Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Assessing the Factorial Validity of the Attitudes and Belief Scale 2-Abbreviated Version: A Call for the Development a Gold Standard Method of Measuring Rational and Irrational Beliefs

  • Published:
Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Rational emotive behaviour therapy (REBT) does not possess a measure of rational and irrational beliefs that meets internationally recognised standards for acceptable psychometric properties. Without such a measure the theory/practice of REBT cannot be rigorously evaluated, thus undermining its scientific veracity. The current study investigates the validity and reliability of a recently developed measure of rational and irrational beliefs: the Attitudes and Belief Scale 2-Abbreviated Version (ABS-2-AV). University students from three countries completed the ABS-2-AV (N = 397). An alternative models framework using confirmatory factor analysis indicated that a theoretically consistent eight-factor model of the ABS-2-AV provided the best fit of the data. A number of post hoc modifications were required in order to achieve acceptable model fit results, and these modifications revealed important methodological limitations with the ABS-2-AV. Results indicated that the validity of the ABS-2-AV was undermined due to items measuring both the psychological process of interest (rational and irrational beliefs) and the context in which these beliefs processes are presented. This is a serious methodological limitation of the ABS-2 and all questionnaires derived from it, including the ABS-2-AV. This methodological limitation resulted in the ABS-2-AV possessing poor internal reliability. These limitations are discussed in relation to the broader REBT literature and the impact such problems have on research and practice. A call is made for REBT researchers to come together to develop a “gold standard” method of assessing rational and irrational beliefs that meets international standard for psychometric excellence.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aaronson, N., Alonso, J., Burman, A., Lohr, K. N., Patrick, D. L., Perrin, E., & Stein, R. E. (2002). Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: Attributes and review criteria. Quality of Life Research, 11, 193–205.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Akaike, H. (1987). Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika, 52, 317–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16, 74–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indices in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, B. M. (2011). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cristea, I. A., Montgomery, G. H., Szamoskozi, S., & David, D. (2013). Key constructs in “classical” and “new wave” cognitive behavioral psychotherapies: Relationships among each other and with emotional distress. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 69, 584–599.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • David, D., & Szentagotai, A. (2006). Cognition in cognitive-behavioral psychotherapies (CBT): Toward an integrative model. Clinical Psychology Review, 3, 284–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamantopoulos, A., & Winklhofer, H. M. (2001). Index construction with formative indicators: An alternative to scale development. Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 269–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiGiuseppe, R., Leaf, R., Exner, T., & Robin, M. V. (1988). The development of a measure of rational/irrational thinking. Paper presented at the World Congress of Behavior Therapy, Edinburgh, Scotland.

  • DiLorenzo, T. A., David, D., & Montgomery, G. H. (2007). The interrelations between irrational cognitive processes and distress in stressful academic settings. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 765–777.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiLorenzo, T. A., David, D., & Montgomery, G. H. (2011). The impact of general and specific rational and irrational beliefs on exam distress; A further investigation of the binary model of emotional distress as an emotional regulation model. Journal of Cognitive and Behavioural Psychotherapies, 11, 121–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dryden, W., & David, D. (2008). Rational emotive behavior therapy: Current status. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy: An International Quarterly, 22, 195–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fulop, I. E. (2007). A confirmatory factor analysis of the attitude and belief scale 2. Journal of Cognitive and Behavioral Psychotherapies, 7, 159–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, P., & Boduszek, D. (2012). Resolving a difference between cognitive therapy and rational emotive behaviour therapy: Towards the development of an integrated CBT model of psychopathology. Mental Health Review Journal, 17, 104–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, P., Maguire, R., Shevlin, M., & Boduszek, D. (2014a). Rational beliefs as cognitive protective factors in posttraumatic stress responses. Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 32, 297–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, P., Shevlin, M., Adamson, G., & Boduszek, D. (2014b). The organisation of irrational beliefs in posttraumatic stress symptomology: Testing the predictions of REBT theory using structural equation modelling. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 70, 48–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, P., Shevlin, M., Adamson, G., & Boduszek, D. (2014c). Modelling the structure of the Attitudes and Belief Scale 2: Toward the development of an abbreviated version. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 43, 60–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Joreskog, K., & Sorbom, D. (1981). LISREL V: Analysis of linear structural relationships by the method of maximum likelihood. Chicago: National Educational Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). London: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macavei, B. (2005). The role of irrational beliefs in the rational emotive behavior theory of depression. Journal of Cognitive and Behavioral Psychotherapies, 5, 73–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mogase, C., Stefan, S., & David, D. (2013). How do we measure rational and irrational beliefs? The development of Rational and Irrational Beliefs Scale (RAIBS)—a new theory driven measure. Journal of Cognitive and Behavioral Psychotherapies, 13, 529–546.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2013). MPlus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

  • Padesky, C. A., & Beck, A. T. (2003). Science and philosophy: Comparison of cognitive therapy and rational emotive behaviour therapy. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 17, 211–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raykov, T. (1998). Coefficient alpha and composite reliability with interrelated nonhomogeneous items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 22, 375–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. Annals of Statistics, 6, 461–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioural Research, 25, 173–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szentagotai, A., David, D., Lupu, V., & Cosman, D. (2008). Rational-emotive behaviour therapy versus cognitive therapy versus medication in the treatment of major depressive disorder: Mechanisms of change analysis. Psychotherapy Theory, Research, Practice, 4, 523–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Terjesen, M. D., Salhany, J., & Sciutto, M. J. (2009). A psychometric review of measures of irrational beliefs: Implications for psychotherapy. Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 27, 83–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Terwee, C. B., Bot, S. D., de Boer, M. R., van der Windt, D. A., Knol, D. L., Dekker, J., et al. (2007). Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60, 34–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). The reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38, 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yuan, K. H., & Bentler, P. M. (2000). Three likelihood-based methods for mean and covariance structure analysis with nonnormal missing data. Sociological Methodology, 30, 165–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Business, National College of Ireland, IFSC, Mayor Street, Dublin 1, Ireland

    Philip Hyland, Robert Fox & Gary Treacy

  2. Department of Computer Science, National University of Ireland, Maynooth, Kildare, Ireland

    Phil Maguire

  3. Department of Behavioural and Social Sciences, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, UK

    Daniel Boduszek

  4. Centre for Global Health, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland

    Frédérique Vallières

Authors
  1. Philip Hyland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert Fox
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gary Treacy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Phil Maguire
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Daniel Boduszek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Frédérique Vallières
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Philip Hyland.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hyland, P., Fox, R., Treacy, G. et al. Assessing the Factorial Validity of the Attitudes and Belief Scale 2-Abbreviated Version: A Call for the Development a Gold Standard Method of Measuring Rational and Irrational Beliefs. J Rat-Emo Cognitive-Behav Ther 35, 111–124 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10942-016-0243-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10942-016-0243-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation