Skip to main content
Download PDF

Validation of the Arabic version of the 35-item TEMPS-M in a community sample of adults

BMC Psychology volume 11, Article number: 28 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

To our knowledge, no brief version of the Temperament Evaluation in Memphis Pisa and San Diego (TEMPS-M) is available so far in the Arabic language, which might have resulted in limited research in this field from Arab countries. We aimed through this study to validate the 35-item TEMPS-M into the Arabic language in a sample of non-clinical Lebanese adults.

Methods

We used an online cross-sectional survey targeting non-clinical Lebanese adults from the general population. A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to test the factorial structure of the TEMPS-M.

Results

All five temperament subscales achieved good/very good internal consistencies in the present study (depressive: α = 0.78, cyclothymic: α = 0.86, hyperthymic: α = 0.83, irritable: α = 0.87, and anxious: α = 0.87). The five-factor solution of the TEMPS-M displayed a good CFI of 0.94, TLI of .94 and a GFI of .95, but a poor RMSEA of .10 [90% CI .10, .11]. The five affective temperaments showed positive correlations with personality dysfunction domains, thus attesting for convergent validity. In addition, positive correlations between all affective temperament dimensions and anxiety/depression scores were found. We also tested for gender invariance, and found that configural, metric, and scalar invariance were supported across gender.

Conclusion

Our data suggest that the psychometric properties of the Arabic TEMPS-M are good. Making this scale available in Arabic will hopefully encourage Arab researchers to investigate this under-explored topic in their countries, and advance knowledge on how culture impacts the prevalence, development and course of temperament.

Peer Review reports

Background

Temperament represents a biological, genetically inherited and stable core of the personality that does not change throughout life; temperament helps in identifying a person’s basic level of reactivity, mood, and energy [1]. At first, Hippocrates and Aristotle introduced the human personality as a mix of temperamental categories; they believed that temperament represents a constitutional form of emotional reactivity [2]. After that, Kraepelin developed a theory consisting of 4 types of temperament (i.e. manic, depressive, cyclothymic and irritable), defined as the subclinical forms of affective disorders [3]. In 1958, Kurt Schneider provided excellent descriptions of the Kraepelinian theory and changed the term “manic” to “hyperthymic” [4].

Hans Eysenck [5, 6], Jerome Kagan [7, 8], Robert Cloninger [9, 10], and Hagop Akiskal [11, 12] all developed empirical theories of temperament and character traits and dimensions. Hans Eysenck (1916–1997) was the first to analyze personality differences using an empirical/statistical method. He proposed that the basic factors were Neuroticism (tendency to experience negative emotions), Extraversion (tendency to enjoy positive events) and Psychotisism (cognitive style). Eysenck’s theory and all the theories that derived from it, concern approach/reward, inhibition/punishment, and aggression/flight.

By adapting Schneider classic description combined with Kraepelin theory, Akiskal and his colleagues [12] were the first to develop a measurement tool called the TEMPS-I (The Temperament Evaluation of Memphis, Pisa, Paris and San Diego), consisting of a semi-structured interview and used to evaluate temperament traits. In 2005 and out of TEMPS-I, Akiksal and his colleagues [11, 13], developed TEMPS-A (Temperament Evaluation of Memphis, Pisa, Paris and San Diego Auto-questionnaire), but this version was a self-reported tool containing 110 items assessing the 5 temperament categories: depressive, cyclothymic, hyperthymic, irritable and anxious temperaments. Depressive temperament is when people tend to be self-denying and dedicate themselves to others. These people feel most satisfied when they are confronting to social norms [14]. They are usually the most vulnerable to clinical depression [15]. On the other hand, hyperthymic temperament is characterized by being extra confident, extra energetic, overoptimistic and in general having leadership traits [16] Irritable temperament comes as a subtype of cyclothymic temperament and is characterized by being more critical, dissatisfied, angry and complaining [17].Finally, anxious temperament is characterized by a fearful and exaggerated worrying [13].

This long version (TEMPS-A) was translated and validated in approximately 25 different languages i.e. Chinese [18], Italian [19], Serbian [20], Japanese [21], Hungarian [22], Polish [23], Turkish [24], French [25], and Arabic [26].

Although being psychometrically robust and the most widely used measure of affective temperaments, and despite its valuable contribution to our understanding of temperament structure and dynamics, this 110-item scale may impose a burden on respondents and be of limited clinical and research utility due to its length. Indeed, there is evidence that excessively long scales affect data quality [27], and often lead to les time spent answering each question, and less willingness to complete all questions [28]. Therefore, being too long and time-consuming makes the TEMPS-A not suitable for quick assessments and monitoring in clinical practice, or inclusion in large questionnaires with other measures for research purposes.

In order to address these gaps, shortened versions of the TEMPS-A have been developed, validated, and adapted for use in specific countries and cultures, such as the Portuguese version of the 45-item TEMPS-Rio de Janeiro [29], the TEMPS-A-39 (English [13], Italian [19], and Chinese [30] versions), and the TEMPS-M-35 (Münster-German cl [31]) and Austrian [32] versions). Besides being shorter, easier to use and more convenient for participants, the latter version (i.e., TEMPS-M) brings another important improvement relative to the original version which is the change in scoring format (from dichotomous yes/no responses to a five-point Likert scale) [31]. This change is likely to ameliorate the scale utility, enabling a multidimensional examination of the temperament construct [33].

However, to our knowledge, no brief version of the TEMPS is available so far in the Arabic language. This might have resulted in limited research in this field from Arab countries; we could find only a few studies conducted on this topic, mainly in Lebanon [34,35,36,37,38] and Tunisia [39,40,41,42]. Hence, the strong need for a psychometrically valid short version for Arabic-speaking populations. Adding to this idea, we decided to validate the TEMPS-M-35 rather than the 39 and 45-item as longer scales with more items imply higher cost of public health surveying [43]. Thus, using the shortest version would allow for a faster, easier to perform, more convenient, and lower cost assessing of temperaments in Arab settings. We believe that validating the 35-item TEMPS-M into the Arabic language would allow not only avoidance of unnecessary time and efforts on Arabic-speaking respondents, but also reduction of costs to clinicians and researchers from the Arab developing (lower-middle income) countries; while retaining the validity and reliability of the Arabic TEMPS-A. We therefore performed this research work to validate the TEMPS-M in a community‐derived sample of nonclinical Lebanese adults. Our main objectives were to (1) evaluate the reliability, convergent validity (as tested by correlating temperament dimensions with personality traits) of the Arabic 35-item TEMPS-M, and (2) examine the internal structure and measurement invariance by gender using confirmatory factor analysis.

Methods

Procedure and participants

Lebanese participants were recruited via a snowball technique, using a link created on Google forms. The research team approached participants they know at first, who were solicited to send the link to other family members and friends. Inclusion criteria for study participation were (a) being 18 years of age and above, (b) to have a minimal level of literacy (to read Arabic and write). Subjects participated voluntarily and provided informed consent prior to data collection (via button click to the first question in the online survey). There was no compensation in return for participation.

Minimum sample size

A previous study suggested that the minimum sample size to conduct a confirmatory factor analysis ranges from 3 to 20 times the number of the scale’s variables [44]. Therefore, we assumed a minimum sample of 350 participants needed to have enough statistical power based on a ratio of 10 participants per one item of the scale.

Measures

Temperament Affective temperament traits were assessed using the Arabic version [31] of the Temperament Evaluation of Memphis, Pisa, Paris, and San Diego (TEMPS). It included 35 items, scored on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much). The 35 self-rating items can be assigned to five subscales: depressive (i.e. tending towards rigid thinking, self-accusation, and shyness), cyclothymic (i.e. being moody and changeable, tending towards superficial thinking and intense emotion), hyperthymic (i.e. being strongly extroverted and expansive), irritable (i.e. showing higher energy and anger, but on the other hand a lower level of empathy, and dissatisfaction), and anxious (i.e. tending towards worry, ruminate, and continuous tension). Subscale scores range from 5 to 35, with higher scores denoting higher expressions of the temperament.

Personality inventory for DSM-5—Brief Form (PID-5-BF) This scale is composed of 25 items, rated on a scale from 0 (very false or often false) to 3 (very true or often true) [45]. Five scores derive from this scale as follows: negative affect (α = 0.68), detachment (α = 0.70), antagonism (α = 0.71), disinhibition (α = 0.80) and psychoticism (α = 0.70). Higher scores indicate greater personality dysfunction in each domain.

Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale Validated in Lebanon [46] this scale is composed of 14 items, rated on a five-point Likert scale. Higher scores reflect higher anxiety (α = 0.93).

Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. Validated in Lebanon [47], this scale is composed of 17 items, with higher scores reflect higher depression (α = 0.88).

Sociodemographics The survey was complemented by the collection of the participant’s age (years), gender (male, female), marital status (married, not married), and educational level.

Translation procedure

The scales (TEMPS and PID-5-BF) were first translated from English to Arabic by one psychologist familiar with the scales’ concepts. Her mother tongue was Arabic and fluent in English. The Arabic version was verified by a linguistic professional. A committee composed of the research team, one psychiatrist, one psychologist and the translator verified the conceptual equivalence of the Arabic version [ref]. The Arabic version of the scales was back translated to English by another psychologist, fluent in both English and Arabic as well. The committee members compared both English versions to discern any discrepancies; all procedures were done according to the international recommendations of forward-back translation [48]. A pilot test was done on thirty participants enrolled through convenient sampling to ensure that all questions were well understood. The responses collected during the pilot test were not included in the final database.

Statistical analysis

A five-factor confirmatory analysis was conducted to test the factorial structure of the TEMPS. We used Weighted Least Squares with Mean and Variance (WLSMV) estimation method which is more appropriate for ordinal data. Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted in RStudio (Version 1.4.1103 for Macintosh), using the Lavaan and semTools packages. In fact, values greater than 0.90 and 0.95 for the CFI and TLI, values closer to 1.00 for the GFI indicate a better model fit [49, 50]. However, values for the RMSEA are expected to be at or below 0.08 to represent a good model fit [49, 50].

To examine gender invariance of the TEMPS-M scores, we conducted multi-group CFA [51]. Measurement invariance was assessed at the configural, metric, and scalar levels [52]. Following the recommendations of Cheung and Rensvold (2002) and Chen (2007), we accepted ΔCFI ≤ 0.010 and ΔRMSEA ≤ 0.015 or ΔSRMR ≤ 0.010 (0.030 for factorial invariance) as evidence of invariance. We aimed to test for gender differences on latent FAS scores using an independent-samples t-test only if scalar or partial scalar invariance were established.

Missing data constituted less than 5%, thus, was not replaced. To assess reliability, Cronbach’s α values were computed for each subscale and scale. Cronbach’s α values of ≥ 0.70 were considered acceptable. Finally, we examined the skewness and kurtosis values for the temperament subscales scores, which were within defined range (skewness and kurtosis between − 1 and + 1; [53]). Therefore, the sample was considered normally distributed. Consequently, Pearson correlation test was used to test the convergent validity and correlations of the TEMPS-M subscales and the other scales. The latter analysis was done using SPSS software v.22.

Results

Characteristics of the sample

Data was collected from 387 subjects from Lebanon (209 women, mean agetotal sample = 35.39 years, SD = 14.21); 180 (46.5%) were married and 191 (53.2%) had a university level of education (Table 1).

Table 1 Characteristics of the participants (N = 387)
Full size table

Confirmatory factor analysis

The five-factor solution of the TEMPS displayed a significant CFI of 0.94, TLI of 0.94 and a GFI of 0.95, but a poor RMSEA of 0.10 [90% CI 0.10, 0.11].

To improve this original model, which yielded relatively inadequate fit, we examined the modification index (MI) as recommended [54]. More specifically, the MI provide an estimate increase in the chi-square for each parameter if it were to be freed [55].

In the current study, the MI outlined a strong positive covariance (i.e., of 0.94) between items 34 and 35. Accordingly, a modified model considering this covariance was created. Firstly, compared the original model, the modified version demonstrated a lower chi-square (i.e., χ2 = 3078.348. and χ2 = 1369.111, respectively, with all p < 0.0001). As noted in previous studies [56] a low chi-square value relative to the degrees of freedom indicates a good model fit. Moreover, the second model demonstrated a significant CFI of 0.94, a TLI of 0.94, a GFI of 0.94 and a significantly decreased RMSEA of 0.06 [90% CI of RMSEA (0.058, 0.066)]. Standardized factor loadings and correlations between latent variables for five-factor model of the TEMPS can be found in Fig. 1. All five subscales achieved very good or good internal consistencies in the present study (depressive 0.78, cyclothymic 0.86, hyperthymic 0.83, irritable 0.87, and anxious 0.87).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Standardized factor loadings and correlations between latent variables for five-factor model of the TEMPS (p < 0.001 for all loading factors). F1 = depressive, F2 = cyclothymic, F3 = hyperthymic, F4 = irritable, F5 = anxious

Full size image

Measurement invariance between males and females

Next, we tested for gender invariance of the five-factor structure of the TEMPS-M scale. All indices suggested that configural, metric, and scalar invariance were supported across gender (Table 2). Consequently, we compared the temperament scores between genders using the Student t test. Men (M = 17.33, SD = 6.37) had significantly higher irritable temperament scores than women (M = 15.60, SD = 5.83), t(379) = 2.754, p = 0.006, d = 0.283. No significant difference was found between sexes for the other temperaments (Table 3). Older age was significantly associated with lower depressive (r = − 0.12; p = 0.019), cyclothymic (r = − 0.17; p = 0.001) and irritable (r = − 0.20; p < 0.001) temperaments, but was not associated with hyperthymic (r = − 0.04; p = 0.447) and anxious (r = − 0.03; p = 0.544) temperaments.

Table 2 Measurement invariance across sexes
Full size table
Table 3 Comparison of temperament scores between sexes
Full size table

Convergent validity and other correlations

Higher depressive, cyclothymic, irritable and anxious temperaments were significantly associated with more negative affect, detachment, antagonism, disinhibition and psychoticism. Moreover, all temperament dimensions were significantly associated with higher depression and anxiety scores. Finally, older age was significantly associated with lower depressive, cyclothymic and irritable temperaments (Table 4).

Table 4 Correlation of temperaments with other continuous variables
Full size table

Discussion

The research aim of this study was to examine the psychometric properties of the Arabic version of 35-item TEMPS-M in a Lebanese community sample. We found that the Arabic TEMPS-M revealed good reliability (internal consistency). The five-factor model demonstrated adequate goodness of fit index. The factor structure between men and women was consistent, which maintained the stability of the factor covariance. In addition, evidence was provided for the convergent validity of the scale. We thus provide a shorter and still psychometrically robust scale to measure affective temperaments in Arab-speaking non-clinical populations. Making this scale available in the Arabic language will hopefully encourage Arab researchers to investigate this under-explored topic in their countries, and advance knowledge on how culture impacts the prevalence, development and course of temperament [57].

