Are four maladaptive schema domains a better option than five? Recommendations based on comparison of the latent structure of schemas on a large group of healthy adults.

Background: Numerous publications and analyses conducted in various cultures lead to the conclusion that the latent structure of schemas is not unambiguous. The latest proposal by Bach et al. (2017a) includes 18 schemas and four domains; however, a five domain structure is also acceptable.

Aim: The aim of the research was to directly compare both proposals based on the research of a large group of healthy people.

Method: The schema questionnaire YSQ-S3 was completed by 2348 people aged 18-81 years, of whom women constituted slightly over 54%.

Results: CFA analyses have demonstrated a poor fit to the data of all analysed models, with the model of four correlated domains, which is also characterised by higher loadings (standardised regression loadings), being the closest to fulfil the criteria. Exploratory factor analyses have shown an almost exact reflection of the structure with the assumed four factors; the structure of five factors has not been recreated. The released number of factors indicated a two-factor solution. The additional analysis confirmed positive medium correlations with negative affect and psychopathology symptoms. Negative correlations of self-esteem, positivity scale and positive affect indicate good divergent validity.

Conclusion: The analysis confirms the existence of 18 schemas and supports the new four-domain model of the latent structure of schemas as more appropriate than a model consisting of five domains.