See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/270792495

The Problem-Solving Inventory: Appraisal of problem solving in

the Arab context, factor structure, and validation.

Article · October 2014

DOI: 10.1037/ipp0000020

CITATIONS READS

0 1,978

1 author:

Abdrabo Moghazy Soliman

Qatar University
36 PUBLICATIONS   64 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Qatar Blockade View project

Holistic Management of Schizophrenia View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Abdrabo Moghazy Soliman on 14 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Perspectives in Psychology: Research, Practice, Consultation © 2014 American Psychological Association
2014, Vol. 3, No. 4, 252–267 2157-3883/14/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ipp0000020

The Problem-Solving Inventory: Appraisal of Problem Solving in

the Arab Context, Factor Structure, and Validation

Abdrabo Moghazy Soliman

Tanta University

The Problem-Solving Inventory (PSI) is a self-report measure of applied problem

solving that is commonly used in various ethnic groups and cultures. The present study
developed a 27-item inventory and labeled the Arabic version the “PSI-Ar.” The
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

PSI-Ar was validated by examining its psychometric properties, the replicability of its
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

factor structure, and its measurement equivalence across genders as well as possible
latent mean differences between genders based on 4 studies with 2,072 Egyptian
college students (Study 1, N ⫽ 607; Study 2, N ⫽ 321; Study 3, N ⫽ 550; and Study
4, N ⫽ 915). Respondents from Study 2 were included into the Study 4 sample. The
first study identified 3 PSI factors in the Egyptian sample, similar to those originally
identified by Heppner and Petersen (1982). The second study cross-validated the
PSI-Ar in a different sample, demonstrating the replicability of the factor structure and
the stability of the findings across different samples. Study 3 provided evidence for the
construct validity and test–retest reliability of the PSI-Ar. Finally, Study 4 provided
evidence for the measurement invariance of the PSI-Ar across gender and revealed that
no latent mean differences exist between genders for the total PSI and the three factors.
The findings of the present study supplement the emerging evidence for the validity of
the PSI in various cultures and have implications for assessment and practice related to
problem-solving appraisals in the Arab cultural context.

Keywords: problem-solving appraisal, Problem-Solving Inventory, PSI-Ar, validation,

Arab culture

Problem solving is best conceptualized as an Murran, Duggan, Christopher, & Huband,

individual’s ability to adopt strategies to resolve
dilemmas encountered in daily life activities
(D’Zurilla & Nezu, 1999). Problem-solving ap-
praisal has been defined as an individual’s belief
in his or her problem-solving ability and style
(Heppner, 1988; Heppner & Petersen, 1982).
Thus, it refers to one’s conceptualization of
oneself as an effective problem solver (having
confidence and personal control in approaching
problems; Heppner, 1988). A large body of re-
search has suggested that problem-solving deficits
are associated with numerous behavioral disor-
ders, including depression (Bell & D’Zurilla,
2009), anxiety disorders (Provencher, Dugas, &
Ladouceur, 2004), personality disorders (Mc-
This article was published Online First July 7, 2014.
Correspondence concerning this article should be ad-
dressed to Abdrabo Moghazy Soliman, Department of
Psychology, Faculty of Arts, Sebarbye, Tanta University,
Tanta, Egypt. E-mail: dr.asoliman@yahoo.co.uk;
a.soliman@aberdeen.ac.uk
252
2007), and mood disorders (Thoma, Friedmann,
& Suchan, 2013).
One prolific line of research has used the Prob-
lem-Solving Inventory (PSI) to assess individuals’
appraisals of their problem-solving abilities (Hep-
pner & Petersen, 1982; Heppner, Witty, & Dixon,
2004; Nota et al., 2013). The PSI is a self-report
measure of applied problem solving that has been
used in ⬎150 empirical investigations over 30
years of research, particularly in recent years (see
Heppner et al., 2004). These studies provided
growing evidence in support of the validity and
reliability of the PSI in US samples as well as in
other cultural contexts, including Mexican Amer-
ican (Huang & Flores, 2011), Turkish (Sahin,
Sahin, & Heppner, 1993), Italian (Nota et al.,
2013), Hispanic (De La Torre, Morera, & Wood,
2010), Chinese (Cheung, 2002), and French-
speaking Canadian (Marcotte, Alain, & Gosselin,
1999) contexts as well as in samples from Hong
Kong, South Africa, Australia, Taiwan, Canada,
and South Korea (see Heppner et al., 2004).
 PROBLEM-SOLVING APPRAISAL IN THE ARAB CULTURE
The examination of the organizational struc-
ture of the PSI across different cultural contexts
has resulted in different structures. Some stud-
ies have confirmed a three-factor structure of
the PSI that was originally reported by Heppner
and Petersen (1982) (Huang & Flores, 2011;
Nota et al., 2013), whereas others have not
(Maydeu-Olivares & D’Zurilla, 1997; Tian,
Heppner, & Hou, 2014).
Several previous authors have called for ad-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
ditional research to examine the PSI structure
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
across different cultural contexts. For example,
Leong (1990) called for further research on
psychometric issues among racial/ethnic minor-
ity groups, and Heppner (2008) and Nota et al.
(2013) noted the need for additional studies on
problem-solving appraisal in cultures outside
the United States. Further investigation has also
been suggested to examine how positive and
negative problem-solving appraisal relates to
gender role identities, gender role conflicts, and
masculine and feminine ideologies (Carter &
Qureshi, 1995; O’Neil, 2004).
Thus far, no prior study has validated or exam-
ined the psychometric properties of the PSI in the
Arab cultural context. Although the findings
from previous studies indicate that the PSI has
strong test–retest reliability, a consistent factor
structure, and a link with psychological health,
evaluation of problem-solving appraisal and the
PSI scale in other cultural settings is still needed
(Huang & Flores, 2011). According to Dwairy
(1998), the Arab cultural context may be de-
scribed as collectivist and authoritarian; Arab
individuals conform closely to the social norms
and values of their family, tribe, and country,
especially as they relate to hospitality, honor,
and magnanimity (Patai, 2007).
Present Study
The present study aims to contribute to the
psychological literature by examining and
adopting an inventory that assesses problem-
solving appraisal in an Arab cultural context.
The title and acronym of the Arabic version of
the PSI is the PSI-Ar. The PSI-Ar was adopted
by investigating (a) the factor structure of the
PSI based on data from Egyptian college stu-
dents, (b) the test–retest reliability and the con-
struct validity of the PSI, (c) the replicability of
factor structure of the PSI in completely differ-
ent samples, and (d) the measurement invari-
253
ance of the PSI across gender as well as latent
mean differences between males and females.
Study 1: Development and Examination of
the Factor Structure of the PSI in the
Arab Context
The aim of this study was to develop and
investigate the factor structure of the PSI based
on data from Egyptian college students. The
data were expected to fit the three-factor model
reported by Heppner and Petersen (1982).
Method
Participants. A total of 607 Egyptian col-
lege students, including 267 (44.7%) males
(Mage ⫽ 19.70, SD ⫽ 1.93) and 340 (55.3%)
females (Mage ⫽ 19.46, SD ⫽ 1.54), partici-
pated in this study. All of the participants were
taking a psychology course in the Psychology
Department at Tanta University. All partici-
pants were of middle socioeconomic status,
which was measured by parents’ education, job,
and income as well as the number of people per
room in the home. All participants voluntarily
took part in this study.
Instruments. The PSI (Form B; Heppner,
1988) is composed of 35 self-report items (in-
cluding three filler items: 9, 22, and 29) as-
sessed on a 6-point Likert scale that are de-
signed to measure people’s perceptions of their
problem-solving abilities. Responses to the
items range from 1 (strongly agree) to 6
(strongly disagree), and the total score ranges
from 32 to 192.
Initially, Heppner and Petersen (1982) per-
formed a principal components factor analysis
with 32 items using data from undergraduate
college students. The factor analysis revealed
10 factors with eigenvalues ⬎1.0, collectively
accounting for 65% of the shared variance. Us-
ing varimax rotation and considering only fac-
tors with loadings above .3, three interpretable
factors were identified with 11, 6, and 5 items.
These three extracted factors were (a) Problem-
Solving Confidence, which is defined as peo-
ple’s belief in their problem-solving abilities
(e.g., “I have the ability to solve most problems
even though initially no solution is immediately
apparent”; “I am usually able to think of cre-
ative and effective alternatives to solve a prob-
lem”), (b) Approach-Avoidance Style, which is
 254 SOLIMAN
defined as people’s propensity to evade or ap-
proach problem-solving activities (e.g., “When
a solution to a problem is unsuccessful, I do not
examine why it didn’t work”; “When I am con-
fronted with a complex problem, I do not bother
to develop a strategy to collect information so I
can define exactly what the problem is”), and
(c) Personal Control, which is defined as peo-
ple’s confidence in controlling their emotions
and behavior while solving problems (see
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Heppner, 1988, 2008; e.g., “When my first ef-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
forts to solve a problem fail, I become uneasy
about my ability to handle the situation”; “Even
though I work on a problem, sometimes I feel
like I am groping or wandering and am not
getting down to the real issue”; “When a prob-
lem comes up, I do not usually look at what sort
of outside things in my surroundings may be
contributing to my problem”). The total PSI
score is calculated by adding the scores of the
three subscales created by the factor analysis.
The total score reflects individuals’ evaluation
of themselves as effective problem solvers. In-
dividuals with a low total PSI score appraise
themselves as effective problem solvers (Heppner,
1988). The reliability estimates showed high in-
ternal constancy, with alpha coefficients ranging
from .72 to .90 in a sample of 150 college students
(Heppner & Petersen, 1982).
The 2-week test–retest reliability showed co-
efficients ranging from .83 to .89 (n ⫽ 31). The
item-total correlations ranged from r ⫽ .25 to
r ⫽ .71 (for more details, please see Heppner,
1988). Moreover, the total PSI and factor scores
showed satisfactory internal consistency and re-
liability estimates across various cultures and
populations (Heppner, 1988; Heppner et al.,
2004; Nota et al., 2013). Several studies have
investigated the validity of the PSI and have
shown that the total PSI and three-factor scores
largely correlate in the predicted direction with
numerous self-report measures as well as obser-
vational measures of self-esteem, depression,
anxiety, and hopelessness (Heppner, 1988;
Heppner & Baker, 1997).
Development of the Arabic version of the
PSI. The 35 PSI items were initially trans-
lated into Arabic by two bilingual researchers
who are professors of cognitive psychology.
The items were then back-translated by a third
bilingual researcher, who is a professor of Eng-
lish literature. Four items that were slightly dif-
ficult to understand were retranslated and clar-
ified. The three bilingual researchers discussed
and reviewed the Arabic translations of the
items and the original, translated, and back-
translated instructions. Following the proce-
dures suggested by Hambleton, Merenda, and
Spielberger (2005) and followed by Nota et al.
(2013) in similar contexts, the items and in-
structions of the PSI were presented to a group
of 36 college students (20 females and 16
males) who were asked to read and comment on
the overall presentation, clarity, and meaning of
the instructions. They were also requested to
ask any questions that arose from reviewing the
instructions. The comments highlighted five
items that required slight modification in their
translation into Arabic. The modified items
were presented to a group of 25 college students
(13 females and 12 males) who were asked to
comment on the clarity and overall presentation
of the items of the Arabic version of the PSI.
The students provided no comments for addi-
tional revision. Following a discussion with
Professor Heppner, the developer of the original
version of the PSI, the Arabic version was la-
beled the PSI-Ar.
Procedure. The participants were asked to
complete the inventory and were informed that
the study was for academic purposes to further
our psychological knowledge base about the
appraisal of problem solving in Egypt. This
procedure was followed in all four studies ex-
cept for Study 2, to which additional measures
were added for the study purpose.
Results
Preliminary analysis. A preliminary anal-
ysis was performed to examine univariate nor-
mality using recommendations from Kline
(1998) and West, Finch, and Curran (1995), in
which the cutoff for skewness was 3 and the
cutoff for kurtosis was 1.0. All skewness and
kurtosis values were below the cutoffs. The
descriptive statistics for the means, standard
deviations (SDs), medians, and kurtosis and
skewness values are presented in Table 1.
Confirmatory factor analysis. Confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA) was used to examine the
three-factor structure of the PSI-Ar. The ␹2 and
four indices—the Comparative Fit Index (CFI;
Bentler, 1990; good if ⱖ .95), Non-Normed Fit
Index (NNFI; Bollen, 1989; good if ⱖ .95),
Standardized Root Mean-Square Residual
 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Table 1
Items, Factor Loadings, Communality Estimates
Factors
1 2 3 h2 M SD Kurtosis Skewness Mdn
Factor 1: Problem-Solving Confidence
5. I am usually able to think up creative and effective alternatives to
solve a problem. .752 .056 ⫺.015 .551 2.40 0.86 1.257 .647 2
10. I have the ability to solve most problems even though initially no
solution is immediately apparent. .736 .083 ⫺.153 .569 2.51 0.88 ⫺.470 ⫺.554 2
12. I make decisions and I am happy with them later. .718 .031 ⫺.133 .549 2.48 0.86 ⫺.112 ⫺.510 2
33. After making a decision, the outcome I expected usually matches
the actual outcome. .716 .072 ⫺.231 .586 2.53 0.91 1.390 .887 2
27. I trust my ability to solve new and difficult problems. .709 .108 ⫺.185 .539 2.84 1.01 .951 ⫺.101 3
18. When making a decision, I weigh the consequences of each
alternative and compare them against each other. .685 ⫺.145 ⫺.025 .548 2.60 0.94 1.503 1.302 2
20. I try to predict the overall result of carrying out a particular course
of action. .669 ⫺.078 .210 .469 2.79 1.21 .878 ⫺.330 2
11. Many problems I face are too complex for me to solve.a .645 ⫺.001 ⫺.245 .525 2.34 0.69 ⫺.262 ⫺.763 2
35. When I become aware of a problem, one of the first things I do is
to try to find out exactly what the problem is. .642 ⫺.169 .202 .475 3.19 1.3 .976 ⫺.327 3
19. When I make plans to solve a problem, I am almost certain that I
can make them work. .611 ⫺.086 ⫺.044 .420 2.49 0.87 ⫺.077 ⫺.883 2
23. Given enough time and effort, I believe I can solve most problems
that confront me. .578 .001 ⫺.007 .335 2.93 1.35 ⫺.327 ⫺.790 2
24. When faced with a novel situation, I have confidence that I can
handle problems that may arise. .569 ⫺.216 .332 .438 3.46 1.24 ⫺.272 ⫺.755 3
34. When confronted with a problem, I am unsure of whether I can
handle the situation.a .561 ⫺.058 ⫺.021 .338 3.50 1.07 1.729 1.079 3
8. When confronted with a problem, I consistently examine my
PROBLEM-SOLVING APPRAISAL IN THE ARAB CULTURE

feelings to find out what is going on in a problem situation .532 .132 .111 .269 3.10 1.21 .015 ⫺.441 3
Factor 2: Approach-Avoidance Style
6. After I have tried to solve a problem with a certain course of action,
1 take time and compare the actual outcome to what I thought
should have happened. ⫺.052 .827 ⫺.034 .691 4.46 1.13 1.042 ⫺.268 5
2. When I am confronted with a complex problem, 1 do not bother to
develop a strategy to collect information so I can define exactly
what the problem is. .154 .785 ⫺.024 .571 4.57 1.18 1.537 1.655 5
(table continues)
255
 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

256

Table 1 (continued)
Factors
1 2 3 h2 M SD Kurtosis Skewness Mdn
31. When 1 am confused by a problem, one of the first things I do is
survey the situation and consider all the relevant pieces of
information. .079 .735 .000 .518 4.16 1.14 ⫺.405 ⫺.602 4
7. When I have a problem, I think up as many possible ways to handle
it as I can until I can’t come up with any more ideas.a ⫺.132 .650 .091 .531 4.26 0.98 1.092 .188 4
15. When deciding on an idea or possible solution to a problem, I do
not take time to consider the chances of each alternative being
successful.a .006 .572 .138 .393 4.16 1.05 ⫺.605 ⫺.718 4
30. When confronted with a problem, I do not usually examine what
sort of external things my environment may be contributing to my
problem.a ⫺.135 .446 ⫺.023 .240 3.87 0.9 ⫺.272 ⫺.849 4
25. Even though I work on a problem, sometimes I feel like I am
groping or wandering, and am not getting down to the real issue.a ⫺.130 .445 .365 .492 4.63 1.01 .502 ⫺.980 5
SOLIMAN

Factor 3: Personal Control

28. I have a systematic method for comparing alternatives and making
decisions. .040 .074 .672 .479 4.71 1.12 ⫺.408 ⫺.710 5
3. When my first efforts to solve a problem fail, I become uneasy
about my ability to handle the situation.a ⫺.116 ⫺.102 .579 .338 4.46 1.34 ⫺.071 ⫺.697 5
14. Sometimes I do not stop and take time to deal with my problems,
but just kind of muddle ahead.a .001 .285 .563 .496 4.71 1.08 .385 ⫺.741 5
26. I make snap judgments and later regret them.a ⫺.052 .313 .540 .514 4.88 1.07 ⫺.313 ⫺.754 5
16. When confronted with a problem, I stop and think about it before
deciding on a next step. ⫺.067 .355 .507 .522 4.63 1.11 .061 ⫺.630 5
32. Sometimes I get so charged up emotionally that I am unable to
consider many ways of dealing with my problems.a ⫺.089 .381 .431 .469 4.75 1.01 .727 ⫺.661 5
Note. Bold values indicate item loading ⱖ 0.4
a
Denote scoring of the item is reversed.
 PROBLEM-SOLVING APPRAISAL IN THE ARAB CULTURE
(SRMR; Loehlin, 1998; good if ⱕ .05), and
Root Mean Square Error of Approximation
(RMSEA; Browne & Cudeck, 1993; good if ⱕ
.08)—were used. The results (␹2 ⫽ 2080.778,
n ⫽ 762, p ⬍ .001) indicated that the data did
not fit the model well. Furthermore, most of the
fit indices values were not acceptable, which
implied a poor model fit (NNFI ⫽ .84; CFI ⫽
.86; SRMR ⫽ .122; RMSEA ⫽ .06 [90% CI ⫽
.057, .063]). Hence, Heppner and Petersen’s
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
original factor structure was not confirmed in
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
the Egyptian data because the number of items
that loaded on each factor differed across the
US and Egyptian samples.
Exploratory factor analysis. A principal
component analysis was conducted to examine
the factor structure of the PSI-Ar. A preliminary
analysis was performed on the 32 items of the
PSI-Ar (excluding the three fillers) to check the
data for univariate and multivariate outliers.
Univariate outliers were defined as cases ⬎3 SD
below or above the mean using the threshold
presented by Hair, Anderson, Tatham, and
Black (2006). Multivariate outliers were identi-
fied consistent with the Mahalanobis D2 values
(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). The analysis re-
vealed no significant violations. The skewness
and kurtosis values are shown in Table 1. The
suitability of the data for factor analysis was
examined by inspecting correlations between
the items; many correlation coefficients
were ⱖ.3. The analysis showed that the Kaiser–
Meyer–Olkin measure was .89, exceeding the
value recommended by Kaiser (1970, 1974).
Preliminary analyses of the correlation matrix
showed low to moderate Pearson correlation
coefficients (⬎.3), and the determinant of the
correlation matrix (0.00006) was above the nec-
essary value of 0.00001 (Field, 2000). Initially,
principal components analysis and maximum
likelihood extraction methods were calculated,
followed by both orthogonal (varimax) and
oblique (direct oblimin) rotations. The orthog-
onal rotation results were nearly identical to
those of the oblique rotation when using the
same extraction method. Therefore, because the
oblique rotation replicates an orthogonal solu-
tion but not vice versa and because the factors
were expected to be correlated, the oblique ro-
tation (direct oblimin) was recommended. To
identify a target item pool, items loading ⬍.40
and/or cross-loadings on other factors exceed-
ing .255 were deleted, as suggested by Pett,
257
Lackey, and Sullivan (2003). Five items were
deleted (1, 8, 13, 17, and 21). An exploratory
factor analysis was performed on the remaining
27 items of the PSI-Ar; five factors explained
28.65%, 13.61%, 5.38%, 4.28%, and 3.84% of
the total variance. An investigation of the scree
plot showed a clear break after the third factor.
From the results of the scree test (Cattell, 1966),
three factors were selected for further analysis.
To explore the underlying dimensionality of the
items of the PSI-Ar as recommended by Horn
(1965), in addition to the scree test (Cattell,
1966), a parallel analysis was performed using a
Monte-Carlo test (see Watkins, 2000) to ran-
domly generate a data matrix of the same size
(27 items ⫻ 607 respondents; Ledesma &
Valero-Mora, 2007). Both scree plot tests and
the parallel analysis suggested an initial three-
factor structure with eigenvalues exceeding the
corresponding criterion values, which ac-
counted for 55.76% of the total variance.
A second exploratory factor analysis was cal-
culated on the remaining 27 items of the PSI-Ar
using the maximum likelihood and direct
oblimin rotation. The analysis identified three
factors that explained 47.64% of the total vari-
ance. This amount of variance indicates the
shared variance in the original items that is
explained by the three factors. Moreover, the 27
items of the PSI-Ar loaded on three factors that
were similar to those reported in previous stud-
ies by Heppner and Petersen (1982). Thus, the
three factors were given the same names as
those from previous studies (Problem-Solving
Confidence [PSC], Approach-Avoidance Style
[AAS], and Personal Control [PC]), particularly
when the items with highest loading were sim-
ilar in both studies. However, the number of
items that loaded on each factor differed, with
14 items for the first factor explaining 29.67%
of the total variance, 7 items loaded on the
second factor explaining 10.14% of the total
variance, and 6 items loaded on the third factor
explaining 7.14% of the total variance as op-
posed to 11, 16, and 5 items, respectively, in
Heppner and Petersen (1982). The moderate
and small correlations among the three factors
demonstrated the nonredundancy in the three
factors of the PSI-Ar.
Descriptive statistics. The means and SDs
for the total score (sum of the three factor
scores) and the sum of scores for each factor
were as follows: total PSI: M ⫽ 101.53, SD ⫽
 258 SOLIMAN
10.79; Problem-Solving Confidence: M ⫽
39.12, SD ⫽ 9.39; Approach-Avoidance
Style: M ⫽ 30.12, SD ⫽ 5.12; Personal Con-
trol: M ⫽ 28.13, SD ⫽ 4.57.
Internal consistency. The alpha coeffi-
cients for the total PSI and for the three factors
were as follows: total PSI ⫽ .75; Problem-
Solving Confidence ⫽ .88; Approach-Avoid-
ance Style ⫽ .82; and Personal Control ⫽ .76.
Regarding the intercorrelations among the fac-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
tors, the correlation coefficients were as fol-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
lows: between Problem-solving Confidence and
Approach-Avoidance Style, r ⫽ .30; between
Problem-solving Confidence and Personal Con-
trol, r ⫽ .55; and between Approach-Avoidance
Style and Personal Control, r ⫽ .60.
Study 2: Examination of Construct Validity
and Test–Retest Reliability
One aim of this study was to confirm the
convergent validity and reliability of the PSI-Ar.
Several studies have suggested that problem-
solving appraisal is associated with psycholog-
ical maladaptive behaviors, such as depression,
anxiety (Heppner & Baker, 1997; Sahin et al.,
1993), and hopelessness (Heppner & Baker,
1997). Therefore, the total PSI score and the
three PSI-Ar factor scores were expected to be
related to depression, hopelessness, and anxiety.
A second aim of this study was to examine
which PSI factors and total score have the
highest predictive value for anxiety, hopeless-
ness, and depression among Egyptian college
students.
Method
Participants. A total of 321 Egyptian col-
lege students (Mage ⫽ 20.93, SD ⫽ 1.74), in-
cluding 152 (47.4%) males (Mage ⫽ 20.89,
SD ⫽ 2.11) and 169 (52.6%) females (Mage ⫽
20.97, SD ⫽ 1.32), participated in this study.
All participants were taking a third-level under-
graduate course in Arabic at the Faculty of Arts.
Additionally, all participants were of middle
socioeconomic status, as operationalized in
Study 1.
Procedure. The Beck Depression Invento-
ry-II (BDI-II), Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS),
and State–Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) were
administered to students in groups in suitable
locations at the college. Informed consent was
obtained from the students. All of the students
volunteered to participate in the study.
Among the participants, 50 students were re-
tested after 3 weeks to calculate the test–
retest reliability.
Instruments. A modified version of the
BDI-II (Beck, Steer, & Brown, 1996) was used
to measure depressive symptoms. The BDI-II
comprises 21 self-report items assessed on a
4-point Likert scale measuring the frequency of
particular depressive symptoms. The maximum
score on the BDI-II is 63. The BDI-II was
translated and validated in large Arab samples
and showed acceptable validity and internal
consistency. Several studies have reported ac-
ceptable test–retest reliability estimates ranging
between .81 and .93 and alpha coefficients rang-
ing between .82 and .94 across 18 Arab coun-
tries (Alansari, 2006). Numerous studies have
provided content, factorial, and discriminant
analyses for samples from Egypt (Ghareeb,
2000), Bahrain (Al-Musawi, 2001), Kuwait,
and United Arab Emirates (Thomas & Altareb,
2010). In the present study, the internal consis-
tency of the BDI-II was .89, and the test–retest
reliability was .78.
The BHS comprises 20 self-report items that
measure respondents’ negative expectations
(Beck & Steer, 1988). In this study, the BHS
was translated into Arabic by two professional
bilingual researchers and back-translated into
Arabic by a professor of English literature. Mi-
nor corrections were made to the Arabic trans-
lation. The Arabic version of the BHS was
administered to a sample of 260 college stu-
dents. The alpha coefficient was .92, and the
test–retest reliability was .72. As an indication
of convergent validity, the scale showed a cor-
relation of .69 with the BDI-II and of ⫺.41 with
the Optimism Scale in an Arab context (Abdel-
Khalek & Lester, 2006).
The STAI (Spielberger, Gorsuch, Lushene,
Vagg, & Jacobs, 1983) is a universally used
measure of trait and state anxiety. The STAI
was translated into Arabic and validated for
Arab college students, and the Arabic transla-
tion showed good psychometric properties
(Abdel-Khalek & Omar, 1988). The STAI has
been used in several studies in the Arab cultural
context (Abdel-Khalek & Alansari, 2004;
Saigh, 1984, 1988). These studies have shown
that the STAI has acceptable reliability and
validity, with alpha coefficients between .63
 PROBLEM-SOLVING APPRAISAL IN THE ARAB CULTURE 259

and .91 and 30- to 60-day test–retest reliability
coefficients between .65 and .75 (Abdel-
Khalek, 1998). These studies support the diver-
gent and convergent validity of the STAI be-
cause correlations have been found between the
STAI and a number of variables from the
Eysenck Personality Questionnaire, such as
anxiety, extroversion, neuroticism, and vo-
cabulary (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1991). In the
present study, the alpha coefficient for inter-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
that, as expected, Egyptian youths who ap-
praised themselves as effective problem solvers
rated themselves less anxious, less depressive,
and less hopeless.
Additionally, a series of multiple regressions
were calculated with three PSI-Ar factors and
the PSI-Ar total score as independent variables
and each total score of the STAI, BHS, and
BDI-II as dependent variables to examine which
PSI factors and total score had the highest pre-

nal consistency was .90, and the test–retest dictive value. The results indicated that the
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

reliability was .74. PSI-Ar factors and PSI-Ar total score success-
fully predicted the STAI (total STAI score)
Results because the overall regression was statistically
significant, R ⫽ .650, R2 ⫽ .314, adjusted R2 ⫽
The results showed satisfactory test–retest re- .308, F (3, 317) ⫽ 48.398, p ⬍ .001, and
liability over 60 days. The correlation coeffi- accounted for 65% of the variance in the STAI.
cients for the three factors of the PSI and the Total PSI-Ar (PSI-Ar ⫽ .24, 95% CI [.20, .28],
total PSI score were as follows: Problem- ␤PSI-Ar ⫽ .549, t(317) ⫽ 11.740, p ⬍ .001),
Solving Confidence ⫽ .76; Approach-Avoid- PSC (BPSC ⫽ .390, 95% CI [.30, .48], ␤PSC ⫽
ance Style ⫽ .83; Personal Control ⫽ .73; and .43, t(317) ⫽ 8.27, p ⬍ .001), AAS (BAAS ⫽
total PSI ⫽ .80. Thus, the scores of the PSI .405, 95% CI [.31, .51], ␤AAS ⫽ .408, t(317) ⫽
factors and the total score were consistent over 8.27, p ⬍ .001), and PC (BPC ⫽ .24, 95% CI
time. [.20, .28], ␤PC ⫽ .55, t(317) ⫽ 11.74, p ⬍
Construct validity. The results showed .001) were significantly predictive of the STAI.
that the PSI-Ar has very good convergent va- The PSI-Ar, PSC, ASS, and PC uniquely ac-
lidity. Relationships were found between the counted for a large proportion of the variance in
PSI-Ar and depression, hopelessness, and anx- anxiety among Egyptians youths as follows:
iety. Specifically, the correlation coefficients for sr2 ⫽ .30 for total PSI-Ar, sr2 ⫽ .18 for PSC,
the PSI-Ar factors and the total score are pre- sr2 ⫽ .17 for AAS, and sr2 ⫽ .21 for PC.
sented in Table 2. The results indicated that all The results also showed that the PSI-Ar fac-
three of the PSI-Ar factors and the total score tors and the PSI-Ar total score predicted the
positively correlated with the total score of the BHS (total BHS score) because the full regres-
STAI, BHS, and BDI-II. This finding indicated sion was statistically significant, R ⫽ .594,
R2 ⫽ .353, adjusted R2 ⫽ .347, F (3, 317) ⫽
57.615, p ⬍ .001, and accounted for 59% of the
Table 2 variance in the BHS. Total PSI-Ar (␤PSI-Ar ⫽
Means, Correlations, and Intercorrelations Among .23, 95% CI [.22, .30], ␤PSI-Ar ⫽ .59, t(317) ⫽
Factors and Total Scores of PSI-Ar, STAI, BHS,
13.17, p ⬍ .001), PSC (␤PSC ⫽ .46, 95% CI
and BDI in Study 2
[.37, .55], ␤PSC ⫽ .50, t(317) ⫽ 10.35, p ⬍
Variables PSC AAS PC PSI-Ar STAI BHS .001), AAS (BAAS ⫽ .45, 95% CI [.36, .55],
PSC
␤AAS ⫽ .46, t(317) ⫽ 9.29, p ⬍ .001), and PC
AAS .49ⴱ (BPC ⫽ .49, 95% CI [.37, .61], ␤PC ⫽ .42,
PC .38ⴱ .34ⴱ t(317) ⫽ 8.18, p ⬍ .001) were significantly
PSI-Ar .83ⴱ .79ⴱ .69ⴱ predictive of the BHS. The PSI-Ar, PSC, AAS,
STAI .42ⴱ .41ⴱ .46ⴱ .55ⴱ and PC uniquely accounted for a large propor-
BHS .50ⴱ .46ⴱ .41ⴱ .59ⴱ .37ⴱ tion of the variance in hopelessness among
BDI .39ⴱ .40ⴱ .46ⴱ .53ⴱ .47ⴱ .45ⴱ
Egyptian college students as follows: sr2 ⫽ .35
Note. N ⫽ 321. PSC ⫽ Problem-Solving Confidence; for total PSI-Ar, sr2 ⫽ .25 for PSC, sr2 ⫽ .21
AAS ⫽ Approach-Avoidance Style; PC ⫽ Personal Con- for AAS, and sr2 ⫽ .21 for PC.
trol; PSI-Ar ⫽ Problem Solving Inventory-Arabic Total;
STAI ⫽ State-Trait Anxiety Inventory; BHS ⫽ Beck Hope-
Finally, the results revealed that the PSI-Ar
lessness Scale; BDI ⫽ Beck Depression Inventory-II. factors and the PSI-Ar total score successfully
ⴱ
p ⬍ .001. predicted the BDI-II (total BDI-II score) be-
 260 SOLIMAN
cause the overall regression was statistically
significant, R ⫽ .548, R2 ⫽ .301, adjusted R2 ⫽
.293, F (3, 317) ⫽ 45.254, p ⬍ .001, and
accounted for 55% of the variance in the BDI-
II. Total PSI-Ar (␤PSI-Ar ⫽ .23, 95% CI [.19,
.27], ␤PSI-Ar ⫽ .53, t(317) ⫽ 11.20, p ⬍ .001),
PSC (BPSC ⫽ .36, 95% CI [.27, .46], ␤PSC ⫽
.39, t(317) ⫽ 7.53, p ⬍ .001), AAS (BAAS ⫽
.40, 95% CI [.30, .50], ␤AAS ⫽ .41, t(317) ⫽
7.83, p ⬍ .001), and AAS (BAAS ⫽ .55, 95%
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
CI [.43, .66], ␤AAS ⫽ .46, t(317) ⫽ 9.33, p ⬍
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
.001) were significantly predictive of the BDI-
II. The PSI-Ar, PSC, AAS, and PC uniquely
accounted for a large proportion of the variance
in depression among Egyptians youths as fol-
lows: sr2 ⫽ .28 for total PSI-Ar, sr2 ⫽ .15 for
PSC, sr2 ⫽ .16 for AAS, and sr2 ⫽ .21 for PC.
Study 3: Examining the Replicability of the
Factor Structure of the PSI-Ar in a
Different Sample
The aim of Study 3 was to examine the
replicability of the factor structure of the
PSI-Ar in a different Egyptian sample. This
aim was achieved by comparing a one-factor
structure, in which the 27 items loaded on a
single factor, and a three-factor structure, in
which the 27 items loaded on three separate
but interrelated factors, as suggested by the
findings of Study 1 and those reported by
Heppner and Petersen (1982). In addition,
gender differences in the total PSI, Problem-
Solving Confidence, Approach-Avoidance
Style, and Personal Control scores were ex-
amined.
Method
Participants. A total of 550 Egyptian col-
lege students (Mage ⫽ 21.77, SD ⫽ 2.36), in-
cluding 283 (51.5%) males (Mage ⫽ 21.86,
SD ⫽ 2.59) and 267 (48.5%) females (Mage ⫽
21.67, SD ⫽ 2.09), participated in this study.
All participants were taking an undergraduate
course in the Sociology Department at the Fac-
ulty of Arts. Additionally, all participants were
of middle socioeconomic status, as operational-
ized in Study 1.
Results
A preliminary analysis was performed to ex-
amine the suitability of the data from an entirely
different sample for a CFA. In a preliminary
examination of the model fit, none of the mod-
ification indices suggested that the model
needed to be refined further. Following the
same procedure as in Study 1, the data were
checked for univariate and multivariate outliers.
In accordance with the threshold presented by
Hair et al. (2006), a total of 22 cases that were
three SD below or above the mean on at least
one of the 27 PSI variables were identified and
excluded from the analysis.
To test the model fit, a CFA was used, and the
chi-square test and four other fit indices were
used as indicators for model fit. First, the one-
factor structure in which the 27 items loaded on
a single factor was tested. The CFA revealed
that the data did not fit the one-factor model
very well. The ␹2 value was significant (␹2 ⫽
1898.811, n ⫽ 550, p ⬍ .001), and none of the
fit indices were acceptable (IFI ⫽ .75; NNFI ⫽
.71; CFI ⫽ .74; SRMR ⫽ .23; RMSEA ⫽ .09
[90% CI ⫽ .090 –.098]). When examining the
fit of the three-factor structure to the same data,
the results showed that the model fit the data
well: all fit indices were acceptable (NNFI ⫽
.96; CFI ⫽ .95; SRMR ⫽ .041; RMSEA ⫽ .05
[90% CI ⫽ .05–.06]), even though the ␹2 was
significant (␹2 ⫽ 862.93, n ⫽ 550, p ⬍ .001), as
expected with data from large samples.
Descriptive statistics. The means and SDs
for the total PSI score and the three factors were
as follows: total PSI: M ⫽ 100.81, SD ⫽ 10.96;
Problem-Solving Confidence: M ⫽ 41.31,
SD ⫽ 11.69; Approach-Avoidance Style: M ⫽
29.51, SD ⫽ 5.82; and Personal Control: M ⫽
25.18, SD ⫽ 5.08. In line with the procedure
followed by Nota et al. (2013), an ANOVA was
used to examine the similarity in scores across
the data from Study 1 and Study 2. The results
showed no significant differences between the
two studies for the three factors: Problem-
Solving Confidence, F(1, 912) ⫽ 1.06, p ⫽ .30;
Approach-Avoidance Style, F(1, 912) ⫽ .75,
p ⫽ .39; and Personal Control, F(1, 912) ⫽
2.51, p ⫽ .13. However, significant differences
were found between the two studies for the total
PSI score, F(1, 912) ⫽ 5.80, p ⬍ .05.
Gender differences. Differences in the to-
tal PSI score and three factor scores as a func-
tion of gender were examined. Independent
sample t tests were performed with gender
(male and female) as the independent variable
and the total PSI and the three factor (Problem-
 PROBLEM-SOLVING APPRAISAL IN THE ARAB CULTURE
Solving Confidence, Approach-Avoidance
Style, and Personal Control) scores as depen-
dent variables. Although the differences were
statistically significant, none was worth inter-
preting because the eta-squared indices were
very small (e.g., .007).
Study 4: Measurement Invariance and
Latent Mean Differences Across Gender
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This study aimed to examine the measure-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
ment invariance between males and females to
determine the extent to which problem solving
is conceptualized in both groups and whether
the observed gender differences in problem
solving are due to actual gender differences or
measurement error. Examining the replicability
of factor structures across groups provides sup-
port for measurement invariance (Byrne &
Watkins, 2003; Paunonen & Ashton, 1998). It is
important to examine latent mean differences
rather than observed mean differences
(Paunonen & Ashton, 1998), where the latent
means are estimated by controlling for variance
accredited to measurement errors (Cheung &
Rensvold, 2000) to avoid measurement bias.
Method
Participants. In total, 915 college students
(Mage ⫽ 21.08, SD ⫽ 2.31), including 461
(50.8%) males (Mage ⫽ 21.26, SD ⫽ 2.47) and
454 (49.2%) females (Mage ⫽ 20.89, SD ⫽
2.12), participated in this study. The same data
used in Study 2 were included in this study
because the respondents from Study 2 were in
the same field of study. All the students were of
middle socioeconomic status, as operationalized
in Study 1.
Results
Measurement invariance between the two
groups was assessed by examining configural
invariance (similar conceptualizations of prob-
lem-solving appraisal between the groups), met-
ric invariance (similar factor loadings between
the groups), scalar invariance (equal numbers of
factors, factor loadings, and factor intercepts
between the groups), and strict invariance
(equal factor intercepts and residual variance).
For this purpose, a multi-group confirmatory
factor analysis (MG-CFA) was used to compare
261
four fully nested models, with all parameters
left free to covary in Model 1 and constraints
applied in Models 2, 3, and 4 additively. After
constraining all the factor loadings in the model
to be invariant between the two samples, Model
2 was obtained. When Model 1 was nested in
Model 2, a nonsignificant ␹2 suggested that the
factor loadings were equal between the two
groups. In addition to constraining the factor
loadings in Model 2, the factor intercepts were
assumed to be equal between the two samples to
obtain Model 3. When Model 3 was nested in
Model 2, all the fit indices suggested that in-
variant factor intercepts existed between the two
groups. To obtain Model 4, the errors, variance,
and covariance for all the items as well as the
factor loadings and factor intercepts in Model 3
were assumed to be equal between the two
samples. After Model 4 was nested within
Model 3, all the fit indices suggested that the
errors, variance, and covariance for all the items
were equal between the two samples.
The ␹2 and the four fit indices used in Study
1 (i.e., the CFI, NNNFI, SRMR, and RMSEA)
were also used in this study to examine the
model fit. The differences in the ␹2 and fit
indices between the restricted and full models
were used to examine measurement invariance;
the simpler model should be accepted if the ␹2
difference is not significant and the differences
between the fit indices are ⬍.01 (Bollen, 1989).
All analyses were performed using Amos Soft-
ware, Version 18 (Arbuckle, 2009).
Univariate normality was examined by using
recommendations from Kline (1998) and West
et al. (1995), in which the cutoff of skewness is
3 and the cutoff for kurtosis is 10. All skewness
and kurtosis values were below the cutoffs. In a
preliminary examination of the model fit, none
of the modification indices suggested that the
model needed to be refined further.
The MG-CFA of the 27 items showed that
males and females conceptualized problem-
solving appraisal similarly; the factor loadings,
number of factors, factor intercepts, and resid-
ual variance were equal between the two
groups. In addition, the reliability of the items
of the PSI-Ar was stable across genders. Thus,
the PSI-Ar showed a high level of measurement
invariance between male and female Arab
youths. The values of the fit indices that were
used for the model comparisons are shown in
Table 3.
 262 SOLIMAN

Latent Mean Structure
Because the configural, scalar, and metric
invariance of the PSI-Ar was demonstrated,
testing for latent means was possible. Consis-
tent with the procedures for structural equation
modeling, the intercepts were constrained to be
equal between the two gender groups, and the
mean for only one group (male group) was
constrained to zero, whereas the other mean
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
The results of the four reported studies pro-
vide robust support for the psychometric prop-
erties of the PSI in a different cultural context.
The factor structure of the PSI-Ar is similar to
the original Heppner and Petersen factor struc-
ture, not only in terms of the strength of the
factor loading but also in terms of the items that
overlap with the three factors reported by Hep-
pner and Petersen (1982). The results also sup-
port the validity of the 27 items of the PSI-Ar

(female group) was not. No statistically signif- and confirm the three-factor structure of the
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

icant differences in the latent variable means
were found in either Problem-Solving Confi-
dence (z ⫽ ⫺.97, p ⫽ .334) or Approach-
Avoidance Style (z ⫽ ⫺.69, p ⬍ .491), but the
difference was significant for Personal Control
(z ⫽ ⫺2.09, p ⫽ .047). The “z” refers to the
standardized difference between the means.
General Discussion
The present study aimed to examine prob-
lem-solving appraisal in the Arab cultural con-
text. This aim was accomplished by adopting a
27-item inventory labeled the “PSI-Ar” and ex-
amining the factor structure of an PSI-Ar based
on data from Egyptian college students, explor-
ing the test–retest reliability and convergent va-
lidity of the PSI-Ar, investigating the cross-
validation of the PSI-Ar in an independent
sample, testing for the measurement invariance
of the PSI-Ar across genders, and assessing the
latent mean differences between males and fe-
males.
PSI-Ar, consistent with the three factors re-
ported by Heppner and Petersen (1982).
The factor structure was developed and cross-
validated in different Egyptian samples, show-
ing the replicability of the factor structure and
the stability of findings across different sam-
ples. The factors of the PSI-Ar had good inter-
nal consistency estimates in different Egyptian
samples and showed stability across a 3-week
period. Furthermore, although small gender dif-
ferences were found in the manifested variables
for the total PSI and Problem-Solving Confi-
dence scores, the examination of latent mean
differences showed similarities across gender
groups in the total PSI and three factor scores.
Finally, the results replicate and extend the
previous findings on the relationship between
problem-solving appraisal and psychological
maladjustment in an Arab cultural context for
the first time. The results of four studies that
included 2,072 Egyptian college students pro-
vide strong support for the psychometric prop-
erties of the PSI in a new cultural context.

Table 3
Fit Indices for Invariance Tests and Differences in Fit Indices Between Models
Models Description ␹2 df ␹2/df CFI NNFI SRMR RMSEA
ⴱ
1 Number of constraint 1690.592 642 2.63 .918 .918 .045 .042 [.040–.45]
2 Equal weights 1716.504ⴱ 666 2.58 .918 .917 .052 .042 [.039–.044]
3 ⫹ Equal intercepts 1805.723ⴱ 693 2.61 .913 .913 .052 .042 [.039–.044]
4 ⫹ Equal covariance 1816.663ⴱ 699 2.60 .913 .912 .054 .042 [.040–.044]