The validation of shorter versions of a psychological measure may reduce administration effort and time and enhance quality of responses; but it is not always beneficial if the measure does not preserve its validity, reliability, and factor structure [58]. The present study demonstrated that the internal consistency of the scale was good on the subscale level (Cronbach's α coefficients ranging from 0.78 to 0.87). In addition, while some of the previous validation works failed to maintain consistency with the original TEMPS-A factor structure [57], the exploratory factor analysis performed in our study showed that the 35-item version of the scale retained the five-factor structure of the original English version (depressive, cyclothymic, hyperthymic, irritable, anxious). These psychometric characteristics are similar to the Arabic TEMPS-A that have also been validated in a Lebanese population (five factors, alpha values per factor ranging from 0.76 to 0.88) [26]; and plead in favor of the validity of the Arabic TEMPS-M.

Convergent validity refers to whether a measured variable correlates with other measures of the same construct [59]. In the present study, the convergent validity of the Arabic TEMPS-M was tested in comparison to the five domains of personality dysfunction (i.e., Negative affect, Detachment, Antagonism, Disinhibition, Psychoticism); given that personality dimensions have been demonstrated to putatively overlap with temperament [60,61,62]. Our analyses showed positive correlations between depressive, cyclothymic, irritable, anxious temperaments and five maladaptive personality traits (negative affect, detachment, antagonism, disinhibition and psychoticism). Similar patterns of correlations have been previously noted in the previous studies [2, 60, 63]. For instance, the depressive temperament dimension was significantly related to dependent and avoidant personality traits [64, 65]. People with cyclothymic temperament has consistently been found to correlate with or borderline, histrionic and antisocial personality profiles [66,67,68,69]. These findings suggest temperamental origins of key personality constructs. Indeed, affective temperaments overlap with personality dimensions, and have even been suggested to differentiate into personality traits through gene-environment developmental processes [70]. Childhood temperament has also shown to provide predictive validity for later adulthood personality [71].

The five affective temperaments showed positive correlation with anxiety and depressions scores, highlighting certain temperament profiles as possible correlates for psychopathology symptoms [72]. Consistently, some evidence suggests a potential overlap between temperament and the development of psychopathology symptoms (e.g., [73, 74]). Temperamental characteristics were found to uniquely predict subsequent higher symptom levels for depression and anxiety [75].

Multi-group confirmatory factor analysis supported measurement invariance of the Arabic TEMPS-M between genders. Comparisons indicated higher irritable temperament scores in male participants compared to females. Previous research reported mixed results related to gender. Some studies documented gender effect for the cyclothymic, depressive, anxious and hyperthymic temperaments [76, 77], but not for the irritable temperament [31]. Other studies found, however, that females exhibited more depressive, anxious, cyclothymic [33], and less hyperthymic temperaments [78] than males. No studies explained exactly the underlying mechanisms of these differences, but it might mainly be due to complex factors such as sex-dependent neurobiology and genetic, hormonal and immune functions, as well as sex-environment interactions [79]. Other authors observed gender differences across cultures in temperament traits [80], which may explain our controversial findings and call for additional cross-cultural research. More specifically, in traditional cultures, perceived differences between men and women in general might be attributed to role requirements rather than to intrinsic differences in personality traits and temperaments. Thus, real differences in behavior might be seen everywhere, but would be attributed to roles rather than traits in traditional cultures (e.g. in individualistic, egalitarian countries, an act of kindness by a woman may be perceived as a free choice that must reflect on her personality. The same act by a woman in a collectivistic, traditional country might be dismissed as mere compliance with sex role norms).

Limitations and future research directions

Certain limitations need to be considered when interpreting the current findings. Participants were recruited entirely online, with an overrepresentation of females and highly educated respondents; which may be source of selection bias. Also, individuals who do not have access to the Internet would have scored differently on the scales assessing temperament and psychopathology. No information regarding the history of mental disorders in participants was collected. The cross-sectional design limits the possibility of clarifying causality. Non-clinical community participants were only recruited to this study, limiting to some extent any generalization of our conclusions to clinical populations. Future studies need to validate the Arabic TEMPS-M in Arab-speaking patients with bipolar spectrum disorders (e.g., cyclothymic and/or bipolar disorder). Fourth, temperament profiles have proven to be shaped by cultural groups' norms, dynamics and practices, differing thus substantially across countries and cultural backgrounds [80]. However, we have only involved Lebanese participants in this validation work. Further research need to include participants from other Arab countries to test the validity of the scale across cultures and assess other psychometric properties of the scale (e.g., test–retest reliability, divergent validity).

