Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Elias LR
dc.contributor.author Kohler CA
dc.contributor.author Stubbs B
dc.contributor.author Maciel BR
dc.contributor.author Cavalcante LM
dc.contributor.author Vale AM
dc.contributor.author Gonda, Xénia
dc.contributor.author Quevedo J
dc.contributor.author Hyphantis TN
dc.contributor.author Soares JC
dc.contributor.author Vieta E
dc.contributor.author Carvalho AF
dc.date.accessioned 2018-10-05T08:33:21Z
dc.date.available 2018-10-05T08:33:21Z
dc.date.issued 2017
dc.identifier 85010297385
dc.identifier.citation pagination=25-37; journalVolume=212; journalTitle=JOURNAL OF AFFECTIVE DISORDERS;
dc.identifier.uri http://repo.lib.semmelweis.hu//handle/123456789/5105
dc.identifier.uri doi:10.1016/j.jad.2017.01.023
dc.description.abstract BACKGROUND: The assessment of affective temperaments has provided useful insights for the psychopathological understanding of affective disorders and for the conceptualization of bipolar spectrum disorders. The Temperament in Memphis Pisa and San Diego (TEMPS) instrument has been widely used in research, yet its psychometric properties and optimal factor structure are unclear. METHODS: The PubMed/MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and EMBASE electronic databases were searched from inception until March 15th, 2016. Validation peer-reviewed studies of different versions of the TEMPS performed in adult samples were considered for inclusion. RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies (N=20,787) met inclusion criteria. Several versions of the TEMPS have been validated in 14 languages across 15 countries. The 110-item self-reported version of the TEMPS has been the most studied version. Most studies (50%) supported a five factor solution although few studies performed confirmatory factor analyses. A five-factor solution has consistently been reported for the 39-item version of the TEMPS-A. Overall, evidence indicates that different versions of the TEMPS have adequate internal consistency reliability, while the TEMPS-A-110 version has acceptable test-retest reliability. The methodological quality of included studies varied. LIMITATIONS: A meta-analysis could not be performed due to the heterogeneity of settings and versions of the TEMPS utilized. CONCLUSIONS: Different versions of the TEMPS have been validated across different cultures. The short 39-item version of the TEMPS-A holds promise and merits further investigation. Culture-bound factors may influence the expression and/or assessment of affective temperaments with the TEMPS.
dc.relation.ispartof urn:issn:0165-0327
dc.title Measuring affective temperaments: a systematic review of validation studies of the Temperament Evaluation in Memphis Pisa and San Diego (TEMPS) instruments.
dc.type Journal Article
dc.date.updated 2018-03-12T12:44:18Z
dc.language.rfc3066 en
dc.identifier.mtmt 3182420
dc.identifier.pubmed 28135688
dc.contributor.department SE/GYTK/Gyógyszerhatástani Intézet
dc.contributor.department SE/AOK/K/Pszichiátriai és Pszichoterápiás Klinika
dc.contributor.institution Semmelweis Egyetem


Files in this item

xmlui.dri2xhtml.METS-1.0.onlyFromAllowedIP

View/Open

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search DSpace


Advanced Search

Browse

My Account