Studies on a German (Münster) version of the temperament auto-questionnaire TEMPS-A: construction and validation of the briefTEMPS-M

Abstract

Background: Based on classic German concepts of a continuum between depressive, hyperthymic, cyclothymic, and irritable temperaments and affective disorder (and adding an anxious type to the four), Akiskal and co-workers developed the Temperament Evaluation of Memphis, Pisa, Paris and San Diego both in interview (TEMPS-I) and auto-questionnaire (TEMPS-A) versions. It is the aim of the present analyses to validate a brief German version of TEMPS-A. Methods: A total of 1056 students of the Westfälische-Wilhelms-Universität in Münster, Germany, filled out the long 110-item version of the TEMPS-A (Münster translation by Erfurth: TEMPS-M) modified into a five gradation Likert format and with the items randomized. Based on this data we constructed a brief version of the TEMPS-M. In a second study, a sample of 151 students were recruited who filled out the briefTEMPS-M twice, approximately 1 month apart. Results: Our psychometric procedures resulted in the retention of 35 items from the original 110. The proposed five-factor structure of the original TEMPS-A was upheld, with relatively few item reclassification (mainly due to some overlap between depressive and anxious traits). Internal consistency (Cronbach α values ranging from 0.69 to 0.84) and test-retest reliability were shown. Most importantly, all temperaments in the briefTEMPS-M correlated quite well (Pearson r values ranging from 0.49 to 0.72) with their respective original versions in the longer TEMPS-M. As for construct validity, significant correlation was shown with the Beck Depression Inventory for all but the hyperthymic temperament; the hyperthymic, cyclothymic and irritable correlated highest with the self-report Manic Inventory. Limitations: The study sample of university students was selective. Conclusions: We were able to construct a brief German version of the TEMPS-A auto-questionnaire. We submit this shorter version will be suitable for both clinical (psychiatric and general medical) and neurobiological research, as well as in studies on temperament features in selected populations, e.g., allowing comparisons between regions or different (German-speaking) countries.

Introduction

Although the constructs of temperament, character and personality overlap (von Zerssen and Akiskal, 1998), temperament best captures those relatively stable aspects of one’s individuality which refer to emotional reactivity: “Temperament conventionally refers to stable behavioral and emotional reactions that appear early and are influenced in part by genetic constitution” (Kagan, 1994).

Since at least the time of Hippocrates, concepts have been developed to describe enduring behavioral and emotional reactivity patterns of personality. Temperament research in psychiatry owes a great deal to Kraepelin’s ‘Grundzustände’ (fundamental states): depressive, ‘manic,’ irritable, and cyclothymic dispositions (Kraepelin, 1909). Kretschmer (1936) further developed Kraepelin’s concepts and believed that “endogenous psychoses are nothing but marked accentuations of normal types of temperament”. Although Kurt Schneider (1958) did not endorse this perspective, he provided superb descriptions of the Kraepelinian and other types, and changed the ‘manic’ type the to ‘hyperthymic’.

Based on these ideas of a continuum between temperament and affective disorder, Akiskal and co-workers, working both in the United States and Europe (Akiskal et al., 1979a, Akiskal et al., 1979b; Akiskal and Mallya, 1987; Akiskal and Akiskal, 1992; Akiskal, 1995; Hantouche and Akiskal, 1997; Placidi et al., 1998a), have further refined these classical German concepts into an operational format (adding an anxious temperament (Akiskal, 1998)) to the four ‘Grundzustände’ of Kraepelin, thereby developing the Temperament Evaluation of Memphis, Pisa, Paris and San Diego (TEMPS). Until recently the interview format (TEMPS-I) was the main version, and investigated with respect to both clinical relevance and psychometric properties. Although the four-temperament version of both interview and auto-questionnaire formats of TEMPS has already been studied in Italy and France (Akiskal et al., 1998a, Akiskal et al., 1998b; Placidi et al., 1998a, Placidi et al., 1998b; Hantouche et al., 2001a, Hantouche et al., 2001b), the first ‘foreign’ translation of the full 110-item (five-temperament) version of TEMPS-A was accomplished by Peter Brieger and colleagues who described the possible clinical relevance (Brieger et al., 2003) of this questionnaire in the German language (Akiskal et al., 2002; Blöink et al., 2005, this issue).

It is the aim of the present study to examine the factor structure and reliability of the TEMPS questionnaire in a large sample and to develop a brief form of the TEMPS-A in yet another German version translated by the first author working in Munster (TEMPS-M).