The Spanish Journal of Psychology (2018), 21, e57, 1–14.

© Universidad Complutense de Madrid and Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid

doi:10.1017/sjp.2018.66

Psychometric Properties of the French Version of the

Young Schema Questionnaire - Short Form 3 (YSQ–S3)

Martine Bouvard1, Anne Denis2 and Jean Luc Roulin3

1 Université Savoie Mont Blanc (France)
2 Laboratoire InterUniversitaire de Psychologie (France)
3 Laboratoire de Psychologie et NeuroCognition (France)

Abstract. The purpose was to assess the psychometric properties of the French version of the Young Schema
Questionnaire - Short Form 3 (YSQ–S3). The main non-clinical sample (N = 605, M = 20.63, 78% women) was divided
into two subsamples: One was used for exploratory factor analyses (EFA) and the other was used for confirmatory
analyses. Next, internal consistency, convergent validity and criterion-related validity were studied. The EFA to each of
the five domains was similar to the theoretical structure postulated by Young. The confirmatory analysis of each of the
five domains appeared to favor our solution over a single-factor solution and Young’s solution. The confirmatory factor
analyses of high-order structures did not give fully satisfactory results but appeared to favor our solution (RMSEA =.11,
CFI =.76, TLI =.71, SRMR =.07, AIC = 58,566.44). In our best model, the reliability (> .70) was satisfactory for fourteen
schemas. The relationships between the schemas and the neuroticism, extraversion and psychoticism scores went in the
expected directions. Detrimental parental rearing behaviors were linked to high scores for the various schemas. Lastly,
4 schemas differentiated between the clinical and non-clinical groups. In conclusion, the overall psychometric qualities
of the French version of the YSQ–S3 allow its use in clinical populations.

Received 18 October 2017; Revised 6 November 2018; Accepted 7 November 2018

Keywords: maladaptive schemas, reliability, the Young Schema Questionnaire, Short Form 3, validity.

Schema therapy (also known as schema-focused therapy)
was developed by Young, Klosko and Weishaar (2003).
It focuses on the identification and modification of core
schemas (also referred to as early maladaptive schemas,
EMSs). Young (1994) defined EMSs as “extremely stable
and enduring themes that develop during childhood
and are elaborated upon throughout an individual’s
lifetime” (p. 9). The EMSs combine an inherited, vulner-
able temperament with a dysfunctional experience with
parents, siblings and peers. Young postulated that a
schema is located at the deepest level of cognition
and that a person is not always conscious of his/her
schemas’ impacts on emotions and behaviors. According
to Young’s theory, EMSs are comprised of memories,
emotions, cognitions and bodily sensations regarding
oneself and one’s relationships with others. They are
underlying cognitive structures that organize one’s
experience of the world, and reflect childhood experi-
ences related to attachment and approval/disapproval
experiences. Young hypothesized that a child must
negotiate five primary tasks in order to develop in a
healthy manner: Connectedness, autonomy, worthiness,
reasonable expectations, and realistic limits (Rafaeli,
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Martine Bouvard. Université Savoie Mont Blanc. Département de
Psychologie. BP1104, 73000 Chambery (France). Université Grenoble
Alpes 3800 Grenoble (France).
E-mail: martine.bouvard@univ-smb.fr
Bernstein, & Young, 2011). He proposed that EMSs arise
when parents or caregivers make it difficult to achieve
one or more of these basic needs. EMSs are described as
general vulnerability factors for a broad range of psy-
chopathologic conditions, and constitute predisposing
factors for the development and maintenance of clinical
symptom states (Young, 1994; Young et al., 2003). In
other words, EMSs are not specific for a given pathology,
e.g. borderline personality disorder or obsessive com-
pulsive disorder (OCD), and can be considered to be
“transdiagnostic”. It has also been postulated that EMSs
are present in non-clinical populations - albeit to a lesser
extent than in clinical populations. Examples of EMSs
are dependence (the belief that one is unable to have
one’s everyday responsibilities without help from
others) or failure (the belief that one has failed or is
inadequate, relative to others).
Young (2005) hypothesized that there are 18 EMSs,
which can be allocated to five domains reflecting child-
hood tasks: (A) Disconnection & rejection, (B) impaired
autonomy & performance, (C) impaired limits, (D),
other-directedness, and (E) overvigilance & inhibition.
How to cite this article:
Bouvard, M., Denis, A., & Roulin, J. L. (2018). Psychometric
properties of the French version of the Young Schema
Questionnaire - short form 3 (YSQ–S3). The Spanish Journal of
Psychology, 21. e57. Doi:10.1017/sjp.2018.66

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Stockholm University Library, on 28 Nov 2018 at 15:35:36, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2018.66
 2  M. Bouvard et al.
These domains are linked to their hypothetical ori-
gins in childhood. For example, the disconnection &
rejection domain is associated with safe attachment
and protection; the impaired autonomy & performance
domain is linked to autonomy and competency; the
impaired limits domain is linked to self-control; other-
directedness is associated with free expression of needs,
and the overvigilance and inhibition domain is associ-
ated with spontaneity and play (Kriston, Schäfer, Jacob,
Härter, & Hölzel, 2013). Five schemas are linked to
domain A: Abandonment/instability, mistrust/abuse,
emotional deprivation, defectiveness/shame, and social
isolation/alienation. Four schemas make up Domain
B: Dependence/incompetence, vulnerability to harm
or illness, enmeshment/undeveloped self, and failure.
Two schemas are linked to Domain C: Entitlement/
grandiosity, and insufficient self-control/self-discipline.
Domain D includes three schemas: Subjugation, self-
sacrifice and approval-seeking/recognition-seeking.
Domain E is composed of four schemas: Negativity/
pessimism, emotional inhibition, unrelenting standards/
hypercriticalness, and punitiveness (Rafaeli et al., 2011).
The latest short version of the YSQ (YSQ–S3; Young,
2005) includes 90 items (five for each of the 18 schemas).
The first study of the YSQ–S3 (Soygut, Karaosmanoglu,
& Çakir, 2009) focused on Turkish university students.
The researchers performed two principal component
analyses: One on the 90 items and the other on first-
order factors (in order to explore higher-order factors).
They selected 14 first-order factors (emotional depriva-
tion, failure, pessimism, social isolation/mistrust, emo-
tional inhibition, approval seeking/recognition seeking,
enmeshment/dependence, entitlement/insufficient self-
control, self-sacrifice, abandonment, punitiveness,
defectiveness, vulnerability to harm, unrelenting stan-
dards) and five higher-order factors. For three EMSs
(emotional deprivation, emotional inhibition and self-
sacrifice), the items were grouped together in the same
way as in Young’s model. The other three first-order
factors corresponded to Young’s schemas (failure,
approval seeking, and abandonment). The other schemas
corresponded to clusters of Young’s theoretical EMSs
(i.e. enmeshment, dependence & subjugation; social
isolation & mistrust abuse; entitlement & insufficient
self-control). Of the five higher-order factors, four had
been described by Young (impaired autonomy & per-
formance, disconnection & rejection, impaired limits,
and other-directedness). The items (schemas) which
compose these higher-order factors generally corre-
spond to Young’s theoretical model, with the exception
of the other-directedness domain. The fifth higher-
order factor (unrelenting standards) covers the unre-
lenting standards and approval-seeking schemas. The
“overvigilance & inhibition” higher-order factor was
not found in the Turkish version. Next, Soygut et al.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Stockholm University Library, on 28 Nov 2018 at 15:35:36, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2018.66
(2009) explored the YSQ–S3’s internal reliability, test-
retest reliability, convergent validity and criterion-
related validity. The researchers studied the convergent
validity with the Symptom Checklist–90–Revised
(SCL–90–R). A clinical population was compared with
a population of students: Nine of the 14 schemas (emo-
tional deprivation, failure, pessimism, social isolation,
emotional inhibition, enmeshment, abandonment,
defectiveness, and vulnerability to harm) and two of
the five domains (impaired autonomy & performance,
and disconnection & rejection) differentiated between
the two groups. The second study (Saritas & Gençöz,
2011) of the YSQ–S3 also focused on the Turkish version
but applied it to an adolescent sample (mean age: 16).
The researchers used principal component analysis to
examine the higher-order factor structure. Only three
higher-order factors were found: Impaired limits/
exaggerated standards, disconnection & rejection, and
impaired autonomy/other-directedness. The first factor
(the domain) included two schemas from Young’s
impaired limits domain and three schemas from the
overvigilance & inhibition domain. The second factor
included three schemas from Young’s disconnection &
rejection domain, together with schemas from other
domains. The third factor included three schemas from
the impaired autonomy domain and some schemas
from other domains. Next, the convergent validity of
the three higher-order factors was studied with regard
to the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory and State-Trait
Anger Inventory. The third study of the YSQ–S3 looked
at the French Canadian version (Hawke & Provencher,
2012). Eighteen confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs)
were performed on the five items of each EMS, in a
mixed population (96 axis I patients and 973 non-clinical
participants). The single-factor model was confirmed
for 14 EMSs but not for the punitiveness, enmeshment,
entitlement and self-sacrifice schemas. Next, five CFAs
were conducted on the higher-order domains. Only three
of the five domains demonstrated a good fit to the data
(disconnection and rejection, impaired autonomy
and performance, and other-directedness). Lastly, the
researchers tested two full models in a CFA: the first
model brought together the five correlated domains
with their respective EMSs, and the second model
added the total score as a third-order factor. These two
models failed to produce acceptable goodness-of-fit
indexes. The researchers concluded that the internal
validity of the YSQ–S3’s second-order factors (domains)
had not been confirmed. Next, the two groups of partici-
pants (clinical and non-clinical) were compared: All but
two of the EMSs (entitlement and unrelenting standards)
differentiated between the groups. In a fourth study,
Kriston, Schäfer, Jacob, Härter, and Hölzel (2013) studied
the factorial validity of the German version of the YSQ–
S3 in a community sample (n = 1,150). They performed

