Psychometric Properties of Object Relation Scale: Factor Structure and Relationship to Mental Health
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14738/assrj.88.10776Keywords:
Object Relation Scale, Factor structure, Mental health, Psychological distresses.Abstract
Background: Object Relations Scale (ORS: Iume, Hirai, Aoki & Baba, 2006) was developed for accessing an individual’s object relation pattern. It consists of five domains: Insufficiency of Intimacy, Superficiality in Interpersonal Relations, Egoistic Manipulation, Excessive Need for Identification, and Abandonment Anxiety. However, its factor structure using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is still undetermined.
Purpose: This study aims at evaluating the psychometric properties of ORS, in particular, confirming its factor structure using CFA, and examining the relationship of object relation maturity, to mental health as well as to psychological distress.
Methods: The subjects of this study were 547 medical college students in Japan. CFA were conducted in order to determine the best fit model. The relationships of maturity level of one’s object relation pattern to his/her mental health as well as psychological distresses were examined by t-tests.
Results: A four-factor model, a modified version of the original five-factor model showed the best fit. Among the four factors, three were those included in the original model. They were Insufficiency of Intimacy, Superficiality in Interpersonal Relations, and Abandonment Anxiety. The last factor consisted of items originally included in the remaining two factors, Egotistic Manipulation and Excessive Need for Identification. Each ORS subscale score positively correlated with that of mental health problems as well as those of psychological distresses of one or more domains at significant levels.
Conclusion: The four-factor model, which does not necessarily negate the original five-factor model proposed by Iume et al., showed the best fit. Immaturity and instability in object relation relationship contributed to a variety of distresses as well as poor mental health.
References
Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1969). Object relations, dependency, and attachment: a theoretical review of the infantmother relationship. Child Development, 40, 969-1025.
Bell, M. D. (1995). Bell Object Relations and Reality Testing Inventory (BORRTI), manual. Western Psychological Services, Los Angeles.
Bell, M. D. (2005). Bell Object Relations and Reality Testing Inventory (BORRTI), hand-scoring materials. Western Psychological Services, Los Angeles.
Bellack, L., Hurvich, M., & Gediman, H. (1973). Ego Functions in Schizophrenics, Neurotics, and Normals. Wiley, New York.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “What” and “Why” of goal pursuits: human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11 (4), 227-268.
Evans, C., Connell, J., Barkham, M., Margison, F., McGrath, G., Mellor-Clark, J. & Audin, K. (2002). Towards a standardized brief outcome measure: psychometric properties and utility of the CORE-OM (Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation-Outcome Measure). British Journal of Psychiatry, 180, 51-60.
Evans, C., Mellor-Clark, J., Margison, F., Barkham, M., Audin, K., Connell, J., & McGrath, G. (2000). CORE: Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation. Journal of Mental Health, 9 (3), 247-255.
Fairbairn, W. R. D. (1994). Psychoanalytic Studies of the Personality. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, New York.
Fujiyama, N. (2002). Taishokankei. (Object Relation) [In] (Ed.) Okonogi, K. & Kitayama, O. Seishinbunseki-jiten (Dictionary of Psychoanalysis), pp. 315-316. Iwasaki Academic Publisher, Tokyo. [in Japanese]
Greenberg, J. R., & Mitchell, S. A. (1983). Object Relations in Psychoanalytic Theory. Harvard University Press, MA, USA.
Hartman, H. (1952). The mutual influences in the development of ego and id. In Essays on Ego Psychology (pp. 155-182), International Universities Press, New York.
Hartman H (1964) Ego psychology and the problem of adaptation 3-21, International universities press, New York.
Iume Y., Hirai Y., Aoki K., Baba R. (2006). Development of Object Relations Scale for Japanese Young Adults. Japanese Journal of Personality, 14 (2), 181-193. [in Japanese]
Jacobson, E. (1964). The self and the object world. International Universities Press, New York.
Klein, M. (1946). Notes on some schizoid mechanisms. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 27:99-110.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55 (1), 68-78.
Uji, M., Sakamoto, A., Adachi, K., & Kitamura, T. (2012). Psychometric properties of the Japanese version of the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation–Outcome Measure. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 53 (5), 600-608.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Masayo Uji, Makiko Kawaguchi
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
