Inventory of Interpersonal Problems-32 (IIP-32): Psychometric properties and normative data in a clinical sample from Argentina
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35670/1667-4545.v22.n2.38688Keywords:
Inventory of Interpersonal Problems, IIP-32, validity, reliability, ArgentinaAbstract
This study analyzes the psychometric properties of the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems-32 (IIP-32), the most widely used instrument to measure relational difficulties. A sample of 2128 participants completed the IIP-32 and two additional measures of interpersonal difficulties before starting a psychotherapy treatment. To evaluate reliability, we analyzed internal consistency and item homogeneity. We analyzed the construct validity of IIP-32 through a confirmatory factor analysis and the concurrent validity through correlations between the IIP-32 and other measures of interpersonal deficits. The results of the study show excellent internal consistency and homogeneity of the items in the IIP-32. Furthermore, the results show construct validity as well as concurrent validity of the instrument. In sum, the results of this paper rank the IIP-32 as a reliable and valid instrument with important clinical implications to measure interpersonal difficulties in Argentina.
Downloads
References
Allaire, J., Xie, Y., McPherson, J., Luraschi, J., Ushey, K., Atkins, A., Wickham, H., Cheng, J., Chang, W., & Iannone, R. (2022). rmarkdown: Dynamic documents for R. R package version 2.14. Recuperado de https://github.com/rstudio/rmarkdown
Barkham, M., Hardy, G. E., & Startup, M. (1996). The IIP‐32: A short version of the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 35(1), 21-35. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8260.1996.tb01159.x
Berghout, C. C., Zevalkink, J., Katzko, M. W., & de Jong, J. T. (2012). Changes in symptoms and interpersonal problems during the first 2 years of long‐term psychoanalytic psychotherapy and psychoanalysis. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 85(2), 203-219. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8341.2011.02022.x
Casullo, M., & Pérez, M. (2008). El inventario de síntomas SCL-90-R de L. Derogatis. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Recuperado de https://www.psi.uba.ar
Davidov, E., Billiet, J., Meuleman, B., & Schmidt, P. (2018). Cross-Cultural Analysis: Methods and Applications (2nd ed.). Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781315537078
Derogatis, L. (1994). SCL-90-R. Minneapolis, MN: NCS. Dominguez-Lara, S. (2018). Magnitud del efecto, una guía rápida. Educación Médica, 19(4), 251-254. doi: 10.1016/j.edumed.2017.07.002
Faustino, B., & Vasco, A. B. (2020). Factor structure and convergent validity of the Portuguese version of the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems-32. Journal of Relationships Research, 11. doi: 10.1017/jrr.2020.18
Fernández-Álvarez, H., Hirsh, H., Maristany, M., & Torrente, F. (2005). Propiedades psicométricas del OQ-45.2 en la Argentina: Un estudio piloto. Poster presentado en 4° Congreso Mundial de Psicoterapia, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Freiberg-Hoffmann, A., Stover, J. B., De la Iglesia, G., & Fernández Liporace, M. (2013). Correlaciones policóricas y tetracóricas en estudios factoriales exploratorios y confirmatorios. Ciencias Psicológicas, 7(2), 151-164. doi: 10.22235/cp.v7i1.1057
Froh, J. J., Fives, C. J., Fuller, J. R., Jacofsky, M. D., Terjesen, M. D., & Yurkewicz, C. (2007). Interpersonal relationships and irrationality as predictors of life satisfaction. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 2(1), 29-39. doi: 10.1080/17439760601069051
Gadermann, A. M., Guhn, M., & Zumbo, B. D. (2012). Estimating ordinal reliability for Likert-type and ordinal item response data: A conceptual, empirical, and practical guide. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 17(1), 3-13. doi: 10.7275/n560-j767
Gómez-Penedo, J. M., Areas, M. A., Manubens, R., Babl, A. M., Challú, L., Juan, S., … Grosse-Holtforth, M. (2021). Propiedades psicométricas del Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL-11) en Argentina: Un instrumento para monitoreo y feedback en psicoterapia. Revista Evaluar, 21(2), 33-47. doi: 10.35670/1667-4545.v21.n2.34393
Gómez-Penedo, J. M., Babl, A., Krieger, T., Heinonen, E., & Flückiger, C. (2020). Interpersonal agency as predictor of the within-patient alliance effects on depression severity. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 88(4), 338-349. doi: 10.1037/ccp0000475
Gómez-Penedo, J. M., Constantino, M. J., Coyne, A. E., Westra, H. A., & Antony, M. M. (2017). Markers for context-responsiveness: Client baseline interpersonal problems moderate the efficacy of two psychotherapies for generalized anxiety disorder. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 85(10), 1000-1011. doi: 10.1037/ccp0000233
Hammer, J. H. (2016). Percent of Uncontaminated Correlations (PUC) Calculator: A Microsoft Excel-based tool to calculate the PUC statistic. Recuperado de http://drjosephhammer.com
Harrell Jr, F. (2021). Hmisc: Harrell miscellaneous. R package version 4.6-0. Recuperado de https://cran.r-project.org
Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., & Layton, J. B. (2010). Social relationships and mortality risk: A meta-analytic review. PLoS Medicine, 7(7), e1000316. Recuperado de https://journals.plos.org
Horowitz, L. M. (2004). Interpersonal foundations of psychopathology. American Psychological Association. Recuperado de https://www.apa.org
Horowitz, L. M., Alden, L. E., Wiggins, J. S., & Pincus, A. L. (2000). IIP, Inventory of Interpersonal Problems Manual. San Antonio: The Psychological Corporation. Recuperado de https://fetzer.org
Horowitz, L. M., Rosenberg, S. E., Baer, B. A., Ureño, G., & Villaseñor, V. S. (1988). Inventory of Interpersonal Problems: Psychometric properties and clinical applications. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56(6), 885-892. doi: 10.1037//0022-006x.56.6.885
Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8 [Computer software]. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc. Recuperado de https://ssicentral.com
Kiliç, A. F., & Doğan, N. (2021). Comparison of confirmatory factor analysis estimation methods on mixed-format data. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 8(1), 21-37. Recuperado de https://files.eric.ed.gov
Kline, R. (2005). Principles and Practice of Structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
Lambert, M. J., Burlingame, G. M., Umphress, V., Hansen, N. B., Vermeersch, D. A., Clouse, G. C., & Yanchar, S. C. (1996). Reliability and validity of the Outcome Questionnaire. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy: An International Journal of Theory and Practice, 3(4), 249-258. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0879(199612)3:4<249::AID-CPP106>3.0.CO;2-S
Leary, T. (1957). Interpersonal diagnosis of personality; a functional theory and methodology for personality evaluation. Ronald Press.
Li, C. H. (2016). Confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data: Comparing robust maximum likelihood and diagonally weighted least squares. Behavior Research Methods, 48(3), 936-949. doi: 10.3758/s13428-015-0619-7
Lieberman, M. D. (2013). Social: Why our brains are wired to connect. OUP Oxford.
Lo Coco, G., Mannino, G., Salerno, L., Oieni, V., Di Fratello, C., Profita, G., & Gullo, S. (2018). The Italian version of the inventory of interpersonal problems (IIP-32): Psychometric properties and factor structure in clinical and non-clinical groups. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 341. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00341
Luo, X., Nuttall, A. K., Locke, K. D., & Hopwood, C. J. (2018). Dynamic longitudinal relations between binge eating symptoms and severity and style of interpersonal problems. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 127(1), 30-42. doi: 10.1037/abn0000321
Lutz, W., Schwartz, B., Gómez-Penedo, J. M., Boyle, K., & Deisenhofer, A. K. (2020). Working towards the development and implementation of precision mental healthcare: An example. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 47(5), 856-861. doi: 10.1007/s10488-020-01053-y
Maristany, M. (2005). Problemas en las relaciones interpersonales y trastornos de la personalidad. Universidad de Belgrano. Recuperado de http://repositorio.ub.edu.ar
Maristany, M. (2008). Diagnóstico y evaluación de las relaciones interpersonales y sus perturbaciones. Revista Argentina de Clínica Psicológica, 17(1), 19-36. Recuperado de http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=281921796002
McEvoy, P. M., Burgess, M. M., Page, A. C., Nathan, P., & Fursland, A. (2013). Interpersonal problems across anxiety, depression, and eating disorders: A transdiagnostic examination. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 52(2), 129-147. doi: 10.1111/bjc.12005
Mîndrilă, D. (2010). Maximum likelihood (ML) and diagonally weighted least squares (DWLS) estimation procedures: A comparison of estimation bias with ordinal and multivariate non-normal data. International Journal of Digital Society, 1(1), 60-66. Recuperado de https://infonomics-society.org
Newman, M. G., Jacobson, N. C., Erickson, T. M., & Fisher, A. J. (2017). Interpersonal problems predict differential response to cognitive versus behavioral treatment in a randomized controlled trial. Behavior Therapy, 48(1), 56-68. doi: 10.1016/j.beth.2016.05.005
Putnick, D. L., & Bornstein, M. H. (2016). Measurement invariance conventions and reporting: The state of the art and future directions for psychological research. Developmental Review, 41, 71-90. doi: 10.1016/j.dr.2016.06.004
R Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Recuperado de https://www.r-project.org
Rattray, J., & Jones, M. C. (2007). Essential elements of questionnaire design and development. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 16(2), 234-243. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2006.01573.x
Reise, S. P. (2012). The rediscovery of bifactor measurement models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47(5), 667-696. doi: 10.1080/00273171.2012.715555
Revelle, W. R. (2017). psych: Procedures for personality and psychological research. Northwestern University. Recuperado de https://www.scholars.northwestern.edu
Rial-Boubeta, A., Varela-Mallou, J., Abalo-Piñeiro, J., & Levy-Mangin, J. (2006). El análisis factorial confirmatorio. En J. P. Lévy Mangin (Dir.) & J. Varela Mallou (Coord.), Modelización con estructuras de covarianzas en ciencias sociales: temas esenciales, avanzados y aportaciones especiales (pp. 119-154). Netbiblo, S. L.