a CFA of the 18 correlated factors corresponding to
Young’s model. This version showed “acceptable”
factorial validity. The reliability of 17 of the 18 schema
scales was sufficient. The convergent validity (studied
with the SCL–K–9) and the criterion-related validity
were satisfactory. The clinical sample was composed of
inpatients and outpatients. All the schemas differenti-
ated between clinical participants and those reporting
no mental health problems. In the fifth study, the
Spanish version of the YSQ–S3 were studied in a popu-
lation of 971 students (Calvete, Orue, & Gonzalez-
Diez, 2013). Several CFAs were performed, in order to
probe the 18 EMSs and the five domains proposed by
Young. The correlated 18-factor first-order structure
yielded better goodness-of-fit indexes than the uncorre-
lated 18-factor first-order structure. Next, the researchers
studied the second-order structure of the YSQ–S3 in an
exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Three factors were
found. The first second-order factor (an unlabeled
factor) loaded on the scales of self-sacrifice, approval
seeking, unrelenting standards, negativity, punitiveness
and entitlement. The second factor (impaired autonomy
& performance) loaded on the scales of failure, depen-
dence, vulnerability to harm, enmeshment, abandon-
ment, subjugation and insufficient self-control. The
third factor (disconnection & rejection) loaded on the
scales of emotional deprivation, mistrust, defectiveness,
social isolation and emotional inhibition. Next, the
researchers performed several CFAs to compare this
solution with previous second-order solutions. The
researchers found that all the hierarchical models
showed acceptable goodness-of-fit indexes but that
their own solution was better (for three domains). They
concluded that only two domains (disconnection &
rejection, and impaired autonomy) may have been
validated, with slight changes. The internal reliability
was not adequate for six EMSs (dependence, vulnera-
bility to harm, enmeshment, subjugation, unrelenting
standards, and entitlement). The test-retest reliability
(6 months) was relatively adequate. Convergent validity
was studied with the SCL–90–R and the Social Anxiety
Questionnaire for Adults. The results of this study
should be interpreted with caution because all the
analyses (i.e. the CFAs and EFAs) were performed on
the same sample. Lastly, Bach, Simonsen, Christoffersen,
and Kriston (2017) examined the factorial validity of the
Danish version of the YSQ–S3 in a mixed clinical and
non-clinical sample by using the same methodology as
Kriston et al. (2013). The researchers concluded that the
evidence for the postulated first-order 18-factor struc-
ture was weak but acceptable. The criterion-related
validity was satisfactory for the 18 schema scales. The
internal consistency of the 18 EMSs was good.
Hence, the six studies of the YSQ–S3 have yielded
contradictory results. An exploratory method (principal
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Stockholm University Library, on 28 Nov 2018 at 15:35:36, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2018.66
The Young Schema Questionnaire – Short Form 3  3
component analysis) has been applied once to the full
set of 90 items (Soygut et al., 2009) and three times to
the 18 schemas (Calvete et al., 2013; Saritas & Gençöz,
2011; Soygut et al., 2009). Fourteen schemas were iden-
tified in a Turkish non-clinical population but only six
of these were similar to those postulated by Young
(Soygut et al., 2009). In this new structure, the number
of items per factor varied. The 14 schemas were clus-
tered into five higher-order factors: four had been
described by Young, and one was new (with unre-
lenting standards replacing Domain E, overvigilance
and inhibition). The other two studies to have explored
the schemas’ domains (Calvete et al., 2013; Saritas &
Gençöz, 2011) found three-factor solutions. Two
domains (impaired autonomy, and disconnection &
rejection) were selected in both studies. The third
factor was referred to as “impaired limits/exaggerated
standards” in the Turkish version (Saritas & Gençöz,
2011) and as an “unlabeled factor” in the Spanish ver-
sion (Calvete et al., 2013). These two studies yielded
different schema clustering patterns. In both studies,
the impaired autonomy Domain (B) encompassed three
EMSs from Young’s theoretical model (dependence,
enmeshment and vulnerability), and two schemas
from other domains (subjugation in the other-directness
domain, and abandonment in the disconnection &
rejection domain). The disconnection & rejection
domain (A) covered three EMSs from Young’s postu-
lated domain (emotional deprivation, social isolation
and defectiveness) and one EMS from another domain
(emotional deprivation). In other words, the results
of the various exploratory analyses differed from the
Young’s theoretical model of schemas and domains,
and also varied from one study to another. Three
CFAs have been performed on the 18 schemas (Bach
et al., 2017; Calvete et al., 2013; Kriston et al., 2013).
The structure with 18 correlated first-order factors
postulated by Young showed acceptable factorial
validity in two studies (Calvete et al., 2013; Kriston
et al., 2013) but was weakly supported in one study
(Bach et al., 2017). Two studies included a CFA of the
18 SMSs grouped into five domains (Calvete et al.,
2013; Hawke & Provencher, 2012). The correlated
five-factor structure failed to produce acceptable
goodness-of-fit indexes in the two studies. In the
study of the French Canadian version (Hawke &
Provencher, 2012), the single-factor model was con-
firmed for 14 EMSs but the structural validity of the
second-order factors was not confirmed. Only one
study (Calvete et al., 2013) used a confirmatory
method to test the hierarchical structure of the YSQ–
S3 by comparing several models (including that
Young’s model). The various solutions gave accept-
able goodness-of-fit indexes but the researchers con-
cluded that their own solution was better. Only two
 4  M. Bouvard et al.
domains (disconnection & rejection, and impaired au-
tonomy & performance) may have been validated.
The study of convergent validity was performed twice
with the full SCL–90 R (Calvete et al., 2013; Soygut et al.,
2009) and once with a shorter version (SCL–K–9; Kriston
et al., 2013). One study (Saritas & Gercoz, 2011) focused
on the relationships between the schemas on one hand
and anxiety and anger on the other. Another study has
looked at the relationships between the schema scales
and social anxiety (Calvete et al., 2013). The YSQ–S3’s
convergent validity has not been extensively studied.
Four studies have examined the criterion-related validity
(Bach et al., 2017; Hawke & Provencher, 2012; Kriston
et al., 2013; Soygut et al., 2009).
The YSQ–S3 has been translated into several lan-
guages (Turkish, German, Dutch, Finnish, Greek,
Spanish and French). However, studies of the facto-
rial structure have given some contradictory results.
Hence, a firm basis for the structure of the EMSs needs
to be developed. Studies of the YSQ–S3’s convergent
validity and criterion-related validity are thus required.
The objective of the present study was therefore to
investigate the YSQ–S3’s first-order and higher-order
factorial structure in a French population. Internal
consistency, convergent validity and criterion-related
validity were assessed. The links between some
personality traits considered to be stable in adult-
hood (neuroticism, extraversion, and psychoticism)
and the (YSQ–S3’s) SMSs have never been studied.
We thought that it would be valuable to study the SMSs
that are constituted in childhood and their links with
the memories of an adult concerning dysfunctional
parental attitudes (overprotection or rejection) or
functional parental attitudes (warmth).
Methods
Procedures
We performed two studies of the psychometric qual-
ities of the French version of the YSQ–S3. In the first
study, volunteer non-clinical participants (N = 605)
completed the different questionnaires anonymously
under the supervision of three research assistants, after
having received information on the study’s objectives.
First, we conducted EFAs on each of the five domains
in order to find the best solution; this was performed
on a randomly selected subset (N = 246) of the 605
participants in the initial sample. We then performed
CFAs on the remaining participants (N = 359). Secondly,
we used the whole sample to perform CFAs of the
YSQ–S3’s higher-order factor structure. In the subse-
quent analyses (reliability, convergent validity and
criterion-related validity), we selected the solution with
the best goodness-of-fit indices. We focused on the
relationships between the different schemas and the
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Stockholm University Library, on 28 Nov 2018 at 15:35:36, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2018.66
perceived parental rearing behaviors, and then the
relationships with three personality dimensions
(extraversion, neuroticism and psychoticism) in sub-
groups of the whole sample (for convergent validity).
The statistical significance of the product-moment (r)
was interpreted according to Cohen’s criteria (1992).
For the second study of the criterion-related validity,
the YSQ–S3 questionnaires from 30 clinical participants
(suffering from OCD) were compared with those of
30 non-clinical participants.
Participants
Study 1: The non-clinical group
The main sample consisted of 605 participants (132 men
and 473 women) with a mean and standard deviation
(SD) age of 20.63 (1.94). The first subgroup (used for
the EFA) was composed of 246 participants (53 men
and 193 women) selected at random from among the
605 participants. The second subgroup was composed
of the participants not selected for the EFA (N = 359;
79 men and 280 women). Only 450 participants com-
pleted the three personality dimensions and the per-
ceived parental rearing behaviors. The convergent
validity with the perceived parental rearing behaviors
was calculated for a subgroup of 432 participants
(missing data). Volunteers were recruited on the Savoie
Mont-Blanc University campus (Chambéry, France).
Study 2: The clinical and non-clinical groups
A subsample of the main sample was chosen for com-
parison with the clinical sample. Thirty patients with
OCD (including 18 men) and 30 non-clinical partici-
pants (including 11 men) completed the YSQ–S3. There
was no significant difference in terms of gender (χ2 = 3.27,
p = .07). The mean age (standard deviation) was 30.03
(12.56) for the non-clinical sample and 33.70 (7.34) for
the OCD sample; the difference was not significant,
t(58) = 1.37, p = .17. The mean number of years of full-
time education was 15.66 (2.10) for the non-clinical
sample and 14.26 (2.93) for the clinical sample; the
difference between the two groups was significant,
t(58) = 2.12, p = .03. Clinical participants were recruited
from the Savoie Mont-Blanc University Psychological
Consultation Center (Chambéry, France). Non-clinical
participants were recruited through advertisements
within and outside Savoie Mont-Blanc University.
All participants gave their informed consent, and the
research was approved by the independent ethics
committee at Savoie Mont-Blanc University.
Material
The YSQ–S3 is a 90-item questionnaire designed to
assess 18 EMSs: Emotional deprivation (S3; Items 1, 19,
 The Young Schema Questionnaire – Short Form 3  5

37, 55 and 73), abandonment (S1; Items 2, 20, 38, 56 Statistical analyses
and 74), mistrust/abuse (S2; Items 3, 21, 39, 57 and 75),
In order to test the YSQ–S3’s internal validity (Study
social isolation (S5; Items 4, 22, 40, 58 and 76), and
1), several analyses were performed on the non-clinical
defectiveness/shame (S4; Items 5, 23, 41, 59 and 77),
group. A subgroup was constituted in order to perform
making up the disconnection & rejection Domain A;
five EFAs (one per domain). For these EFAs, we used
failure (S9; Items 6, 24, 42, 60 and 78), dependence/
MPLUS 7.1 software (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2015)
incompetence (S6; Items 7, 25, 43, 61 and 79), vulnera-
to generate the same indices as in the confirmatory
bility to harm or illness (S7; Items 8, 26, 44, 62 and 80),
analyses. We assessed the chi-squared (χ2), the degree
enmeshment/undeveloped self (S8; Items 9, 27, 45, 63
of freedom (df), the root mean square error of approxi-
and 81) representing Domain B (impaired autonomy &
mation (RMSEA), the goodness of fit (using the com-
performance); entitlement/grandiosity (S10; Items
parative fit index, CFI), the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI),
14, 32, 50, 68 and 86), insufficient self-control/ self-
and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR).
discipline (S11; Items 15, 33, 51, 69 and 87) forming
The criteria for factor extraction were (i) a scree test
Domain C (impaired limits); subjugation (S12; Items
(Cattell, 1966) and (ii) the interpretability of the result-
10, 28, 46, 64, 82), self-sacrifice (S13; Items 11, 29, 47,
ing factor structure (Gorsuch, 1983). For each domain,
65 and 83), approval-seeking/ recognition-seeking
a multifactorial solution was selected. For each factor,
(S14; Items 16, 34, 52, 70 and 88) making up Domain
only items which loaded > .40 were selected as being
D (other-directedness) and emotional inhibition (S16;
representative of a factor. Items saturating more than
Items 12, 30, 48, 66 and 84), unrelenting standards (S17;
two factors were deleted. A second subgroup was used
Items 13, 31, 49, 67 and 85), negativity/pessimism
to perform CFAs. Three models were tested in each of
(S15; Items 17, 35, 53, 71, 89), punitiveness (S18; Items
the five domains: The solution that we had identified
18, 36, 54, 72 and 90), forming Domain E (overvigi-
using EFAs, a single-factor solution, and Young’s theo-
lance & inhibition). Each of the YSQ-S3 items is rated
retical solution. We assessed the χ2, df, RMSEA, CFI,
on a 6-point scale (from 1 = “completely untrue of me”
TLI and the weighted root mean square residual
to 6 = “describes me perfectly”). The score for each
(WRMR), the smaller the residual (> 1.00), the better
schema is the sum of the scores obtained for the
the index (Yu, 2002). Lastly (using the whole group),
five constitutive items. Higher scores indicate a
we performed confirmatory analyses of the scale scores
greater presence of the maladaptive schema for the
(the second-order factor structure) by comparing our
respondent.
five-factor solution, Young’s theoretical solution and
The abbreviated form of the Eysenck Personality
Calvete et al.’s solution (2013) with three superfactors.
Questionnaire Revised (EPQR-A, Eysenck, Eysenck, &
The selected goodness-of-fit indexes were the Akaike
Barrett, 1985) evaluates three independent dimen-
information criterion (AIC), χ2, df, RMSEA, CFI, TLI
sions of personality: Extraversion, neuroticism and
and SRMR. The model with the smallest AIC was
psychoticism. The different versions of the EPQR-A,
selected (Hooper, Coughlan, & Mullen, 2008). To
including the French version (Bouvard, Aulard-Jaccod,
test reliability (internal consistency), we calculated
Pessonneaux, Hautekeete, & Rogé, 2010; Lewis, Francis,
Cronbach’ alpha coefficients for each of the scales.
Shevlin, & Forrest, 2002), have a three-dimensional
Correlation coefficients were calculated to test the
factorial structure.
convergent validity between the two questionnaires
The short form of the EMBU (derived from the
(the s-EMBU and the EPQR-A) and the YSQ–S3 in
Swedish “egna minnen betraffande uppfostran”,
subgroups of the non-clinical sample.
meaning “my memories of upbringing”) inventory
For the assessment of criterion-related validity
(s-EMBU; Arrindell et al., 1999) is a means of rapidly
(Study 2), we used a t-test to compare the clinical
measuring perceived parental rearing behaviors from
group with a non-clinical group. The Bonferroni cor-
an adult’s point of view. The questionnaire includes
rection was used to adjust for multiple comparisons
22 items and is completed first for the mother and
of OCD patients vs. non-clinical participants, for the
then for the father. Three dimensions are examined:
18 schemas. The threshold for statistical significance
Rejection, emotional warmth and (over)protection,
was set to p < .05/18 = .003.
giving a total of six subscores per individual. The
s-EMBU’s psychometric properties have been studied
Results
in culturally different populations (Arrindell &
Engebretsen, 2000; Arrindell et al., 2005). The French Study 1
version studied here has three dimensions, and
Exploratory factor analyses of the domains
showed much the same internal consistency and con-
vergent validity as in the literature (Bouvard, Aulard, Our results for the disconnection & rejection Domain A
Longuepée, Rogé & Hautekeete, 2010). are shown in Table 1. Five factors were found, as in

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Stockholm University Library, on 28 Nov 2018 at 15:35:36, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2018.66
 6  M. Bouvard et al.

Table 1. Domain A: Exploratory Factor Analysis

Factor1 (Schema 4) Factor2 (Schema 1) Factor3 (Schema 3) Factor4 (Schema 2) Factor5 (Schema 5)

Eigenvalue 9.31 2.62 2.04 1.42 1.27

Item2 .71
Item3 .68 .40
Item1 .69
Item5 .83 .41
Item4 .44 .42 .70
Item20 .82
Item21 .74 .46
Item19 .58 .67
Item23 .73 .45 .44
Item22 .54
Item38 .79
Item39 .66 .44
Item37 .48 .70
Item41 .78 .52 .45 .47
Item40 .40 .44 .69
Item56 .70 .44
Item57 .75
Item55 .50 .87 .40
Item59 .76 .53 .63
Item58 .42 .41 .48 .96
Item74 .54 .46
Item75 .80
Item73 .74
Item77 .68 .47
Item76 .46 .71

Note: The loadings for items selected for the factor are shown in bold type.

Young’s theoretical solution (2005). The first factor
corresponded to defectiveness/shame (S4), and com-
prised five items (5, 23, 41, 59 and 77). The second
factor corresponded to abandonment/instability (S1),
and comprised only four items (2, 20, 38 and 56). The
third factor corresponded to emotional deprivation (S3),
and comprised four items (1, 37, 55 and 73). The fourth
factor corresponded to mistrust/abuse (S2), with five
items (3, 21, 39, 57 and 75). The fifth factor corre-
sponded to social isolation/alienation (S5), and com-
prised five items (4, 22, 40, 58 and 76). Two items (19 and
74) were deleted due to dual saturation. The confirma-
tory indices obtained for this five-factor solution were
satisfactory (χ2 = 4,937.03, df = 300, RMSEA = .05, CFI =
.97, TLI = .96 and SRMR = .03).
Table 2 corresponds to Domain B (impaired autonomy
& performance), which covers four factors. The first
factor corresponded to enmeshment/undeveloped self
(S8), and comprised five items (9, 27, 45, 63 and 81).
The second factor corresponded to failure (S9), and
comprised five items (6, 24, 42, 60 and 78). The third
factor corresponded to vulnerability to harm/illness (S7),
and comprised three items (26, 44 and 80). Lastly, the
fourth factor corresponded to dependence/incompe-
tence (S6), and comprised three items (43, 61 and 79).
Two items (7, 8) were deleted due to dual saturation,
and two others (25 and 62) were deleted because of
the absence of saturation. The confirmatory indices
obtained for this four-factor solution were satisfactory
(χ2 = 3486.99, df = 190, RMSEA = .05, CFI = .97, TLI = .95
and SRMR = .04).
Domain C (Table 3) included two factors. The first
factor (corresponding to entitlement, S10) included
three items (32, 68 and 86). The second factor (insuffi-
cient self-control, S11) included five items (14, 15, 33, 51
and 87). Two items (50, 69) were deleted due to dual
saturation. The confirmatory indices obtained for this
solution with two factors are satisfactory (χ2 = 794.97,
df = 45, RMSEA = .09, CFI = .92, TLI = .86 and SRMR = .06)
with the exception of the RMSEA and the SRMR (> .05).
Domain D (other-directedness) encompassed three
factors (Table 4). The first factor corresponded to self-
sacrifice (S13), and included five items (11, 29, 47, 65
and 83). The second factor corresponded to subjugation
(S12), and included six items (10, 28, 46, 52, 64 and 82).
Lastly, the third factor (approval seeking, S14) includes

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Stockholm University Library, on 28 Nov 2018 at 15:35:36, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2018.66
 The Young Schema Questionnaire – Short Form 3  7

Table 2. Domain B: Exploratory Factor Analysis

Factor1 (Schema 8) Factor2 (Schema 9) Factor3 (Schema 7) Factor4 (Schema 6)

Eigenvalue 6.72 1.97 1.38 1.14

Item7 .47 .53

Item8 .53 .55
Item9 .65
Item6 .64 .51
Item25
Item26 .66
Item27 .75
Item24 .64 .45
Item43 .54
Item44 .42
Item45 .51
Item42 .87
Item61 .54
Item62
Item63 .60
Item60 .92 .41
Item79 .44 .47 .79
Item80 .57
Item81 .64 .51
Item78 .79 .57

Note: The loadings for items selected for the factor are shown in bold type.

