To Study the Reliability and Validity of Defense Style Questionnaire
|Keywords||Defense Style Questionnaire (DSQ) Defense mechanism Reliability Validity|
Objective: To investigate the reliability and validity of the Defense Style Questionnaire degrees. Methods: Defense Style Questionnaire, tests carried out on 100 patients with schizophrenia, 100 neurological patients and 100 normal subjects. Results: (1) a total of 46% of the entries need to be eliminated or modified, mainly concentrated in the middle of the defense mechanism subscale. (2) the Cronbach retest reliability results showed that each subscale were higher than 0.85. (3) Schizophrenia and Neurosis Group immature and intermediate subscale scores significantly higher than the normal group, significantly lower than the normal group mature subscales; schizophrenia group table in the immature and mature component scores significantly higher neurosis group, the intermediate component table There was no significant difference. (4) in most immature defense mechanisms and intermediate defense mechanism, the schizophrenic group scores significantly higher than normal, but no significant differences in the neurosis group. Neurosis Group in the most immature and intermediate defense mechanism, the score was significantly higher than the normal group. Mature defense mechanisms, the schizophrenic group only humorous scores significantly lower than the normal group, the other was no significant difference. Neurosis group was significantly lower than the normal group in three kinds of scores of mature defense mechanisms. (5) the factor structure: 3-factor model of defense mechanisms cumulative variance contribution rate was 44.7% in, all immature defense mechanism and part of the intermediate defense mechanisms (Suppression, avoidance, isolation, homogenization and pseudo-altruistic) load on the first factor, the other intermediate defense mechanism load factor, mature defense mechanism load factor. 49.57% of the total variance cumulative contribution rate of 4 factor model of defense mechanisms. 6 immature defense mechanisms (projection, passive aggression, acting out, complaining, division and somatization) and five intermediate load of defense mechanism (impotence associated with the Almighty, and the same, consumption, exchanges, and the pseudo-altruism) in the first a factor; defense mechanism of the second factor only six intermediate formed (reverse lift, ideal and isolation, denial, and expectations) load; The third factor each including two immature (fantasy and back row) and two intermediate defense mechanism (Suppression and avoidance); fourth factor load by three mature defense mechanisms (sublimation, repression and humor). The five-factor model of the defense mechanisms of the total variance cumulative contribution rate of 54.20 percent, four factor loadings with the 4-factor model, the pseudo-altruism alone load factor of 5. The entry factor analysis did not come in line with the three levels of defense mechanisms by 3-factor model, combined with a defense mechanism 4,5 factor structure, entry 5-factor model, we try to summarize: the first factor named immature defense mechanism release The second factor is the the immature the repressed defense mechanism, The third factor is the intermediate reverse defense mechanism, the fourth factor is the defense mechanism of intermediate release, the fifth factor for mature defense mechanisms. Conclusion: Defense Style Questionnaire (DSQ) has a certain degree of reliability and validity, but there are a lot of issues, including the structural problems of the scale is the most prominent, three-level division of the defense mechanisms of the idea and not a very good overview of the scale, and the other an entry design problems, which are to be further improved.