Model comparisons ⌬␹2 ⌬df ⌬CFI ⌬NNFI ⌬SRMR ⌬RMSEA

Model 1 - model 2 25.912 24 0 .001 .007 0
Model 2 - model 3 89.219ⴱ 27 .005 .004 0 0
Model 3 - model 4 10.94 6 0 .001 .002 0
Note. ␹2 ⫽ chi-squared test; df ⫽ degrees of freedom; ␹2/df ⫽ ␹-squared and degree of freedom difference; CFI ⫽
Comparative Fit Index; RMSEA ⫽ Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; SRMR ⫽ Standardized Root Mean-Square
Residual; 90% CI ⫽ 90% Confidence Interval around RMSEA; ⌬ ⫽ difference values.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .001.
 PROBLEM-SOLVING APPRAISAL IN THE ARAB CULTURE
Consistent with previous research on the PSI
(Heppner, Pretorius, Wei, Lee, & Wang, 2002;
Huang & Flores, 2011; Nota et al., 2013;
Pretorius, 1993; Sahin et al., 1993), the findings
of the current study extend the generalizability
of the PSI across different cultural contexts.
Although three interpretable factors were found,
as in previous studies, the number of items that
loaded on the three factors for the PSI-Ar dif-
fered slightly from those reported in previous
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
studies. Thus, the results were much more con-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
sistent with the Heppner and Petersen factor
structure, in which 21 of their 27 items loaded
on the three respective factors of the original
PSI reported by Heppner and Petersen (1982).
Accordingly, the results of the current study
provide primary evidence that the PSI factors
are applicable in an Arab cultural context and
that most of the PSI items have strong loadings.
Previous research has reported a link between
problem-solving appraisal and numerous psy-
chological adjustment indices, such as anxiety,
depression, and hopelessness (Sahin et al.,
1993). Hence, the construct validity of the
PSI-Ar was examined with respect to its relation
to psychological adjustment. The results
showed that Egyptian youths who appraised
themselves as effective problem solvers rated
themselves less anxious, less depressed, and
more hopeful and that Egyptian youths who
appraised themselves as ineffective problem
solvers rated themselves more anxious, more
depressed, and less hopeful. These results are
consistent with previous findings reported by
Sahin et al. (1993) and Solberg et al. (1998) and
provide further evidence of the link between
problem-solving appraisal and depression,
hopelessness, and anxiety in another cultural
context. Such findings demonstrate that the PSI
can potentially be used to identify individuals
with psychological maladjustment, but more re-
search is needed to develop and validate specific
criteria for the PSI scores and to calculate the
sensitivity and specificity of these criteria in
relation to each disorder. Moreover, future re-
search should investigate the clinical indica-
tions of problem-solving appraisal within the
Arab culture.
Finally, no significant latent mean differences
were found. These findings are consistent with
most previous studies on the PSI with US col-
lege students (Heppner, Hibel, Neal, Weinstein,
& Rabinowitz, 1982; Heppner & Krieshok,
263
1983; Larson & Heppner, 1985). However,
these findings contradict those of Nota et al.
(2013), who reported significant gender differ-
ences in two PSI factors among Italian youths.
The similarities in problem-solving appraisal
between genders could be explained in light of
cultural values within the Arab culture. Specif-
ically, such similarities could result from the
tendency among Arab people (males and fe-
males) to engage in socially acceptable behavior
in the presence of others; consequently, Egyp-
tian youths appraise their behavior based on
social and cultural norms (Al-Bahrani, Aldhafri,
Alkharusi, Kazem, & Alzubiadi, 2013). This
result was not expected because the Egyptian
culture is one in which males have a general
tendency to present themselves as having con-
trol over all situations. Therefore, males were
expected to appraise themselves as more effec-
tive problem solvers than females (Al-Bahrani
et al., 2013).
Moreover, the results indicate that the PSI-Ar
is measurement invariant across gender. This
finding indicates that males and females con-
ceptualize problem-solving appraisal similarly
and that the factor structure of the PSI-Ar, in-
cluding the factor loadings, number of factors,
and factor intercepts, is the same across gender.
Thus, the PSI-Ar is a reliable and valid measure
of problem-solving appraisal for both genders.
The findings from this study provide new evi-
dence of the measurement equivalence of the
PSI-Ar in the Arab cultural context in particular
and add to similar findings for other cultures.
The current findings further our understand-
ing of problem-solving appraisal in cultural
contexts that differ from the US culture and help
to elucidate the relation between problem-
solving appraisal and numerous psychological
adjustment indices, such as depression, anxiety,
and hopelessness, in an Arab cultural context.
These findings have many implications for as-
sessment and practice related to problem-
solving appraisal in Arab culture, a collectivist
culture in which the extended family plays an
important role as an agent for social norms and
concept learning. First, the data from the present
study suggest that the PSI-Ar is a reliable and
valid tool for use with Arab youths. Counselors
who work with youths with behavioral prob-
lems must find ways to identify factors that
affect Arab youths’ problem-solving appraisal
to help them to become more effective problem
 264 SOLIMAN
solvers by being more engaged in problem-
solving activities, thinking systematically, and
being more self-confident. The PSI-Ar could be
used in clinical settings as an indirect measure
of psychological maladjustment. Such a mea-
sure would be particularly important for Arab
and Muslim patients, who generally find ex-
pressing their feelings difficult; for instance, if
an Arab client is asked about her/his feelings,
common answers include “I feel as I normally
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
do,” “I do not know,” and “I feel nothing”
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
(Diba, 2000).
Second, prior studies have reported that
problem-solving appraisal is a malleable con-
struct (Nota et al., 2013) and is trainable
(Heppner et al., 2004). Therefore, developing
training strategies for problem-solving appraisal
may be a promising way to enhance individuals’
problem-solving appraisal and reduce symp-
toms of maladaptive behaviors, such as anxiety,
depression, and hopelessness, among Arab
youths. Such training would be particularly use-
ful in light of the increasing patterns of mal-
adaptive behavior arising as a consequence of
ongoing events in Arab societies associated
with the Arab Spring. Moreover, because pre-
vious research has found a link among confi-
dence in decision making (Larson & Heppner,
1985), career decision making (Nota et al.,
2013), and problem-solving abilities, training in
problem-solving skills may improve psycholog-
ical adjustment, particularly for college students
who are close to graduation and face many
challenges, such as increasing unemployment
rates for youths in the Egyptian community.
The findings from the present studies are
limited to Egyptian college students, and the
generalizability of these findings to other Arab
communities and age-groups is unknown.
Therefore, researchers should be cautious in
generalizing these findings to other college stu-
dents in the Arab world, particularly those in
communities in the Arab Gulf, which have dif-
ferent traditions. Further research is needed to
validate the PSI-Ar in a wider range of Arab
countries, particularly Arab Gulf countries;
Arab African countries, such as Sudan and So-
malia; and Arab Maghreb countries (Tunisia,
Algerian, and Morocco), based on variations in
local accents and the use of first and second
languages. Further research is also invited to
explore the measurement invariance of the PSI
across Western and Eastern cultures as well as
across Arab countries. Future studies could also
examine the clinical indications associated with
PSI scores, the relation between problem-
solving appraisal and other indices of psycho-
logical maladjustment, or differences in
problem-solving appraisal across age cohorts.
In conclusion, the results of the present study
provide additional support for the validity of the
PSI in a different cultural context. The results
show high internal consistency and test–retest
reliability and confirm the three-factor structure
of the PSI-Ar. The PSI-Ar was found to be
measurement invariant across gender, with the
highest level of measurement invariance (con-
figural, metric, scalar, and strict invariance).
The analysis of the latent means showed no
significant differences in the PSI-Ar factor
scores between genders. These results have im-
plications for assessment and practice related to
problem solving in the Arab cultural context.
References
Abdel-Khalek, A. M. (1998). Internal consistency of
an Arabic adaptation of the Beck Depression In-
ventory in four Arab scountries. Psychological Re-
ports, 82, 264 –266. doi:10.2466/pr0.1998.82.1
.264
Abdel-Khalek, A., & Alansari, B. M. (2004). Gender
differences in anxiety among undergraduates from
ten Arab countries. Social Behavior and Person-
ality, 32, 649 – 656. doi:10.2224/sbp.2004.32.7
.649
Abdel-Khalek, A., & Lester, D. (2006). Optimism
and pessimism in Kuwaiti and American college
students. International Journal of Social Psychia-
try, 52, 110 –126. doi:10.1177/0020764006062092
Abdel-Khalek, A., & Omar, M. M. (1988). Death
anxiety, state and trait anxiety in Kuwaiti samples.
Psychological Reports, 63, 715–718. doi:10.2466/
pr0.1988.63.3.715
Alansari, B. M. (2006). Internal consistency of an
Arabic adaptation of the Beck Depression Inven-
tory-II with college students in eighteen Arab
countries. Social Behavior and Personality, 34,
425– 430. doi:10.2224/sbp.2006.34.4.425
Al-Bahrani, M., Aldhafri, S., Alkharusi, H., Kazem,
A., & Alzubiadi, A. (2013). Age and gender dif-
ferences in coping style across various problems:
Omani adolescents’ perspective. Journal of Ado-
lescence, 36, 303–309. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence
.2012.11.007
Al-Musawi, N. M. (2001). Psychometric properties
of the Beck Depression Inventory–II with uni-
versity students in Bahrain. Journal of Person-
 PROBLEM-SOLVING APPRAISAL IN THE ARAB CULTURE
ality Assessment, 77, 568 –579. doi:10.1207/
S15327752JPA7703_13
Arbuckle, J. I. (2009). AMOS 18.0 user’s guide.
Chicago, IL: SPSS, Inc.
Beck, A. T., & Steer, R. A. (1988). Manual for the
Beck Depression Inventory. San Antonio, TX: Psy-
