. (2011). Incremental validity of maladaptive schemas over five-factor model facets in the prediction of personality disorder symptoms. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 777–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Waller, G., Kennerly, H., & Ohanian, V. (2007). Schema-focused cognitive behavioral therapy for eating disorders. In L. P. Riso, P. L. du Toit, D. J. Steia, & J. E. Young (Eds.), Cognitive schemas and core beliefs in psychological problems: A scientist-practitioner guide (pp. 139–175). New York: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Waller, G., Meyer, C., & Ohanian, V. (2001a). Psychometric properties of the long and short versions of the Young Schema Questionnaire: Core beliefs among bulimic and comparison women. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 25, 137–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Waller, G., Ohanian, V., Meyer, C., & Selen, O. (2000). Cognitive content among bulimic women: The role of core beliefs. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 28, 235–241.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Waller, G., Shah, R., Ohanian, P., & Elliott, P. (2001b). Core beliefs in bulimia nervosa and depression: The discriminant validity of Young’s Schema-Questionnaire. Behavior Therapy, 32, 139–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Welburn, K., Coristine, M., Dagg, P., Pontefract, A., & Jordan, S. (2002). The Schema-Questionnaire short form: Factor analysis and relationship between schemas and symptoms. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 26, 519–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Young, J. E. (1990). Cognitive therapy for personality disorders: A schema-focused approach. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Exchange.Google Scholar
  35. Young, J. E. (1998). Young Schema Questionnaire short form. New York: Cognitive Therapy Center.Google Scholar
  36. Young, J. E., & Brown, G. (1994). Young Schema-Questionnaire (2nd Ed.). In J. E. Young (Ed.), Cognitive therapy for personality disorders: A schema-focused approach (Rev. Ed., pp. 63–76). Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press.Google Scholar
  37. Young, J. E., & Pijnaker, H. (1999). Cognitieve therapie voor persoonlijkheidsstoornissen: Een schemagerichte benadering [Cognitive therapy for personality disorders: A schema oriented approach]. Houten, The Netherlands: Bohn Stafleu Van Loghum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Els Pauwels
    • 1
    • 2
  • Laurence Claes
    • 1
  • Dirk Smits
    • 1
    • 3
  • Eva Dierckx
    • 2
    • 4
  • Jennifer J. Muehlenkamp
    • 5
  • Hendrik Peuskens
    • 2
  • Walter Vandereycken
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  2. 2.Alexian Brothers Psychiatric HospitalTienenBelgium
  3. 3.HUBUniversity College BrusselsBrusselsBelgium
  4. 4.Department of PsychologyVrije Universiteit BrusselBrusselsBelgium
  5. 5.University of Wisconsin-Eau ClaireEau ClaireUSA

Personalised recommendations