ArticleResearch in psychotherapy (Milano)2026
Examining the factor structure of the 40-item Defense Style Questionnaire among adults with depression: an individual participant data meta-analysis.
Article in Research in psychotherapy (Milano), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The 40-item Defense Style Questionnaire (DSQ-40) is frequently used to measure defense mechanisms in adults with depression because of its brevity and efficient assessment. However, previous research has yielded inconsistent results concerning its factor structure, with one- (overall defensive functioning), three- (mature, neurotic, immature), and four- (mature, neurotic, immature, image-distorting) factor solutions being reported. Therefore, we examined the DSQ-40's latent structure across different samples. Using multigroup confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), we tested the one-, three-, and four-factor solutions using baseline data from three research projects of psychodynamic psychotherapy for depressed adults (N=667; mean age 33.9; standard deviation [SD]=9.3; 79.0% female). Configural invariance across samples was evaluated, and model fit was compared using multiple fit indices. Across samples, the three- and four-factor models outperformed the one-factor model, with the four-factor model providing the best relative fit; however, it fell short of conventional model fit thresholds. Separate CFAs found the four-factor model showing the best relative fit in two samples, and the three-factor model in one, but all models failed to meet acceptable fit criteria. Several defense mechanisms showed weak standardized loadings, high inter-factor correlations, and cross-loadings. These findings indicate that the DSQ-40 lacks a stable factor structure in adults with depression and raise important questions about the instrument's construct validity, suggesting that its subscale scores cannot be assumed to validly represent the theorized defense categorizations in this population. Further psychometric refinement and evaluation are needed to determine the DSQ-40's suitability for both clinical and research applications.
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.