Table 3. Domain C: Exploratory Factor Analysis Table 4. Domain D: Exploratory Factor Analysis

Factor1 (Schema 10) Factor2 (Schema 11) Factor1 Factor2 Factor3

(Schema 13) (Schema 12) (Schema 14)
Eigenvalue 3.29 1.45
Eigenvalue 4.29 2.52 1.69
Item14 .43
Item15 .59 Item10 .50
Item32 .82 Item11 .63
Item33 .56 Item16 .54
Item50 .37 .41 Item28 .69
Item51 .50 Item29 .66
Item68 .77 Item34 .64
Item69 .46 .48 Item46 .57
Item86 .54 Item47 .78
Item87 . 47 Item52 .65
Item64 .69
Note: The loadings for items selected for the factor are Item65 .72
shown in bold type. Item70 .78
Item82 .63
Item83 .74
four items (16, 34, 70 and 88). The confirmatory indices
Item88 .66
obtained for this three-factor solution are satisfactory
(χ2 = 1741.32, df = 105, RMSEA = .04, CFI = .98, TLI = .97 Note: The loadings for items selected for the factor are shown
and SRMR = .03). in bold type.
Domain E (over vigilance and inhibition) was consti-
tuted of four factors (Table 5). The first factor (emo- The third factor (unrelenting standards, S17) was com-
tional inhibition, S16) was composed of Items 12, 30, posed of 3 items 13, 31, 67. Lastly, the fourth factor
66, and 84. The second factor is negativity/pessimism (punitiveness, S18) included five items (18, 36, 49, 54,
(S15), which included the Items 17, 35, 53, 71, and 89. and 72). Three items (48, 85 and 90) were deleted due

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Stockholm University Library, on 28 Nov 2018 at 15:35:36, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2018.66
 8  M. Bouvard et al.

Table 5. Domain E: Exploratory Factor Analysis

Factor1 (Schema 16) Factor2 (Schema 15) Factor3 (Schema 17) Factor4 (Schema 18)

Eigenvalue 6.06 2.52 1.96 1.39

Item17 .73
Item12 .86
Item13 .82
Item18 .66
Item35 .83
Item30 .78
Item31 .84
Item36 .54
Item53 .78
Item48 .44 .45
Item49 .47
Item54 .80
Item71 .48
Item66 .55
Item67 .63 .47
Item72 .77
Item89 .65 .49
Item84 .72
Item85 .50 .49
Item90 .42 .42

NB: the loadings for items selected for the factor are shown in bold type.

to dual saturation. The confirmatory indices obtained the smallest AIC. Consequently, we decided to select
for this four-factor solution were satisfactory (χ2 = this solution for our subsequent analyses.
2,952.42, df = 190, RMSEA = .05, CFI =.96, TLI = .94 and
SRMR = .04) Mean (SD) and internal consistency of the 18 schemas

Confirmatory factor analyses of the domains
We performed three CFAs on a second sub-sample:
The solution that we found with the first sample, a
one-factor solution, and Young’s theoretical solution.
Our solution gave the best indices in all cases (Table 6).
Confirmatory factor analyses of the higher-order structure
Using the study population as a whole, we performed
CFAs on three solutions: Young’s theoretical solution,
our five-factor solution and Calvete et al.’s (2013)
three-factor solution (Table 7). The confirmatory indi-
ces obtained for Young’s theoretical solution were χ2 =
1,024.76, with df = 125, RMSEA =.10, CFI =.78, TLI =.73,
SRMR = .06 and AIC = 60,338.82. The confirmatory
indices obtained for our five-factor solution were as
follows: χ2 = 10,41.71, df = 125, RMSEA = .11, CFI =.76,
TLI = .71, SRMR = .07 and AIC = 58,566.44. Lastly, the
confirmatory indices obtained for Calvete et al.’s three-
factor solution were χ2 = 967.35, df = 132, RMSEA =.10,
CFI =.80, TLI =.77, SRMR =.06 and AIC = 60,338.82.
The three models tested gave similar but not fully sat-
isfactory results, although our five-factor solution yielded
The mean (SD) values were calculated for all the par-
ticipants in the non-clinical group (Table 8). The coeffi-
cients for internal consistency were satisfactory for 14
schemas in our factorial solution (S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S8,
S9, S12, S13, S14, S15, S16, S17 and S18), and ranged
from .70 to .88. We obtained coefficients below .70 for
two schemas (S6 and S7) in the impaired autonomy &
performance domain and for two schemas (S10 and
S11) in the impaired limits domain.
Convergent validity
The product-moment (r) was interpreted according to
Cohen’s criteria (1992). The assessment of convergent
validity with the EPQR-A revealed some statistically
significant correlations between the neuroticism scale
and the 18 schemas (Table 9). We noted a strong corre-
lation with S15, nine moderate correlations (the five
schemas in Domain A, S6 and S7 in Domain B, and
S11 and S12) and eight weak correlations (S8, S9, S10,
S13, S14, S16, S17 and S18). We noted four moderate
correlations (S4, S5, S12 and S16) and seven weak
correlations (S2, S3, S6, S8, S9, S11 and S15) with the
extraversion scale. The psychoticism scale showed

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Stockholm University Library, on 28 Nov 2018 at 15:35:36, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2018.66
 The Young Schema Questionnaire – Short Form 3  9

Table 6. Goodness-of-fit Indexes in the CFAs of the Domains

Domain Model χ2 df RMSEA CFI TLI WRMR

A 5–factor 6555.58 253 0.06 .94 .93 1.11

A 1–factor 7240.73 300 0.12 .76 .74 2.21
A Young’s 7240.73 300 0.07 .92 .90 1.32
B 4–factor 6153.89 120 0.05 .98 .97 0.86
B 1–factor 6423.09 190 0.11 .87 .85 1.79
B Young’s 6423.09 190 0.05 .97 .97 0.94
C 2–factor 454.65 28 0.08 .89 .84 0.84
C 1–factor 798.63 36 0.08 .87 .83 1.02
C Young’s 798.63 36 0.08 .88 .85 0.96
D 3–factor 3119.44 105 0.07 .94 .93 1.08
D 1–factor 3119.44 105 0.19 .60 .53 2.88
D Young’s 3119.44 105 0.09 .91 .89 1.37
E 4–factor 3100.60 136 0.07 .91 .89 1.21
E 1–factor 3443.10 190 0.13 .65 .61 2.27
E Young’s 3443.10 190 0.08 .86 .80 1.77

Note: The selected solution is shown in bold type. RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CFI = comparative fit
index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis index; WRMR = weighted root mean square residual.

nine weak correlations with S3, S4, S5, S8, S10, S11 (all for four schemas: Abandonment/instability (S1),
from Domain C), S13, S17 and S18. The convergent defectiveness/shame (S4), dependence/incompetence
validity with the s-EMBU revealed statistically signifi- (S6) and negativity/pessimism (S15).
cant correlations between the maternal and paternal
rejection scales and 12 schemas (S4, S3, S2, S5, S9, S6, Discussion
S10, S11, S13, S12 S15 and S17). Schemas S7 and S16
The objective of the present study was to validate
were weakly correlated with the paternal rejection scale,
the psychometric qualities of the YSQ–S3. Given that a
and schemas S14 and S18 were weakly correlated with
continuum between the normal emergence and patho-
the maternal rejection scale. The maternal and paternal
logical emergence of schemas has been postulated, we
emotional warmth scales were significantly and nega-
assessed a non-clinical sample in our study of internal
tively correlated with 8 schemas (S4, S3, S2, S5, S9, S11,
validity. In one subgroup, we used MPLUS software to
S12 and S16). Four schemas (S1, S6, S13 and S15) were
perform an EFA for each of the domains; this yielded
weakly correlated with the paternal emotional warmth
the same indices as the CFA, in addition to the factorial
scale, and two schemas (S8 and S18) were weakly cor-
composition. On the whole, the five-factor solution
related with the maternal emotional warmth scale. The
was similar to the theoretical structure postulated by
maternal and paternal overprotection scales were weakly
Young. Eleven items (7, 8, 19, 25, 48, 50, 62, 69, 74, 85
correlated with 5 schemas (S8, S6, S11, S12 and S15).
and 90) were not selected, due to dual saturation or the
Two schemas (S7 and S14) were weakly correlated with
absence of saturation. The number of items per schema
the paternal overprotection scale, and eight schemas
varied from 3 to 6. Seven schemas were similar to those
(S4, S3, S2, S5, S9, S13, S17 and S18) were weakly corre-
postulated by Young: Defectiveness (S4), mistrust/
lated with the maternal overprotection scale. All but
abuse (S2), social isolation (S5) (Domain A), enmesh-
five of the correlations were weak (Cohen, 1992).
ment (S8), failure (S9) (Domain B), self-sacrifice (S13)
Schema 3 was moderately correlated with the maternal
(Domain D) and negativity/pessimism (S15) (Domain
and paternal rejection scales and the maternal and
E). Four schemas were similar to those postulated
paternal emotional warmth scales. Schema 5 was mod-
by Young but comprised four items: Abandonment/
erately correlated with the paternal rejection scale.
instability (S1), emotional deprivation (S3) (Domain
A), approval seeking (S14) (Domain D) and emotional
Study 2
inhibition (S16) (Domain E). Four schemas were sim-
The OCD patients obtained higher scores than healthy ilar to those postulated by Young but comprised three
participants for the 18 schemas. Fourteen schemas (S3, items: Vulnerability to harm (S7), dependence/incom-
S2, S5, S9, S8, S7, S10, S11, S12, S13, S14, S16, S17 and petence (S6) (Domain B), entitlement (S10) (Domain C)
S18) did not differentiate between the groups (Table 10). and unrelenting standards (S17) (Domain E). Only three
There was a statistically significant intergroup difference schemas differed in their composition with regard to

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Stockholm University Library, on 28 Nov 2018 at 15:35:36, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2018.66
 10  M. Bouvard et al.

Table 7. Factorial Solution of Calvete’s Model, Young’s Model and Our Five-Factor Solution

Young’s schemaa (deleted items) or Young’s Domain and

Calvete’s domain Calvete’s schema [added items] in our solution our solution

A: Disconnection Emotional deprivation Emotional deprivation A: Disconnection and

1 19 37 55 73 1 (19) 37 55 73 rejection
Mistrust Mistrust/abuse
3 21 39 57 75 3 21 39 57 75
Social isolation Social isolation/alienation
4 22 40 58 76 4 22 40 58 76
Defectiveness Defectiveness/shame
5 23 41 59 77 5 23 41 59 77
Emotional inhibition Abandonment/instability
12 30 48 66 84 2 20 38 56 (74)
B: Impaired autonomy Failure Failure B: Impaired autonomy
6 24 42 60 78 6 24 42 60 78 and performance
Dependence Dependence (7) (25) 43 61 79
7 25 43 61 79
Vulnerability to harm Vulnerability to harm (8) 26 44 (62) 80
8 26 44 62 80
Enmeshment/undeveloped self Enmeshment/undeveloped self
9 27 45 63 81 9 27 45 63 81
Abandonment Entitlement/ grandiosity (14) 32 (50) 68 86 C: Impaired limits
2 20 38 56 74
Insufficient self-control Insufficient self-control
15 33 51 69 87 15 33 51 (69) 87 [14]
Subjugation Subjugation D: Other-directedness
10 28 46 64 82 10 28 46 64 82 [52]
Factor 3 Self-sacrifice Self-sacrifice
11 29 47 65 83 11 29 47 65 83
Approval-seeking Approval-seeking
16 34 52 70 88 16 34 (52) 70 88
Entitlement Emotional inhibition E: Overvigilance an
14 32 50 68 86 12 30 (48) 66 84 inhibition
Unrelenting standards Unrelenting standards
13 31 49 67 85 13 31 (49) 67 (85)
Negativity Negativity/pessimism
17 35 53 71 89 17 35 53 71 89
Punitiveness Punitiveness
18 36 54 72 90 18 36 54 72 (90) [49]

Note a: the items added to our factorial solution are indicated between square brackets and in italics; the deleted items are
indicated between brackets and in italics.

Young’s theoretical solution: insufficient self-control
(S11, Domain C), subjugation (S12, Domain D) and
punitiveness (S18, Domain E). The indices used in the
confirmatory analyses were satisfactory, with the excep-
tion of two (RMSEA and SRMR) for Domain C. The
present study is the first to have applied an EFA to each
of the five domains; in a non-clinical sample, the result-
ing solution was quite similar to Young’s theoretical
solution. The confirmatory analysis of each of the five
domains appeared to favor our solution over a single-
factor solution and Young’s solution. It is noteworthy
that Domain A (disconnection & rejection) and Domain
B (impaired autonomy) yielded the best indices, which
is in line with the reports by Soygut et al. (2009) and
Calvete et al. (2013). The CFAs of the higher-order
structure compared two five-factor models (Young’s
model and our solution) and a three-factor model
(Calvete et al., 2013). All three solutions gave similar
indices, which were not really satisfactory; however,
the AIC argued in favor of our solution. This is also in
line with previous results (Calvete et al., 2013; Hawke &
Provencher, 2012). Since the schemas’ overall clustering
into domains did not appearing to be satisfactory, we
decided to study our solution’s 18 schemas in subse-
quent analyses.
According to the three studies (including the present
one) having studied the internal consistency of the
YSQ–S3’s schemas in a non-clinical sample, between

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Stockholm University Library, on 28 Nov 2018 at 15:35:36, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2018.66

Table 8. Internal Consistency, and Means (SD) (whole Sample)
Schema1: abandonment/instability
Schema2: mistrust/abuse
Schema3: emotional deprivation
Schema4: defectiveness/shame
Schema5: isolation/alienation
Schema6: dependence/incompetence
Schema7: vulnerability to harm
Schema8: enmeshment/undeveloped self
Schema9: failure
Schema10: entitlement
Schema11: insufficient self-control
Schema12: subjugation
Schema13: self-sacrifice
Schema14: approval seeking
Schema15: negativity/pessimism
Schema16: emotional inhibition
Schema17: unrelenting standards
Schema18: punitiveness
two (Soygut et al., 2009) and six schemas (Calvete et al.,
2013) yielded coefficients under .70. Three schemas
were common to two of the 18-schema studies (Calvete
et al., 2013 and the present study): Dependence
(S6), vulnerability to harm (S7) and entitlement (S10).
Schema 7 gave the same result in the study of Soygut
et al. (2009). The internal consistency of S11 (insufficient
self-control) was below that of the reference in our
study. Schemas S8 (enmeshment), S12 (subjugation)
and S17 (entitlement) were only present in the Spanish
study (Calvete et al., 2013), and S4 (defectiveness) was
only present in the Turkish study (Soygut et al., 2009).
Our solution improved the internal consistency of
three schemas and degraded the internal consistency
of one (S11), relative to Young’s theoretical model as
studied by Calvete et al. (2013). In our solution, S11 in-
cluded four items similar to those postulated by Young
and a fifth item that differed.
The three personality scales were correlated with the
EMSs. The neuroticism scale was positively correlated
with the 18 schemas. Unsurprisingly, the most strongly
correlated schema was S15 (negativity/pessimism).
The extraversion scale was negatively correlated with
11 schemas. Moderate correlations were observed for
defectiveness/shame (S4), social isolation/alienation
(S5), subjugation (S12), and emotional inhibition (S16).
The more a person is introverted, the higher the
schemas’ scores. The psychoticism scale was positively
correlated with Domain C (impaired limits) and three
schemas from Domain A (disconnection & rejection), and
was negatively correlated with schema S8 (enmeshment/
undeveloped self), S13 (self-sacrifice), S17 (unrelenting
standards) and S18 (punitiveness). It should be noted
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Stockholm University Library, on 28 Nov 2018 at 15:35:36, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2018.66
The Young Schema Questionnaire – Short Form 3  11
Number of items M (SD) α coefficient
4 11.94 (5.12) .83
5 11.98 (4.62) .80
4 7.42 (3.63) .73
5 8.59 (3.85) .84
5 11.37 (4.75) .77
3 6.14 (2.42) .54
3 6.52 (2.89) .51
5 9.45 (4.11) .70
5 11.50 (5.09) .88
3 5.83 (2.45) .52
5 12.47 (3.84) .59
6 12.70 (4.62) .74
5 16.77 (5.21) .82
4 11.23 (4.15) .74
5 13.94 (5.24) .76
4 10.42 (4.54) .77
3 8.82 (3.44) .73
5 16.82 (4.98) .75
that the psychoticism scale can be defined as a con-
tinuum between empathic behavior and schizoid
behavior (Eysenck, 1992). Domains A (disconnection &
rejection) and E (overvigilance & inhibition) were cor-
related with the three dimensions of the perceived
parental rearing behavior questionnaire (s-EMBU).
Domain B (impaired autonomy) was correlated with
emotional warmth and overprotection, and Domain D
(other-directedness) was correlated with rejection and
overprotection. Domain C (impaired limits) was corre-
lated with rejection. These results argue in favor of
Young’s hypothesis, i.e. the schemas can be attributed
to domains reflecting childhood tasks. Detrimental
parental rearing behaviors favor the emergence of
schemas. Taken as a whole, these results suggest that
maladaptive schemas are developed during childhood.
The convergent validity of the French version of the
YSQ–S3 is similar to that of previous versions (Muris,
2006). The main limitation of our study is that a non-
clinical sample is not necessary representative of the
general population. Our main sample was primarily
composed of young women. These results must there-
fore be interpreted with caution.
The YSQ–S3’s criterion-related validity was satisfac-
tory, since four schemas showed a statistically significant
difference between the OCD group and the healthy
group. More importantly, the OCD patients had higher
scores than the healthy participants for the 18 schemas.
The criterion-related validity of the maladaptive schemas
in the YSQ–S3 has been evidenced in several different
clinical populations (Bach et al., 2015; Hawke &
Provencher, 2012; Kriston et al., 2013; Soygut et al.,
2009). It appears that the maladaptive schemas are
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2018.66
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Stockholm University Library, on 28 Nov 2018 at 15:35:36, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

12  M. Bouvard et al.

Table 9. Correlations between the YSQ–S3 and Two Questionnaires (s-EMBU and EPQR-A)

s-EMBU s-EMBU s-EMBU s-EMBU s-EMBU s-EMBU EPQR-A EPQR-A EPQR-A

Maternal Paternal
Maternal Paternal emotional emotional Maternal Paternal
rejection rejection warmth warmth overprotection overprotection Neuroticism Extraversion Psychoticism

Schema4 .17* .16* –.16* –.25* .18* .09 .40* –.30* .17*
Schema1 .09 .06 –.07 –.20* .09 .03 .41* –.08 –.06
Schema3 .39* .37* –.49* –.48* .11* –.06 .30* –.27* .16*
Schema2 .11* .24* –.11* –.15* .14* .04 .42* –.27* .06
Schema5 .17* .31* –.17* –.26* .15* .01 .40* –.41* .18*
Schema8 .07 .04 .10* .01 .12* .11* .29* –.12* –.11*
Schema9 .25* .14* –.17* –.19* .15* .01 .29* –.20* –.00
Schema7 .08 .22* .00 –.07 .08 .14* .34* –.06 –.00
Schema6 .14* .13* –.08 –.18* .12* .12* .35* –.24* .08
Schema10 .11* .10* –.06 –.07 .08 .03 .16* .05 .24*
Schema11 .19* .14* –.16* –.20* .11* .12* .32* –.12* .17*
Schema13 .15* .12* –.05 –.14* .14* .02 .19* .03 –.13*
Schema12 .24* .17* –.14* –.22* .21* .12* .42* –.32* .02
Schema14 .12* .03 –.03 –.07 .07 .13* .19* .06 –.02
Schema16 .00 .15* –.10* –.10* .02 –.03 .26* –.37* .09
Schema15 .15* .18* –.09 –.16* .17* .10* .50* –.22* –.03
Schema17 .15* .11* –.06* .02 .15* .03 .18* .01 –.13*
Schema18 .23* .07 –.13* –.09 .17* .00 .16* –.08 –.18*

