Validation of a Brief Internet-Based Self-Report Measure of Maladaptive Personality and Interpersonal Schema: Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Existing digital mental health interventions mainly focus on the symptoms of specific mental disorders, but do not focus on Maladaptive Personalities and Interpersonal Schemas (MPISs). As an initial step toward considering personalities and schemas in intervention programs, there is a need for the development of tools for measuring core personality traits and interpersonal schemas known to cause psychological discomfort among potential users of digital mental health interventions. Thus, the MPIS was developed. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study are to validate the MPIS by comparing 2 models of the MPIS factor structure and to understand the characteristics of the MPIS by assessing its correlations with other measures. METHODS: Data were collected from 234 participants who were using web-based community sites in South Korea, including university students, graduate students, working professionals, and homemakers. All the data were gathered through web-based surveys. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to compare a single-factor model with a 5-factor model. Reliability and correlation analyses with other scales were performed. RESULTS: =2341.5; Tucker-Lewis index=0.52; comparative fit index=0.54; and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation=0.11) for measuring maladaptive personality traits and interpersonal relationship patterns. The internal consistency of each factor of the MPIS was good (Cronbach α=.71-.88), and the correlations with existing measures were statistically significant. The MPIS is a validated 35-item tool for measuring 5 essential personality traits and interpersonal schemas in adults aged 18-39 years. CONCLUSIONS: This study introduced the MPIS, a concise and effective questionnaire capable of measuring maladaptive personality traits and interpersonal relationship schemas. Through analysis, the MPIS was shown to reliably assess these psychological constructs and validate them. Its web-based accessibility and reduced item count make it a valuable tool for mental health assessment. Future applications include its integration into digital mental health care services, allowing easy web-based administration and aiding in the classification of psychological therapy programs based on the obtained results. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05952063; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05952063.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".