Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorElias, Liana R.-
dc.contributor.authorKöhler, Cristiano A.-
dc.contributor.authorStubbs, Brendon-
dc.contributor.authorMaciel, Beatriz R.-
dc.contributor.authorCavalcante, Lígia M.-
dc.contributor.authorVale, Antonio M. O.-
dc.contributor.authorGonda, Xénia-
dc.contributor.authorQuevedo, João-
dc.contributor.authorHyphantis, Thomas N.-
dc.contributor.authorSoares, Jair C.-
dc.contributor.authorVieta, Eduard-
dc.contributor.authorCarvalho, André F.-
dc.identifier.citationELIAS, 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.pt_BR
dc.description.abstractBackground: 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 utilizedpt_BR
dc.publisherJournal of Affective Disorderspt_BR
dc.subjectSintomas Afetivospt_BR
dc.subjectAffective Symptomspt_BR
dc.titleMeasuring affective temperaments: a systematic review of validation studies of the Temperament Evaluation in Memphis Pisa and San Diego (TEMPS) instrumentspt_BR
dc.typeArtigo de Periódicopt_BR
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.