*p < .05.
 The Young Schema Questionnaire – Short Form 3  13

Table 10. Mean (Standard Deviation) of the 18 Schemas in the two Arrindell W. A., Sanavio E., Aguilar G., Sica C.,
Groups Hatzichristou C., Eisemann M., … & van der Ende J.
(1999). The development of a short form of the EMBU: Its
Non-clinical group OCD patients t(58) p appraisal with students in Greece, Guatemala, Hungary
and Italy. Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 613–628.
Schema4 8.00 (3.87) 13.66 (7.12) 3.82* .0003 https://doi.org/10.1016/s0191-8869(98)00192-5
Schema1 9.06 (2.88) 14.34 (4.82) 5.11* < .0001 Bach B., Simonsen E., Christoffersen P., & Kriston L. (2017).
Schema3 7.16 (3.15) 8.90 (5.08) 1.58 .11 The Young Schema Questionnaire 3 Short Form (YSQ–3).
Schema2 11.06 (4.34) 12.60 (5.15) 1.24 .21 Psychometric properties and association with personality
Schema5 10.83 (5.20) 14.46 (6.06) 2.48 .01 disorders in a Danish mixed sample. European Journal of
Schema8 9.63 (4.11) 12.23 (4.24) 2.40 .01 Psychological Assessment, 33(2), 134–143. https://doi.
Schema9 9.76 (3.75) 13.63 (6.71) 2.75 .007 org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000272
Schema7 5.56 (2.47) 7.86 (4.14) 2.61 .01 Bouvard M., Aulard J., Longuepée L., Rogé B., &
Schema6 5.73 (1.96) 7.93 (3.18) 3.22* .002 Hautekeete M. (2010). Etude préliminaire de la version
Schema10 5.76 (2.41) 6.06 (2.58) 0.46 .64 abrégée du questionnaire sur les souvenirs d’enfance
Schema11 10.86 (3.10) 12.70 (3.59) 2.11 .03 version abrégée (s-EMBU) [preliminary study of the short
Schema13 16.06 (3.85) 16.36 (5.29) 0.25 .80 (s)- EMBU (Swedish acronym for Egna Minnen
Schema12 11.93 (4.03) 15.46 (6.50) 2.52 .01 Beträffande Uppfostran)]. Revue Francophone de Clinique
Schema14 10.63 (3.29) 11.10 (3.99) 0.49 .62 Comportementale et Cognitive, XV(3), 8–17.
Schema16 9.83 (4.11) 10.70 (4.75) 0.75 .45 Bouvard M., Aulard-Jaccod J., Pessonneaux S., Hautekeete
Schema15 11.70 (3.94) 17.13 (6.63) 3.85* .0002 M., & Rogé B. (2010). Etude du questionnaire de
Schema17 8.23 (2.51) 9.60 (2.89) 1.95 .05 personnalité d’Eysenck révisé et abrégé (EPQR-A) dans
Schema18 15.76 (3.25) 18.16 (4.09) 2.51 .01 une population d’étudiants [A study on the Eysenck
Personality Questionnaire Revised-Abbreviated (EPQR-A)
*Bonferroni correction: p < .05/18= .003. in a student population]. L’Encéphale, 36(6), 510–512.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.encep.2010.02.006
Calvete E., Orue I., & Gonzalez-Diez Z. (2013). An
“transdiagnostic”, rather than being specific for one examination of the structure and stability of early
pathology. Some of the psychometric qualities of this maladaptive schemas by means of the young Schema
third version remain to be studied – notably the con- Questionnaire–3. European Journal of Psychological
vergent validity, the criterion-related validity and the Assessment, 29(4), 283–290. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-
test-retest reliability. 5759/a000158
In conclusion, we confirmed the internal validity of Cattell R. B. (1966). The Scree test for the number of factors.
the 18 schemas distributed across five domains. The Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245–276. https://doi.
CFAs of the high-order structure did not give satisfac- org/10.1207/s15327906mbr0102_10
tory results. Two domains (disconnection & rejection, Cohen J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112,
155–159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155
and impaired autonomy & performance) were con-
Eysenck S. B. G., Eysenck H. J., & Barrett P. (1985). A
firmed in a non-clinical population. In our solution,
revised version of the psychoticism scale. Personality and
reliability was satisfactory for 14 schemas. The correla- Individual Differences, 6, 21–29. https://doi.
tions between the schemas and the neuroticism, extra- org/10.1016/0191-8869(85)90026-1
version and psychoticism scales went in the expected Eysenck H. J. (1992). The definition and measurement of
direction. Poor parental rearing behaviors were linked to psychoticism. Personality and Individual Differences, 13,
high scores in the different schemas. Lastly, 4 schemas 757–785. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(92)90050-y
differentiated between clinical and non-clinical groups. Gorsuch R. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd Ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
The overall psychometric qualities of the French version Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
of the YSQ–S3 authorize its use in clinical populations. Hawke L. D., & Provencher M. D. (2012). The Canadian
French Young Schema Questionnaire: Confirmatory factor
analysis and validation in clinical and nonclinical samples.
References
Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 44(1), 40–49. https://
Arrindell W. A., Akkerman A., Bagès N., Feldman L., doi.org/10.1037/a0026197
Caballo V. E., Oei T. P. S., & Zaldívar F. (2005). The Hooper D., Coughlan J., & Mullen M. R. (2008). Structural
short-EMBU in Australia, Spain, and Venezuela. European equation modeling guidelines for determining model fit.
Journal of Psychological Assessment, 21(1), 56–66. https:// The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1),
doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.21.1.56 53–56.
Arrindell W. A., & Engebretsen A. A. (2000). Convergent Kriston L., Schäfer J., Jacob G. A., Härter M., & Hölzel L. P.
validity of the short-EMBU and the Parental Bonding (2013). Reliability and validity of the German version of
Instrument (PBI): Dutch findings. Clinical Psychology and the Young Schema Questionnaire-Short Form 3 (YSQ–S3).
Psychotherapy, 7, 262–266. https://doi.org/10.1002/1099- European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 29(3), 205–212.
0879(200010)7:4<262::aid-cpp257>3.0.co;2-9 https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000143

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Stockholm University Library, on 28 Nov 2018 at 15:35:36, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2018.66
 14  M. Bouvard et al.
Lewis C. A., Francis L. J., Shevlin N., & Forrest S. (2002).
Confirmatory factor analysis of the French translation of
the abbreviated form of the revised Eysenck Personality
Questionnaire (EPQR–A). European Journal of Psychological
Assessment, 18(2), 179–185. https://doi.
org/10.1027//1015-5759.18.2.179
Muris P. (2006). Maladaptive schemas in non-clinical
adolescents: Relations to perceived parental rearing
behaviors, Big Five Personality factors and
psychopathological symptoms. Clinical Psychology and
Psychotherapy, 13, 405–413. https://doi.org/10.1002/
cpp.506
Muthén L. K., & Muthén B. O. (1998–2015). Mplus user’s
guide (7th Ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
Rafaeli E., Bernstein D. P., & Young J. (2011). Schema therapy.
London, UK: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
Saritas D., & Gençöz T. (2011). Psychometric properties of
“Young Schema Questionnaire-short form 3” in a Turkish
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Stockholm University Library, on 28 Nov 2018 at 15:35:36, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2018.66
adolescent sample. Journal of Cognitive and Behavioral
Psychotherapies, 11(1), 83–96.
Soygut G., Karaosmanoglu A., & Çakir Z. (2009).
Assessment of early maladaptive schemas: A psychometric
study of the Turkish Young Schema Questionnaire-Short
form–3. Turkish Journal of Psychiatry, 20, 144–152.
Young J. E. (1994). Cognitive therapy for personality disorders: A
schema-focused approach (2nd ed). Sarasota, FL: Professional
Resource Exchange.
Young J. E. (2005). Young Schema Questionnaire-Short Form 3
(YSQ–S3). New York, NY: Cognitive Therapy Center.
Young J. E., Klosko J. S., & Weishaar M. E. (2003). Schema
therapy. A practitioner’s guide. New York, NY: The
Guilford Press.
Yu C. Y. (2002). Evaluating cutoff criteria of model fit indices for
latent variable models with binary and continuous outcomes
(unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of
California, Los Angeles CA.