chological Corporation.
Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Brown, G. K. (1996).
Manual for the Beck Depression Inventory-II. San
Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Bell, A. C., & D’Zurilla, T. J. (2009). Problem-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
solving therapy for depression: A meta-analysis.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Clinical Psychology Review, 29, 348 –353. doi:
10.1016/j.cpr.2009.02.003
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in
structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107,
238 –246. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238
Bollen, K. A. (1989). A new incremental fit index for
general structural equation models. Sociological
Methods and Research, 17, 303–316. doi:10.1177/
0049124189017003004
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative
ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S.
Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models
(pp. 136 –162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Byrne, B. M., & Watkins, D. (2003). The issue of
measurement invariance revisited. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34, 155–175. doi:
10.1177/0022022102250225
Carter, R. T., & Qureshi, A. (1995). A typology of
philosophical assumptions in multicultural coun-
seling and training. In J. G. Ponterontto, J. M.
Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.),
Handbook of multicultural counseling (pp. 239 –
262). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for number of
factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245–
276. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr0102_10
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2000). Assessing
extreme and acquiescence response sets in cross-
cultural research using structural equations model-
ing. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31,
187–212. doi:10.1177/0022022100031002003
Cheung, S. K. (2002). Evaluating the psychometric
properties of the Chinese version of the Interac-
tional Problem-Solving Inventory. Research on
Social Work Practice, 12, 490 –501. doi:10.1177/
1049731502012004002
De La Torre, M. T., Morera, O. F., & Wood, J. M.
(2010). Measuring social problem-solving using
the Spanish version for hispanics of the social
problem-solving inventory-revised. Cultural Di-
versity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16, 501–
506. doi:10.1037/a0021372
Diba, H. (2000). Psychotherapy with Muslims. In P.
Richards & A. Bergin (Eds.), Handbook of psy-
chotherapy and religious diversity (pp. 239 –314).
Washington, DC: Psychological Association.
265
Dwairy, M. (1998). Mental Health in the Arab
World. In A. S. Bellack & M. Hersen (Eds.),
Comprehensive clinical psychology (pp. 313–324).
Oxford: Pergamon Press. doi:10.1016/B0080-
4270(73)00114-0
D’Zurilla, T. J., & Nezu, A. M. (1999). Problem-
solving therapy: A social competence approach to
clinical intervention. New York, NY: Springer.
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1991). Manual
of the eysenck personality scales (EPS adults).
London: Hodder and Stoughton Educational.
Field, A. (2000). Discovering statistics using SPSS
for Windows. London – Thousand Oaks – New
Delhi: Sage publications.
Ghareeb, A. G. (2000). Beck Depression Inventory-II
manual. Cairo: Egyptian Anglo Press.
Hair, J. E., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black,
W. C. (2006). Multivariate data analysis. NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Hambleton, R. K., Merenda, P. F., & Spielberger,
C. D. (2005). Adapting educational and psycho-
logical tests for cross-cultural assessment. Mah-
wah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Heppner, P. P. (1988). The Problem-Solving Inven-
tory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist
Press.
Heppner, P. P. (2008). Expanding the conceptualiza-
tion and measurement of applied problem-solving
and coping: From stages to dimensions to the
almost forgotten cultural context. American Psy-
chologist, 63, 805– 816. doi:10.1037/0003-066X
.63.8.805
Heppner, P. P., & Baker, C. E. (1997). Applications
of the Problem Solving Inventory. Measurement
and Evaluation in Counseling and Development,
29, 229 –241.
Heppner, P. P., Hibel, J., Neal, G. W., Weinstein,
C. L., & Rabinowitz, F. E. (1982). Personal prob-
lem solving: A descriptive study of individual dif-
ferences. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 29,
580 –590. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.29.6.580
Heppner, P. P., & Krieshok, T. S. (1983). An applied
investigation of problem-solving appraisal, vo-
cational identity, and career service requests,
utilization, and subsequent evaluations. Voca-
tional Guidance Quarterly, 31, 240 –249. doi:
10.1002/j.2164-585X.1983.tb01542.x
Heppner, P. P., & Petersen, C. H. (1982). The devel-
opment and implications of a personal problem-
solving inventory. Journal of Counseling Psychol-
ogy, 29, 66 –75. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.29.1.66
Heppner, P. P., Pretorius, T. B., Wei, M., Lee, D., &
Wang, Y. (2002). Examining the generalizability
of problem-solving appraisal in Black South Afri-
cans. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49, 484 –
498. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.49.4.484
Heppner, P. P., Witty, T. E., & Dixon, W. A.
(2004). Problem-Solving appraisal and human
 266 SOLIMAN
adjustment: A review of 20 years of research
using the problem-solving inventory. The Coun-
seling Psychologist, 32, 344 – 428. doi:10.1177/
0011000003262793
Horn, J. L. (1965). An empirical comparison of meth-
ods for estimating factor scores. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 25, 313–322. doi:
10.1177/001316446502500202
Huang, Y. P., & Flores, L. Y. (2011). Exploring the
validity of the Problem Solving Inventory with
Mexican American high school students. Journal
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
of Career Assessment, 19, 431– 441. doi:10.1177/
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
1069072711409720
Kaiser, H. (1970). A second generation Little Jiffy.
Psychometrika, 35, 401– 415. doi:10.1007/
BF02291817
Kaiser, H. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity.
Psychometrika, 39, 31–36. doi:10.1007/
BF02291575
Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of struc-
tural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
Larson, L. M., & Heppner, P. P. (1985). The rela-
tionship of problem-solving appraisal to career
decision and indecision. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 26, 55– 65. doi:10.1016/0001-
8791(85)90025-9
Ledesma, D. R., & Valero-Mora, P. (2007). Deter-
mining the number of factors to retain in EFA: An
easy-to-use computer program for carrying out
parallel analysis. Practical Research Assessment
and Evaluation, 12, 1–11.
Leong, F. T. L. (1990). Problem Solving Inventory.
In D. J. Keyser & R. C. Sweetland (Eds.), Test
critiques (Vol. VIII, pp. 574 –582). Austin, TX:
RPO-ED.
Loehlin, J. C. (1998). Latent variable models: An
introduction to factor, path, and structural analy-
sis (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Marcotte, D., Alain, M., & Gosselin, M. J. (1999).
Gender differences in adolescent depression: Gen-
der-typed characteristics or problem-solving skills
deficits? Sex Roles, 41, 31– 48. doi:10.1023/A:
1018833607815
Maydeu-Olivares, A., & D’Zurilla, T. J. (1997). The
factor structure of the problem-solving inventory.
European Journal of Psychological Assessment,
13, 206 –215. doi:10.1027/1015-5759.13.3.206
McMurran, M., Duggan, C., Christopher, G., & Hu-
band, N. (2007). The relationships between per-
sonality disorders and social problem-solving in
adults. Personality and Individual Differences, 42,
145–155. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.07.002
Nota, L., Heppner, P. P., Ginevra, M. C., Ferrari, L.,
Heppner, M. J., & Soresi, S. (2013). Development
of the problem solving inventory with Italian
youth. International Perspectives in Psychology:
Research, Practice, Consultation, 2, 181–193. doi:
10.1037/ipp0000006
O’Neil, J. M. (2004). Response to Heppner, Witty,
and Dixon: Inspiring and high-level scholarship
that can change people’s lives. The Counseling
Psychologist, 32, 439 – 449. doi:10.1177/
0011000003262796
Patai, R. (2007). The Arab mind. New York, NY: Red
Brick Press.
Paunonen, S. V., & Ashton, M. C. (1998). The struc-
tured assessment of personality across cultures.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 150 –
170. doi:10.1177/0022022198291008
Pett, M. A., Lackey, N. R., & Sullivan, J. J. (2003).
Making sense of factor analysis: The use of factor
analysis for instrument development in health care
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pretorius, T. B. (1993). Assessing the problem-
solving appraisal of Black South African students.
International Journal of Psychology, 28, 861– 870.
doi:10.1080/00207599308246968
Provencher, M. D., Dugas, M. J., & Ladouceur, R.
(2004). Efficacy of problem-solving training and
cognitive exposure in the treatment of generalized
anxiety disorder: A case replication series. Cogni-
tive and Behavioral Practice, 11, 404 – 414. doi:
10.1016/S1077-7229(04)80057-9
Sahin, N., Sahin, N. H., & Heppner, P. P. (1993).
Psychometric properties of the Problem Solving
Inventory in a group of Turkish university stu-
dents. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 17, 379 –
396. doi:10.1007/BF01177661
Saigh, P. A. (1984). Pre- and postinvasion anxiety in
Lebanon. Behavior Therapy, 15, 185–190. doi:
10.1016/S0005-7894(84)80019-2
Saigh, P. A. (1988). Anxiety, depression, and asser-
tion across alternating intervals of stress. Journal
of Abnormal Psychology, 97, 338 –341. doi:
10.1037/0021-843X.97.3.338
Solberg, V. S., Cusavac, N., Hamann, T., Felch, J.,
Johnson, J., & Lamborn, S. (1998). The Adaptive
Success Identity Plan (ASIP): A career interven-
tion for college students. The Career Development
Quarterly, 47, 48 –95. doi:10.1002/j.2161-0045
.1998.tb00728.x
Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., Lushene, R.,
Vagg, P. R., & Jacobs, G. A. (1983). Manual for
the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using
multivariate statistics. Boston, MA: Pearson Edu-
cation.
Thoma, P., Friedmann, C., & Suchan, B. (2013).
Empathy and social problem-solving in alcohol
dependence, mood disorders and selected person-
ality disorders. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral
Reviews, 37, 448 – 470. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev
.2013.01.024
 PROBLEM-SOLVING APPRAISAL IN THE ARAB CULTURE 267