Conclusion

Our data suggest that the psychometric properties of the Arabic 35-item TEMPS-M are good, and preliminarily indicate that it can be used to evaluate affective temperament in a reliable manner in Arab speaking-populations. Given its relative shortness, the TEMPS-M is quicker, easier-to-use and less costly than the former Arabic version (i.e., the Arabic TEMPS-A), and can thus be included in any battery of assessments examining temperament for diagnosis or research use. However, we are aware that the Arabic TEMPS-M still requires further validation in clinical settings and adaptation in other Arab countries and cultural contexts to confirm its psychometric robustness.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analyzed during this study are not publicly available due to restrictions imposed by the ethics committee. The dataset supporting the conclusions is available upon request to the corresponding author (SH).

References

  1. Kagan J. Galen’s prophecy: temperament in human nature. Boulder: Westview Press; 1994. p. 376.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Akiskal HS, Akiskal KK. In search of Aristotle: temperament, human nature, melancholia, creativity and eminence. J Affect Disord. 2007;100(1–3):1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Psychiatrie KE. Ein Lehrbuch für Studierende und Ärzte. Leipzig: J.A. Barth; 1913.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Schneider K. Psychopathic personalities [Internet]. Springfield, Ill.: C.C. Thomas; 1958 [cited 2022 Jun 10]. Available from: http://books.google.com/books?id=miZsAAAAMAAJ

  5. Eysenck HJ, Eysenck SBG. A factorial study of an interview-questionnaire. J Clin Psychol. 1962;18(3):286–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Eysenck SBG, Adelaja O, Eysenck HJ. A comparative study of personality in Nigerian and English subjects. J Soc Psychol. 1977;102(2):171–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Kagan J, Reznick JS, Gibbons J. Inhibited and uninhibited types of children. Child Dev. 1989;60(4):838–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Kagan J, Snidman N, Kahn V, Towsley S. The preservation of two infant temperaments into adolescence. Monogr Soc Res Child Dev. 2007;72(2):1–75, vii; discussion 76–91.

