Reliability and validity of the German version of the Forensic Restrictiveness Questionnaire

IntroductionThe Forensic Restrictiveness Questionnaire (FRQ) is a self-administered questionnaire for forensic mental health inpatients about their subjective experiences of restrictiveness. The present paper describes the validation of the German version of the FRQ.MethodsPatients were recruited fr...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Peggy Walde, Birgit Angela Völlm
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Frontiers Media S.A. 2025-05-01
Series:Frontiers in Psychiatry
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2025.1566694/full
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1849736946201395200
author Peggy Walde
Peggy Walde
Birgit Angela Völlm
author_facet Peggy Walde
Peggy Walde
Birgit Angela Völlm
author_sort Peggy Walde
collection DOAJ
description IntroductionThe Forensic Restrictiveness Questionnaire (FRQ) is a self-administered questionnaire for forensic mental health inpatients about their subjective experiences of restrictiveness. The present paper describes the validation of the German version of the FRQ.MethodsPatients were recruited from eight forensic psychiatric hospitals in Germany. Internal consistency was explored using Cronbach’s α. The German version of the EssenCES (assessing ward climate), the MQPLa (assessing quality of life) and the Mental Health Component subscale of the SF-12 were used to explore convergent validity. The Physical Health Component subscale of the SF-12 was used to explore divergent validity. Patient’s levels of leave (Lockerungen), substance use behavior and occurrence of incidents were used to describe criterion validity.ResultsThe analysis indicated very good internal consistency according to Cronbach’s α. Convergent validity could be confirmed as the FRQ-G mean score was significantly negatively correlated with the EssenCES mean score and the MQPLa mean scores. No sufficient correlation could be shown for the Mental Health Component of the SF-12. A low correlation was found with the physical component of the SF-12, indicating discriminant validity. Very few significant correlations were found to establish criterion validity.DiscussionThe data indicate the FRQ-G to have good construct validity (structural, convergent, divergent) but failed to fully demonstrate criterion validity. Possible reasons include an underpowered sample size and possible measurement errors. Implications for future research are discussed.
format Article
id doaj-art-306a55a1f42e49c2ad288fd6f36d950e
institution DOAJ
issn 1664-0640
language English
publishDate 2025-05-01
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format Article
series Frontiers in Psychiatry
spelling doaj-art-306a55a1f42e49c2ad288fd6f36d950e2025-08-20T03:07:06ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Psychiatry1664-06402025-05-011610.3389/fpsyt.2025.15666941566694Reliability and validity of the German version of the Forensic Restrictiveness QuestionnairePeggy Walde0Peggy Walde1Birgit Angela Völlm2Forensic Mental Health Research, Research Division, LVR-Institute for Research and Education, Rhineland Regional Council, Cologne, GermanyClinic for Forensic Psychiatry, Rostock University Medical Center, Rostock, GermanyClinic for Forensic Psychiatry, Rostock University Medical Center, Rostock, GermanyIntroductionThe Forensic Restrictiveness Questionnaire (FRQ) is a self-administered questionnaire for forensic mental health inpatients about their subjective experiences of restrictiveness. The present paper describes the validation of the German version of the FRQ.MethodsPatients were recruited from eight forensic psychiatric hospitals in Germany. Internal consistency was explored using Cronbach’s α. The German version of the EssenCES (assessing ward climate), the MQPLa (assessing quality of life) and the Mental Health Component subscale of the SF-12 were used to explore convergent validity. The Physical Health Component subscale of the SF-12 was used to explore divergent validity. Patient’s levels of leave (Lockerungen), substance use behavior and occurrence of incidents were used to describe criterion validity.ResultsThe analysis indicated very good internal consistency according to Cronbach’s α. Convergent validity could be confirmed as the FRQ-G mean score was significantly negatively correlated with the EssenCES mean score and the MQPLa mean scores. No sufficient correlation could be shown for the Mental Health Component of the SF-12. A low correlation was found with the physical component of the SF-12, indicating discriminant validity. Very few significant correlations were found to establish criterion validity.DiscussionThe data indicate the FRQ-G to have good construct validity (structural, convergent, divergent) but failed to fully demonstrate criterion validity. Possible reasons include an underpowered sample size and possible measurement errors. Implications for future research are discussed.https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2025.1566694/fullforensic psychiatryforensic mental healthquestionnairevalidityreliabilityrestrictiveness
spellingShingle Peggy Walde
Peggy Walde
Birgit Angela Völlm
Reliability and validity of the German version of the Forensic Restrictiveness Questionnaire
Frontiers in Psychiatry
forensic psychiatry
forensic mental health
questionnaire
validity
reliability
restrictiveness
title Reliability and validity of the German version of the Forensic Restrictiveness Questionnaire
title_full Reliability and validity of the German version of the Forensic Restrictiveness Questionnaire
title_fullStr Reliability and validity of the German version of the Forensic Restrictiveness Questionnaire
title_full_unstemmed Reliability and validity of the German version of the Forensic Restrictiveness Questionnaire
title_short Reliability and validity of the German version of the Forensic Restrictiveness Questionnaire
title_sort reliability and validity of the german version of the forensic restrictiveness questionnaire
topic forensic psychiatry
forensic mental health
questionnaire
validity
reliability
restrictiveness
url https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2025.1566694/full
work_keys_str_mv AT peggywalde reliabilityandvalidityofthegermanversionoftheforensicrestrictivenessquestionnaire
AT peggywalde reliabilityandvalidityofthegermanversionoftheforensicrestrictivenessquestionnaire
AT birgitangelavollm reliabilityandvalidityofthegermanversionoftheforensicrestrictivenessquestionnaire