Date of Award

2025

Document Type

Dissertation

Degree Name

Psychology (Ph.D.)

Department

Psychology

First Advisor

Raymond A. DiGiuseppe

Second Advisor

William F. Chaplin,

Third Advisor

Samuel O. Ortiz

Abstract

The Attitudes and Beliefs Scale 2-Short Form (ABS2-SF) is one of the most widely used measures of irrational and rational beliefs central to Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT). While evidence supports its reliability and validity in English-speaking populations, little is known about its applicability across cultural and linguistic groups. This study investigated the psychometric properties and cultural validity of the Spanish version of the ABS2-SF in a Mexican sample (n = 579) collected from undergraduate students in Tampico, Mexico, and compared them with English-speaking American non-clinical samples (n = 1,167). Using a bifactor multi-group confirmatory factor analysis (MG-CFA), I examined one general factor and eight specific factors reflecting irrational and rational forms of demandingness, frustration intolerance, awfulizing, and self-rating. Results demonstrated good model fit and supported configural, metric, scalar, and strict invariance, providing evidence that the ABS2-SF measures the same constructs across English and Spanish administrations. In addition, item response theory (IRT) analyses were conducted to evaluate the performance of the ABS2-SF at the item level. Differential item functioning (DIF) analyses revealed that all 24 items (12 irrational and 12 rational) displayed statistically significant DIF, indicating meaningful cultural-linguistic differences in endorsement patterns and item precision. Most irrational items were more difficult for U.S. participants to endorse, whereas rational items were generally more difficult for Mexican participants to endorse, with discrimination values typically stronger in the American group. These findings underscore the importance of considering cultural nuance when interpreting ABS2-SF scores and suggest potential item-level biases that require adaptation. Convergent and criterion validity analyses showed that irrational beliefs were consistently and positively associated with emotional distress across both groups, whereas rational beliefs demonstrated cultural variability: moderately protective in the U.S. sample but negligible in the Mexican sample. Together, these results suggest that irrational beliefs function as universal maladaptive processes, while rational beliefs are more culturally contingent. The findings highlight the value of IRT and DIF methods in cross-cultural validation and emphasize the need for culturally sensitive adaptations of REBT assessment tools.

Download

Share

COinS