  9. Cloninger CR. A systematic method for clinical description and classification of personality variants: a proposal. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1987;44(6):573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Constantino JN, Cloninger CR, Clarke AR, Hashemi B, Przybeck T. Application of the seven-factor model of personality to early childhood. Psychiatry Res. 2002;109(3):229–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Akiskal HS, Akiskal KK, Haykal RF, Manning JS, Connor PD. TEMPS-A: progress towards validation of a self-rated clinical version of the temperament evaluation of the Memphis, Pisa, Paris, and San Diego autoquestionnaire. J Affect Disord. 2005;85(1–2):3–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Akiskal HS, Placidi GF, Maremmani I, Signoretta S, Liguori A, Gervasi R, Mallya G, Puzantian VR. TEMPS-I: delineating the most discriminant traits of the cyclothymic, depressive, hyperthymic and irritable temperaments in a nonpatient population. J Affect Disord. 1998;51(1):7–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Akiskal HS, Mendlowicz MV, Jean-Louis G, Rapaport MH, Kelsoe JR, Gillin JC, Smith TL. TEMPS-A: validation of a short version of a self-rated instrument designed to measure variations in temperament. J Affect Disord. 2005;85(1–2):45–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Ueki H, Holzapfel C, Sakado K, Washino K, Inoue M, Ogawa N. Dimension of typus melancholicus on Kasahara’s inventory for the melancholic type personality. Psychopathology. 2004;37(2):53–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Akiskal KK, Akiskal HS. The theoretical underpinnings of affective temperaments: implications for evolutionary foundations of bipolar disorder and human nature. J Affect Disord. 2005;85(1–2):231–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Akiskal HS, Akiskal K. Cyclothymic, hyperthymic, and depressive temperaments as subaffective variants of mood disorders. Am Psychiatr Press Rev Psychiatry. 1992;11:43–62.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Akiskal HS. The bipolar spectrum in psychiatric and general medical practice. Prim Psychiatry. 2004;1(11):30–5.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Lin K, Xu G, Miao G, Ning Y, Ouyang H, Chen X, Hoang N, Akiskal KK, Akiskal HS. Psychometric properties of the Chinese (Mandarin) TEMPS-A: a population study of 985 non-clinical subjects in China. J Affect Disord. 2013;147(1–3):29–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Preti A, Vellante M, Zucca G, Tondo L, Akiskal K, Akiskal H. The Italian version of the validated short TEMPS-A: the temperament evaluation of Memphis, Pisa, Paris and San Diego. J Affect Disord. 2010;120(1–3):207–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hinić D, Akiskal SH, Akiskal KK, Jović J, Ignjatović RD. Validation of the Temps-A in university student population in Serbia. J Affect Disord. 2013;149(1–3):146–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Matsumoto S, Akiyama T, Tsuda H, Miyake Y, Kawamura Y, Noda T, Akiskal KK, Akiskal HS. Reliability and validity of TEMPS-A in a Japanese non-clinical population: application to unipolar and bipolar depressives. J Affect Disord. 2005;85(1–2):85–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Rózsa S, Rihmer Z, Gonda X, Szili I, Rihmer A, Kő N, Németh A, Pestality P, Bagdy G, Alhassoon O, Akiskal KK, Akiskal HS. A study of affective temperaments in Hungary: internal consistency and concurrent validity of the TEMPS-A against the TCI and NEO-PI-R. J Affect Disord. 2008;106(1–2):45–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Borkowska A, Rybakowski JK, Drozdz W, Bielinski M, Kosmowska M, Rajewska-Rager A, Bucinski A, Akiskal KK, Akiskal HS. Polish validation of the TEMPS-A: the profile of affective temperaments in a college student population. J Affect Disord. 2010;123(1/3):36–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Vahip S, Kesebir S, Alkan M, Yazıcı O, Akiskal KK, Akiskal HS. Affective temperaments in clinically-well subjects in Turkey: initial psychometric data on the TEMPS-A. J Affect Disord. 2005;85(1–2):113–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Krebs MO, Kazes M, Olié JP, Loo H, Akiskal K, Akiskal H. The French version of the validated short TEMPS-A: the temperament evaluation of Memphis, Pisa, Paris and San Diego. J Affect Disord. 2006;96(3):271–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Karam EG, Mneimneh Z, Salamoun M, Akiskal KK, Akiskal HS. Psychometric properties of the Lebanese-Arabic TEMPS-A: a national epidemiologic study. J Affect Disord. 2005;87(2–3):169–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Galesic M, Bosnjak M. Effects of questionnaire length on participation and indicators of response quality in a web survey. Public Opin Q. 2009;73(2):349–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Roszkowski MJ, Bean AG. Believe it or not! longer questionnaires have lower response rates. J Bus Psychol. 1990;4(4):495–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Woodruff E, Genaro LT, Landeira-Fernandez J, Cheniaux E, Laks J, Jean-Louis G, Nardi AE, Versiani MC, Akiskal HS, Mendlowicz MV. Validation of the Brazilian brief version of the temperament auto-questionnaire TEMPS-A: the brief TEMPS-Rio de Janeiro. J Affect Disord. 2011;134(1–3):65–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Yuan C, Huang J, Gao K, Wu Z, Chen J, Wang Y, Hong W, Yi Z, Hu Y, Cao L, Li Z, Akiskal KK, Akiskal HS, Wang B, Fang Y. Validation of the Chinese version of the short TEMPS-A and its application in patients with mood disorders. J Affect Disord. 2015;170:178–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Erfurth A, Gerlach AL, Hellweg I, Boenigk I, Michael N, Akiskal HS. Studies on a German (Münster) version of the temperament auto-questionnaire TEMPS-A: construction and validation of the briefTEMPS-M. J Affect Disord. 2005;85(1–2):53–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Naderer A, Keller F, Plener P, Unseld M, Lesch OM, Walter H, Erfurth A, Kapusta ND. The brief TEMPS-M temperament questionnaire: a psychometric evaluation in an Austrian sample. J Affect Disord. 2015;1(188):43–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Fico G, Luciano M, Sampogna G, Zinno F, Steardo L, Perugi G, Pompili M, Tortorella A, Volpe U, Fiorillo A, Maj M. Validation of the brief TEMPS-M temperament questionnaire in a clinical Italian sample of bipolar and cyclothymic patients. J Affect Disord. 2020;260:458–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Karam EG, Salamoun MM, Yeretzian JS, Mneimneh ZN, Karam AN, Fayyad J, Hantouche E, Akiskal K, Akiskal HS. The role of anxious and hyperthymic temperaments in mental disorders: a national epidemiologic study. World Psychiatry. 2010;9(2):103–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Yehya Y, Haddad C, Obeid S, Tahan F, Nabout R, Hallit S, Kazour F. Affective temperaments in Lebanese people with substance use disorder. Perspect Psychiatr Care. 2019;55(3):478–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Zeidan J, Hallit S, Akel M, Louragli I, Obeid S. Problematic smartphone use and affective temperaments among Lebanese young adults: scale validation and mediating role of self-esteem. BMC Psychol. 2021;9(1):136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Rahme C, Hallit R, Akel M, Chalhoub C, Hachem M, Hallit S, Obeid S. Nomophobia and temperaments in Lebanon: results of a national study. Perspect Psychiatr Care. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1111/ppc.12968.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Obeid S, Awad E, Wachten H, et al. Temperaments and orthorexia nervosa: a cross-cultural study between Germany and Lebanon. Curr Psychol. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03467-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Chebbi W, Khalfaoui S, Gassab L, Mechri A. Assessment of affective temperaments in a Tunisian non-clinical population. Tunis Med. 2019;97(11):1277–83.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Feki I, Sellami R, Chouayakh S. Eating disorders and cyclothymic temperament: a cross-sectional study on Tunisian students. Bipolar Disord [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2022 Jul 13];02(02). Available from: https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/eating-disorders-and-cyclothymic-temperament-a-crosssectional-study-ontunisian-students-2472-1077-1000108.php?aid=84152

