Assessing self-forgiveness through the Enright Self-Forgiveness Inventory in the Spanish population: a validation study.
ESFI
Spanish
assessment
self-forgiveness
validation
Journal
Frontiers in psychology
ISSN: 1664-1078
Titre abrégé: Front Psychol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101550902
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
received:
04
03
2023
accepted:
31
07
2023
medline:
4
9
2023
pubmed:
4
9
2023
entrez:
4
9
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Self-forgiveness has been a complex construct to define, which has resulted in a shortage of instruments that adequately measure it as a process. In Spain, until now there is only one validated instrument to measure self-forgiveness, for this reason the present study aims to validate the Enright Self-Forgiveness Inventory (ESFI). A sample of 276 people (84 men, 192 women) aged from 18 to 25 years, completed the Enright Self-Forgiveness Inventory (ESFI) after its adaptation to Spanish, as well as the Enright Forgiveness Inventory-30 (EFI-30), the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI), the Short form of Social Desirability Scale (M-C SDS), the Scale of psychological wellbeing (RYFF) and the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale-21 (DASS-21). The Confirmatory Factor Analysis showed a good fit for the original six-factors structure (CFI = 0.93, TLI = 0.92, RMSEA = 0.063). The results showed good psychometric qualities (both validity and reliability) and association between self-forgiveness and social desirability, depression, anxiety, narcissistic traits, and purpose in life as expected theoretically. The ESFI-30 shows good psychometric properties within the Spanish context and is an appropriate instrument for evaluating self-forgiveness for research and clinical intervention.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37663349
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1179826
pmc: PMC10469898
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
1179826Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 Molinero, Kasprzak, Bonete and Gallo-Giunzioni.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Références
J Holist Nurs. 2022 Dec;40(4):336-350
pubmed: 35006022
Psicothema. 2006 Aug;18(3):572-7
pubmed: 17296089
Int J Group Psychother. 2014 Jul;64(3):298-320
pubmed: 24911223
Psychother Res. 2012;22(5):604-20
pubmed: 22691021
Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2011 Jun;37(6):770-83
pubmed: 21558557
J Pers Soc Psychol. 1988 May;54(5):890-902
pubmed: 3379585
J Pers. 2005 Apr;73(2):313-59
pubmed: 15745433
Psicothema. 2013;25(2):151-7
pubmed: 23628527
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Dec 23;18(1):
pubmed: 33374647
J Relig Health. 2018 Apr;57(2):725-737
pubmed: 29426999
J Couns Psychol. 2015 Jul;62(3):521-528
pubmed: 25915466
J Consult Clin Psychol. 2014 Feb;82(1):154-70
pubmed: 24364794
J Behav Med. 2007 Aug;30(4):291-302
pubmed: 17453329
J Consult Psychol. 1960 Aug;24:349-54
pubmed: 13813058
J Palliat Med. 2021 Aug;24(8):1139-1146
pubmed: 33305995
J Couns Psychol. 2015 Apr;62(2):329-35
pubmed: 25867697
Res Psychother. 2021 Mar 30;24(1):500
pubmed: 33937110
J Addict Dis. 2011 Oct;30(4):382-95
pubmed: 22026530
J Couns Psychol. 2015 Apr;62(2):124-36
pubmed: 25621588
Br J Soc Psychol. 2011 Jun;50(Pt 2):354-64
pubmed: 21361984