Thomas, J., & Altareb, B. (2012). Cognitive vulner-
ability to depression: An exploration of dysfunc-
tional attitudes and ruminative response styles in
the United Arab Emirates. Psychology and Psy-
chotherapy, 85, 117–121. doi:10.1111/j.2044-
8341.2011.02015.x
Tian, L., Heppner, P. P., & Hou, Z. (2014). Problem
solving appraisal and its relationship to career de-
cision-making difficulties and psychological ad-
justment in China. International Perspectives in
Psychology: Research, Practice, Consultation, 3,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Watkins, M. W. (2000). Monte Carlo PCA for par-
allel analysis [computer software]. State College:
Ed. & Psych Associates.
West, S. G., Finch, J. F., & Curran, J. P. (1995).
Structural equation models with non-normal vari-
ables: Problems and remedies. New York, NY:
Academic Press.
Received August 20, 2013
Revision received May 6, 2014

19 –36. doi:10.1037/ipp0000011 Accepted May 31, 2014 䡲

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Members of Underrepresented Groups:

Reviewers for Journal Manuscripts Wanted
If you are interested in reviewing manuscripts for APA journals, the APA Publications and
Communications Board would like to invite your participation. Manuscript reviewers are vital to the
publications process. As a reviewer, you would gain valuable experience in publishing. The P&C
Board is particularly interested in encouraging members of underrepresented groups to participate
more in this process.

If you are interested in reviewing manuscripts, please write APA Journals at Reviewers@apa.org.
Please note the following important points:

• To be selected as a reviewer, you must have published articles in peer-reviewed journals. The
experience of publishing provides a reviewer with the basis for preparing a thorough, objective
review.

• To be selected, it is critical to be a regular reader of the five to six empirical journals that are most
central to the area or journal for which you would like to review. Current knowledge of recently
published research provides a reviewer with the knowledge base to evaluate a new submission
within the context of existing research.

• To select the appropriate reviewers for each manuscript, the editor needs detailed information.
Please include with your letter your vita. In the letter, please identify which APA journal(s) you
are interested in, and describe your area of expertise. Be as specific as possible. For example,
“social psychology” is not sufficient—you would need to specify “social cognition” or “attitude
change” as well.

• Reviewing a manuscript takes time (1– 4 hours per manuscript reviewed). If you are selected to
review a manuscript, be prepared to invest the necessary time to evaluate the manuscript
thoroughly.

APA now has an online video course that provides guidance in reviewing manuscripts. To learn
more about the course and to access the video, visit http://www.apa.org/pubs/authors/review-
manuscript-ce-video.aspx.

View publication stats