Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://www.repositorio.ufc.br/handle/riufc/24905
Title in Portuguese: Measuring affective temperaments: a systematic review of validation studies of the Temperament Evaluation in Memphis Pisa and San Diego (TEMPS) instruments
Author: Elias, Liana R.
Köhler, Cristiano A.
Stubbs, Brendon
Maciel, Beatriz R.
Cavalcante, Lígia M.
Vale, Antonio M. O.
Gonda, Xénia
Quevedo, João
Hyphantis, Thomas N.
Soares, Jair C.
Vieta, Eduard
Carvalho, André F.
Keywords: Sintomas Afetivos
Affective Symptoms
Issue Date: Apr-2017
Publisher: Journal of Affective Disorders
Citation: ELIAS, Liana R. et al. Measuring affective temperaments: a systematic review of validation studies of the Temperament Evaluation in Memphis Pisa and San Diego (TEMPS) instruments. Journal of Affective Disorders, v. 212, p. 25-37, apr. 2017.
Abstract: Background: The assessment of a ff ective temperaments has provided useful insights for the psychopatholo- gical understanding of a ff ective 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 di ff erent 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 fi ve factor solution although few studies performed con fi rmatory factor analyses. A fi ve-factor solution has consistently been reported for the 39-item version of the TEMPS-A. Overall, evidence indicates that di ff erent 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
URI: http://www.repositorio.ufc.br/handle/riufc/24905
metadata.dc.type: Artigo de Periódico
ISSN: 0165-0327
1573-2517
Appears in Collections:DMC - Artigos publicados em revistas científicas

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
2017_art_lrelias.pdf429,62 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.