Reliability, Validity, and Factor Structure of the Maladaptive Daydreaming Scale (MDS–16) in an Italian Sample

Abstract

Missing data is a problem that occurs frequently in many scientific areas. The most sophisticated method for dealing with this problem is multiple imputation. Contrary to other methods, like listwise deletion, this method does not throw away information, and partly repairs the problem of systematic dropout. Although from a theoretical point of view multiple imputation is considered to be the optimal method, many applied researchers are reluctant to use it because of persistent misconceptions about this method. Instead of providing an(other) overview of missing data methods, or extensively explaining how multiple imputation works, this article aims specifically at rebutting these misconceptions, and provides applied researchers with practical arguments supporting them in the use of multiple imputation. ARTICLE HISTORY Goal and intended audienceThis article addresses applied researchers within the field of social and behavioral sciences (but possibly other fields as well) facing the problem of missing data, who have heard of multiple imputation as a method to deal with missing data, but have concerns about actually using this method. These concerns may be based on misconceptions implying that in their specific situation multiple imputation should either not be used at all, or only with much caution. This article collects several of those misconceptions, and provides grounded rebuttal-through theory and practical argumentation-to ultimately support researchers in their deliberations regarding their statistical analyses when faced with missing data.

Different cultures, similar daydream addiction? An examination of the cross-cultural measurement equivalence of the Maladaptive Daydreaming Scale

“…The second reason was empirical; specifically, in previous studies, kinesthesia and music were never separate factors. They were either combined in a single larger factor (Abu-Rayya et al, 2019;Schimmenti, Sideli, et al, 2019) or loaded together on one 4item factor (Green et al, 2020). The latter network analysis study clearly shows that the strong relation of items #14 and #16 is at the root of the connection between the two domains (and as mentioned above, this makes sense theoretically).…”

“…As mentioned above, we designed it based on the original factor structure detailed in the introduction section (Somer, Lehrfeld, et al, 2016), and added a factor for the newer music items. Notably, exploratory factor analyses conducted on Arab-speaking and Italian-speaking samples both reported a 2-factor structure of the MDS-16 that mostly corresponded with Yearning and Impairment, with minor modifications (Abu-Rayya, Somer, & Meari-Amir, 2019;Schimmenti, Sideli, et al, 2019). Specifically, items which were originally labeled "impairment" consistently loaded upon a single factor in all studies (items 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 11 of the MDS-16); these newer studies labeled the factor "Distress and impairment" (Abu-Rayya et al, 2019) and "Interference with life" (Schimmenti, Sideli, et al, 2019).…”

“…Notably, exploratory factor analyses conducted on Arab-speaking and Italian-speaking samples both reported a 2-factor structure of the MDS-16 that mostly corresponded with Yearning and Impairment, with minor modifications (Abu-Rayya, Somer, & Meari-Amir, 2019;Schimmenti, Sideli, et al, 2019). Specifically, items which were originally labeled "impairment" consistently loaded upon a single factor in all studies (items 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 11 of the MDS-16); these newer studies labeled the factor "Distress and impairment" (Abu-Rayya et al, 2019) and "Interference with life" (Schimmenti, Sideli, et al, 2019). However, the "Yearning" construct (labeled in the new studies "Immerse daydreaming" and "Somato-sensory retreat"), was less consistent across studies.…”

“…loaded on the impairment factor, although theoretically, it represents yearning. Conversely, in Schimmenti, Sideli, et al (2019), items #12 ("Some people would rather daydream than do most other things. To what extent would you rather daydream than engage with other people or participate in social activities or hobbies?")…”

“…As detailed above, this 16-item measure assesses four aspects of abnormal daydreaming: the extent to which one consistently feels drawn to daydreaming and has a strong, addictive urge to engage in daydreaming (yearning); the extent to which one feels that engaging in daydreaming impairs their functioning in social, academic, or vocational domains and interferes both with wide-ranging life goals and with specific daily chores or tasks (impairment); the extent to which one finds oneself engaging in physical movement associated with daydreaming such as accompanying facial expressions, mouthing the words, rocking, or pacing (kinesthesia); and the extent to which one uses music to initiate or maintain the daydreaming experience (music). The scale is reliable (Schimmenti, Sideli, La Marca, Gori, & Terrone, 2019;Somer, Lehrfeld, et al, 2016;Somer, Soffer-Dudek, Ross, & Halpern, 2017) and is measured on an 11-point scale, ranging from 0% (e.g., never, no distress at all) to 100% (e.g., extremely frequent, extreme distress). In the present study, Cronbach's alpha for the 16 items on the final 4-country sample was 0.95, with 0.93, 0.96, 0.96, and 0.92 for the American, Italian, Turkish, and the British samples, respectively.…”