  41. Fekih-Romdhane F, AbdelAziz IB, Ridha R, Zouari M, Cheour M. Étude des tempéraments affectifs chez des patients épileptiques en Tunisie. Annal Méd-Psychol Revue Psychiatr. 2018;176(9):881–7.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Litaiem N, Youssef S, Jabeur K, Dhaoui MR, Doss N. Affective temperament profile in psoriasis patients in Tunisia using TEMPS-A. J Affect Disord. 2013;151(1):321–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Berger U, Hentrich I, Wick K, Bormann B, Brix C, Sowa M, Schwartze D, Strauß B. Eignung des “Eating Attitudes Test” EAT-26D zur Erfassung riskanten Essverhaltens bei 11- bis 13-Jährigen und Vorschlag für eine Kurzversion mit 13 Items. Psychother Psych Med. 2012;62(06):223–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Mundfrom DJ, Shaw DG, Ke TL. Minimum sample size recommendations for conducting factor analyses. Int J Test. 2005;5(2):159–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Krueger R, Derringer J, Markon K, Watson D, Skodol A. the personality inventory for DSM-5 Brief Form (PID-5-BF). 2013.

  46. Hallit S, Haddad C, Hallit R, Akel M, Obeid S, Haddad G, Soufia M, Khansa W, Khoury R, Kheir N, Elias Hallit CA, Salameh P. Validation of the Hamilton anxiety rating scale and state trait anxiety inventory A and B in Arabic among the Lebanese population. Clin Epidemiol Global Health. 2020;8(4):1104–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Obeid S, Abi Elias Hallit C, Haddad C, Hany Z, Hallit S. Validation of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) and sociodemographic factors associated with Lebanese depressed patients. L’Encéphale. 2018;44(5):397–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Beaton D, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz M. Recommendations for the cross-cultural adaptation of the DASH & QuickDASH outcome measures contributors to this document. Inst Work Health. 2007;1:1.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model. 1999;6(1):1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Mulaik S, James L, Alstine J, Bennett N, Lind S, Stilwell C. Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models. Psychol Bull. 1989;1(105):430–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Chen FF. Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Struct Equ Modeling. 2007;14(3):464–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Vandenberg RJ, Lance CE. A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organ Res Methods. 2000;3(1):4–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Hair JF, editor. A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). 2nd ed. Sage: Los Angeles; 2017. p. 363.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Bryant FB, Yarnold PR, Michelson EA. Statistical methodology. Acad Emerg Med. 1999;6(1):54–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Perry JL, Nicholls AR, Clough PJ, Crust L. Assessing model fit: caveats and recommendations for confirmatory factor analysis and exploratory structural equation modeling. Meas Phys Educ Exerc Sci. 2015;19(1):12–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Alavi M, Visentin DC, Thapa DK, Hunt GE, Watson R, Cleary M. Chi-square for model fit in confirmatory factor analysis. J Adv Nurs. 2020;76(9):2209–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Elias LR, Köhler CA, Stubbs B, Maciel BR, Cavalcante LM, Vale AMO, Gonda X, Quevedo J, Hyphantis TN, Soares JC, Vieta E, Carvalho AF. Measuring affective temperaments: a systematic review of validation studies of the Temperament Evaluation in Memphis Pisa and San Diego (TEMPS) instruments. J Affect Disord. 2017;212:25–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Smith GT, McCarthy DM, Anderson KG. On the sins of short-form development. Psychol Assess. 2000;12(1):102–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Crocker L, Algina J: Introduction to classical and modern test theory: ERIC; 1986.

  60. Maremmani I, Akiskal HS, Signoretta S, Liguori A, Perugi G, Cloninger R. The relationship of Kraepelian affective temperaments (as measured by TEMPS-I) to the tridimensional personality questionnaire (TPQ). J Affect Disord. 2005;85(1–2):17–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Cloninger CR, Bayon C, Svrakic DM. Measurement of temperament and character in mood disorders: a model of fundamental states as personality types. J Affect Disord. 1998;51(1):21–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Maremmani I, Dell’Osso L, Rovai L, Arduino G, Montagnari A, Abbenante D, Popovic D, Maremmani AG, Perugi G, Akiskal K. Discriminant and convergent validity of TEMPS-A [P] correlation with MMPI and the emotional-affective state following a stressful situation. J Affect Disord. 2011;129(1–3):27–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Blöink R, Brieger P, Akiskal HS, Marneros A. Factorial structure and internal consistency of the German TEMPS-A scale: validation against the NEO-FFI questionnaire. J Affect Disord. 2005;85(1–2):77–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Klein DN. Depressive personality: reliability, validity, and relation to dysthymia. J Abnorm Psychol. 1990;99(4):412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Perugi G, Nassini S, Socci C, Lenzi M, Toni C, Simonini E, Akiskal HS. Avoidant personality in social phobia and panic–agoraphobic disorder: a comparison. J Affect Disord. 1999;54(3):277–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Akiskal HS, Chen SE, Davis GC, Puzantian VR, Kashgarian M, Bolinger JM. Borderline: an adjective in search of a noun. J Clin Psychiatry. 1985.