Rodriguez, A., Reise, S. P., & Haviland, M. G. (2016). Applying bifactor statistical indices in the evaluation of psychological measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 98(3), 223-237. doi: 10.1080/00223891.2015.1089249
Ruiz, M. A., Pincus, A. L., Borkovec, T. D., Echemendia, R. J., Castonguay, L. G., & Ragusea, S. A. (2004). Validity of the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems for predicting treatment outcome: An investigation with the Pennsylvania Practice Research Network. Journal of Personality Assessment, 83(3), 213-222. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa8303_05
Salazar, J., Martí, V., Soriano, S., Beltran, M., & Adam, A. (2010). Validity of the Spanish version of the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems and its use for screening personality disorders in clinical practice. Journal of Personality Disorders, 24(4), 499-515. doi: 10.1521/pedi.2010.24.4.499
Salzer, S., Pincus, A. L., Winkelbach, C., Leichsenring, F., & Leibing, E. (2011). Interpersonal subtypes and change of interpersonal problems in the treatment of patients with generalized anxiety disorder: A pilot study. Psychotherapy, 48(3), 304-310. doi: 10.1037/a0022013
Schumacker, E., & Lomax, G. (2016). A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modelling (4th ed.). Routledge.
Segrin, C. (2001). Interpersonal processes in psychological problems. Guilford Press.
Stiles, T., & Hoglend, P. (1994). IIP-64-C - norsk oversettelse [IIP- 64-C - Norwegian translation].
Sullivan, H. (1955). The interpersonal Theory of Psychiatry. London: Tavistock.
Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53-55. doi: 10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd
Thomas, A., Brähler, E., & Strauß, B. (2011). IIP-32: Entwicklung, validierung und normierung einer kurzform des inventars zur erfassung interpersonaler probleme. Diagnostica, 57(2), 68-83. doi: 10.1026/0012-1924/a000034
Vanheule, S., Desmet, M., & Rosseel, Y. (2006). The factorial structure of the Dutch translation of the inventory of interpersonal problems: a test of the long and short versions. Psychological Assessment, 18(1), 112-117. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.18.1.112
Von Bergen, A., & de la Parra, G. (2002). OQ-45.2, Cuestionario para evaluación de resultados y evolución en psicoterapia: Adaptación, validación e indicaciones para su aplicación e interpretación. Terapia Psicológica, 20(2), 161-176. Recuperado de https://pesquisa.bvsalud.org/portal/resource/pt/lil-389263?lang=es
Wampold, B. E., & Imel, Z. E. (2015). The great psychotherapy debate: The evidence for what makes psychotherapy work. Routledge.
Wilson, E. O. (2012). The social conquest of earth. WW Norton & Company.
Zilcha-Mano, S. (2021). Toward personalized psychotherapy: The importance of the trait-like/state-like distinction for understanding therapeutic change. American Psychologist, 76(3), 516-528. doi: 10.1037/amp0000629
Zilcha-Mano, S., Muran, J. C., Eubanks, C. F., Safran, J. D., & Winston, A. (2018). Not just a non-specific factor: Moderators of the effect of within-and between-clients alliance on outcome in CBT. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 42(2), 146-158. doi: 10.1007/s10608-017-9866-5
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Juan Martín Gómez-Penedo, Javier Fernández-Álvarez, Mariana Maristany, Agustín Freiberg-Hoffmann
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Revista Evaluar aplica la Licencia Internacional de Atribuciones Comunes Creativas (Creative Commons Attribution License, CCAL). Bajo esta licencia, los autores retienen la propiedad de copyright de los artículos pero permiten que, sin que medie permiso de autor o editor, cualquier persona descargue y distribuya los artículos publicados en Evaluar. La única condición es que siempre y en todos los casos se cite a los autores y a la fuente original de publicación (i.e. Evaluar). El envío de artículos a Evaluar y la lectura de los mismos es totalmente gratuito.
