ArticleClinical neuropsychiatry2023
Is There an All-Embracing "Intolerance to Uncertainty" Construct? French Adaptation and Validation of the Intolerance to Uncertainty Scale-Revised.
Article in Clinical neuropsychiatry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy of cognitive and behavioral therapy (CBT) treatment for individuals living with symptoms associated with environmental factors (SAEF): protocol for a randomized controlled trial.BMC psychology · 2025Article
- Longitudinal multisite study of the chronobiological control of chronic pain: the CircaHealth CircaPain study protocol.BMJ open · 2024Article
- Article Highlights.Clinical neuropsychiatry · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Intolerance to uncertainty is a trait-like disposition largely studied in psychopathology and known to be involved in many psychological disorders. Yet, the very operationalization of this construct has prompted debate in the literature. Three different models have regularly been discussed: a correlated two-factor solution, a bifactorial solution, and a single-factor structure. A growing body of evidence suggests that the bifactorial model represents the adequate factorial solution; however, its validity has never been tested in a large French-speaking sample. Moreover, uncertainty remains regarding the associations between IUS-R and other psychological constructs, especially stress and depression. This project was designed to overcome these limitations. Method: To do so, we translated the scale into French and tested (n = 728) via confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) whether the French version would better fit with a bifactorial-, correlated, or single-factor structure, as implied by previous works. We also examined the internal reliability of the IUS-R, as well as its associations with concurrent measures of stress, depression, anxiety, and worry. Results: The results pointed to a bifactorial structure as the best-fitting model and provided evidence for a strong general intolerance of uncertainty factor that was more reliable and accounted for significantly more common variance than each subscale factor individually. Conclusions: We discuss how this bifactorial structure impacts the conceptualization of IU.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.