  67. Levitt AJ, Joffe RT, Ennis J, MacDonald C, Kutcher S. The prevalence of cyclothymia in borderline personality disorder. J Clin Psychiatry. 1990.

  68. Akiskal HS. Dysthymic and cyclothymic depressions: therapeutic considerations. J Clin Psychiatry 1994.

  69. Akiskal HS. The temperamental borders of affective disorders. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1994;89:32–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Clark LA. Temperament as a unifying basis for personality and psychopathology. J Abnorm Psychol. 2005;114(4):505–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Wright AJ, Jackson JJ. Childhood temperament and adulthood personality differentially predict life outcomes. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):10286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Signoretta S, Maremmani I, Liguori A, Perugi G, Akiskal HS. Affective temperament traits measured by TEMPS-I and emotional-behavioral problems in clinically-well children, adolescents, and young adults. J Affect Disord. 2005;85(1–2):169–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Lahey BB. Commentary: role of temperament in developmental models of psychopathology. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2004;33(1):88–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. McClowry SG. The temperament profiles of school-age children. J Pediatr Nurs. 2002;17(1):3–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Forbes MK, Rapee RM, Camberis AL, McMahon CA. Unique associations between childhood temperament characteristics and subsequent psychopathology symptom trajectories from childhood to early adolescence. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2017;45(6):1221–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Rihmer Z, Akiskal KK, Rihmer A, Akiskal HS. Current research on affective temperaments. Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2010;23(1):12–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Vázquez GH, Tondo L, Mazzarini L, Gonda X. Affective temperaments in general population: a review and combined analysis from national studies. J Affect Disord. 2012;139(1):18–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Erfurth A, Gerlach AL, Michael N, Boenigk I, Hellweg I, Signoretta S, Akiskal K, Akiskal HS. Distribution and gender effects of the subscales of a German version of the temperament autoquestionnaire briefTEMPS-M in a university student population. J Affect Disord. 2005;85(1–2):71–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Rubinow DR, Schmidt PJ. Sex differences and the neurobiology of affective disorders. Neuropsychopharmacol. 2019;44(1):111–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Gaias LM, Räikkönen K, Komsi N, Gartstein MA, Fisher PA, Putnam SP. Cross-cultural temperamental differences in infants, children, and adults in the United States of America and Finland: temperament in the US and Finland. Scand J Psychol. 2012;53(2):119–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all participants.

Funding

None.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Feten Fekih-Romdhane, Ecem Yakın and Zeinab Bitar have contributed equally to this paper

  2. Sahar Obeid and Souheil Hallit are last coauthors

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychiatry “Ibn Omrane”,The Tunisian Center of Early Intervention in Psychosis, Razi Hospital, 2010, Manouba, Tunisia

    Feten Fekih-Romdhane

  2. Faculty of Medicine of Tunis, Tunis El Manar University, Tunis, Tunisia

    Feten Fekih-Romdhane

  3. Centre d’Etudes Et de Recherches en Psychopathologie Et Psychologie de La Santé, Université de Toulouse-Jean Jaurès, UT2J, 5 Allées Antonio Machado, 31058, Toulouse, France

    Ecem Yakın

  4. Faculty of Medicine, Paris-Saclay University, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France

    Zeinab Bitar

  5. College of Pharmacy, Gulf Medical University, Ajman, United Arab Emirates

    Diana Malaeb

  6. School of Pharmacy, Lebanese International University, Beirut, Lebanon

    Diana Malaeb

  7. Social and Education Sciences Department, School of Arts and Sciences, Lebanese American University, Jbeil, Lebanon

    Toni Sawma & Sahar Obeid

  8. Psychology Department, College of Humanities, Effat University, Jeddah, 21478, Saudi Arabia

    Souheil Hallit

  9. School of Medicine and Medical Sciences, Holy Spirit University of Kaslik, P.O. Box 446, Jounieh, Lebanon

    Souheil Hallit

  10. Applied Science Research Center, Applied Science Private University, Amman, Jordan

    Souheil Hallit

  11. Research Department, Psychiatric Hospital of the Cross, Jal Eddib, Lebanon

    Souheil Hallit

Authors
  1. Feten Fekih-Romdhane
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ecem Yakın
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zeinab Bitar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Diana Malaeb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Toni Sawma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Sahar Obeid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Souheil Hallit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

SH designed the study; FFR, EY and ZB wrote the paper; EY and SH carried out the analysis and interpreted the results; DM involved in the data collection; TS and SO reviewed the paper; all authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Sahar Obeid or Souheil Hallit.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The Psychiatric Hospital of the Cross Ethics and Research Committee approved this study protocol (HPC-015-2022). A written informed consent was considered obtained from each participant when submitting the online form. All methods were performed in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors have nothing to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fekih-Romdhane, F., Yakın, E., Bitar, Z. et al. Validation of the Arabic version of the 35-item TEMPS-M in a community sample of adults. BMC Psychol 11, 28 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-023-01064-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-023-01064-y

Keywords

BMC Psychology

ISSN: 2050-7283

Contact us