Validation of the perceived personal responsibility and desire for reconciliation scales in the Spanish population

Karla Gallo-Giunzioni, Agata Kasprzak, María Prieto-Ursúa and Cristina Fernández-Belinchón

PLOS ONE, 2025, vol. 20, issue 11, 1-13

Abstract: Introduction: Perceived personal responsibility and the desire for reconciliation are crucial in the study of the forgiveness process; however, there are few instruments for measuring these variables that have been adapted and validated for the Spanish population. Therefore the aim of the present study is to validate the Perceived Personal Responsibility Scale and the Desire for Reconciliation Scale for the Spanish population and evaluate their psychometric properties. Method: Sample composed of 499 participants (181 men, 318 women) aged from 18 to 67 years (M = 38.35; SD = 13.44). After the translation and linguistic adaptation of the scales, the Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was conducted with subsample 1 and the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) with subsample 2. Results: The EFA identified one factor for both the Perceived Personal Responsibility Scale and the Desire for Reconciliation Scale. The CFA confirmed a good fit for the unifactorial model for the Perceived Personal Responsibility Scale (CFI = .978, TLI = .955, IFI = .978, RMSEA = .079) and a good fit for the unifactorial model for the Desire for Reconciliation Scale (CFI = .984, TLI = .951, IFI = .981, RMSEA = .064). The reliability of the Perceived Personal Responsibility Scale ranged from.80 to.84, and the reliability of the Desire for Reconciliation Scale ranged from.84 to.88. Discussion: The results of this study show that both the Perceived Personal Responsibility Scale and the Desire for Reconciliation Scale are reliable and useful instruments for application in Spain. With these measures, it will be possible to further study processes such as self-forgiveness, which is constantly growing in the Spanish population. In addition, the study also provides measures that are easy to apply in clinical practice.

Date: 2025
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0336599 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id= ... 36599&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pone00:0336599

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0336599

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS ONE from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosone ().