↓ Skip to main content

The Intolerance of Uncertainty Inventory: Validity and Comparison of Scoring Methods to Assess Individuals Screening Positive for Anxiety and Depression

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Intolerance of Uncertainty Inventory: Validity and Comparison of Scoring Methods to Assess Individuals Screening Positive for Anxiety and Depression
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, March 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00388
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marco Lauriola, Oriana Mosca, Cristina Trentini, Renato Foschi, Renata Tambelli, R. Nicholas Carleton

Abstract

Intolerance of Uncertainty is a fundamental transdiagnostic personality construct hierarchically organized with a core general factor underlying diverse clinical manifestations. The current study evaluated the construct validity of the Intolerance of Uncertainty Inventory, a two-part scale separately assessing a unitary Intolerance of Uncertainty disposition to consider uncertainties to be unacceptable and threatening (Part A) and the consequences of such disposition, regarding experiential avoidance, chronic doubt, overestimation of threat, worrying, control of uncertain situations, and seeking reassurance (Part B). Community members (N = 1046; Mean age = 36.69 ± 12.31 years; 61% females) completed the Intolerance of Uncertainty Inventory with the Beck Depression Inventory-II and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Part A demonstrated a robust unidimensional structure and an excellent convergent validity with Part B. A bifactor model was the best fitting model for Part B. Based on these results, we compared the hierarchical factor scores with summated ratings clinical proxy groups reporting anxiety and depression symptoms. Summated rating scores were associated with both depression and anxiety and proportionally increased with the co-occurrence of depressive and anxious symptoms. By contrast, hierarchical scores were useful to detect which facets mostly separated between for depression and anxiety groups. In sum, Part A was a reliable and valid transdiagnostic measure of Intolerance of Uncertainty. The Part B was arguably more useful for assessing clinical manifestations of Intolerance of Uncertainty for specific disorders, provided that hierarchical scores are used. Overall, our study suggest that clinical assessments might need to shift toward hierarchical factor scores.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 84 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 17%
Student > Master 10 12%
Other 8 10%
Researcher 7 8%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Other 14 17%
Unknown 25 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 31 37%
Neuroscience 4 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 35 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 January 2024.
All research outputs
#1,886,413
of 25,706,302 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#3,857
of 34,745 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,839
of 346,327 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#91
of 570 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,706,302 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,745 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 346,327 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 570 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.