Validity and Reliability of the Dutch version of the Affective Control Scale

• Bifactor model without reverse-scored items best fits Dutch version of the ACS. • General fear factor aligns with anxiety and depression measures. • Specific fear factors show limited unique variance and convergent validity. • We recommend the simplified 30-item ACS focusing on general fear of emotions. The Affective Control Scale (ACS) is a widely-used instrument for evaluating the fear of losing control over emotions, a key factor implicated in anxiety and depressive disorders. However, despite its widespread use, substantial inconsistencies have raised questions about the scale's reliability and validity. This study aimed to assess the factor structure of the Affective Control Scale (ACS) using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in two Dutch-speaking samples (n 1 = 250, n 2 = 325). Various factor structures, as previously proposed in the literature, were examined. Convergent validity was assessed by correlating the resulting factors with concurrent measures of anxiety and depression. In both samples, a bifactor model excluding reverse-scored items demonstrated the best overall fit. However, despite showing high reliabilities, the specific factors exhibited low attributable score variance. Furthermore, the convergent validity assessment revealed poor associations between these specific factors and measures of anxiety and depression. The study's generalizability is limited due to the predominantly female samples. Additionally, the complexities of bifactor models may lead to overfitting of the data. We conclude that a bifactor model excluding all reverse-scored items offers the most robust fit. Nevertheless, while the ACS is effective in measuring general fear of emotions, its ability to assess specific emotional fears is limited. Clinically, these findings underscore the importance of focusing on the overall fear of emotions rather than its specific components. Therefore, we recommend the use of a simplified, 30-item version of the ACS that assesses general fear of emotions.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Affective Disorders Reports
Published
2025-04-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadr.2025.100910
Primary Topic
Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Validity and Reliability of the Dutch version of the Affective Control Scale

Hendrik-Jan De Vuyst, Filip Raes, Eline Belmans, James William Griffith
1 links
Journal of Affective Disorders Reports
Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
article

Validity and Reliability of the Dutch version of the Affective Control Scale

Hendrik-Jan De Vuyst, Filip Raes, Eline Belmans, James William Griffith
article en

Abstract

• Bifactor model without reverse-scored items best fits Dutch version of the ACS. • General fear factor aligns with anxiety and depression measures. • Specific fear factors show limited unique variance and convergent validity. • We recommend the simplified 30-item ACS focusing on general fear of emotions. The Affective Control Scale (ACS) is a widely-used instrument for evaluating the fear of losing control over emotions, a key factor implicated in anxiety and depressive disorders. However, despite its widespread use, substantial inconsistencies have raised questions about the scale's reliability and validity. This study aimed to assess the factor structure of the Affective Control Scale (ACS) using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in two Dutch-speaking samples (n 1 = 250, n 2 = 325). Various factor structures, as previously proposed in the literature, were examined. Convergent validity was assessed by correlating the resulting factors with concurrent measures of anxiety and depression. In both samples, a bifactor model excluding reverse-scored items demonstrated the best overall fit. However, despite showing high reliabilities, the specific factors exhibited low attributable score variance. Furthermore, the convergent validity assessment revealed poor associations between these specific factors and measures of anxiety and depression. The study's generalizability is limited due to the predominantly female samples. Additionally, the complexities of bifactor models may lead to overfitting of the data. We conclude that a bifactor model excluding all reverse-scored items offers the most robust fit. Nevertheless, while the ACS is effective in measuring general fear of emotions, its ability to assess specific emotional fears is limited. Clinically, these findings underscore the importance of focusing on the overall fear of emotions rather than its specific components. Therefore, we recommend the use of a simplified, 30-item version of the ACS that assesses general fear of emotions.

Journal of Affective Disorders ReportsVol. 20
Northwestern University (US), KU Leuven (BE)
Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
Openalex Percentile: Top 89%
Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.