ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Rational emotive behavior therapy originally considered the concept of frustration intolerance in relation to different beliefs or cognitive patterns. Psychological disorders or, to some extent, certain affects such as frustration could result from irrational beliefs. Initially regarded as a unidimensional construct, recent literature considers those irrational beliefs as a multidimensional construct; such is the case for the phenomenon of frustration. In order to measure frustration intolerance, Harrington (2005) developed and validated the Frustration Discomfort Scale. The scale includes four dimensions of beliefs: emotional intolerance includes beliefs according to which emotional distress is intolerable and must be controlled or avoided as soon as possible. The intolerance of discomfort or demand for comfort is the second dimension based on beliefs that life should be peaceful and comfortable and that any inconvenience, effort or hassle should be avoided. The third dimension is entitlement, which includes beliefs about personal goals, such as merit, fairness, respect and gratification, and that others must not frustrate those non-negotiable desires. The fourth dimension is achievement, which reflects demands for high expectations or standards. METHODS: The aim of this study was to translate and validate in a French population the Frustration and Discomfort Scale developed by Harrington (2005), assess its psychometric properties, highlight the four factors structure of the scale, and examine the relationships between this concept and both emotion regulation and perceived stress. We translated the Frustration Discomfort Scale from English to French and back from French to English in order to ensure good quality of translation. We then submitted the scale to 289 students (239 females and 50 males) from the University of Savoy in addition to the Cognitive Emotional Regulation Questionnaire and the Perceived Stress Scale. RESULTS: The results showed satisfactory psychometric qualities. After removing five items from the original scale, the internal consistency appeared satisfactory for both the full scale (α=0.86), and the four sub-dimensions, with alphas ranging from 0.64 to 0.71. Although these values are lower than those from the original tool (Harrington, 2005), they are very close to the validation data in other languages (Ozer et al., 2012). Interestingly, the FDS score was related to the Perceived Stress Scale and non-adaptive emotion regulation factor but not to the adaptive emotion regulation factor. However, the factorial analyses do not unambiguously support the original four factors structure proposed by Harrington (2005). CONCLUSION: Reliability as well as convergent and divergent validity indicate that the French version of the Frustration Discomfort Scale is a relevant measure of frustration intolerance. However, divergent validity has not been completely demonstrated. The validation data is more congruent with a one-dimensional factor structure than with the original four-dimensional structure. Frustration intolerance could therefore be understood as a unitary concept.
