Background: Bond et al. developed the Defense Style Questionnaire (DSQ), a self-questionnaire that aims at empirically measuring conscious derivatives of defense mechanisms. The original analysis yielded 4 factors called Defense Styles (DS). DSQ discriminates between mature and immature defense styles. Objectives: Determine if the French version of DSQ has (a) face validity, (b) a similar structure to the original version, (c) internal consistency, (d) grouping of defense mechanisms into clinically pertinent defense styles, (e) evidence of nonpatients using more mature defense styles, (f) correlation with Defensive Functioning Scale (DFS) (DSM-IV) [2]. Methods: Reliability and validity study on 82 control subjects and 140 patients, 59 among them evaluated for defensive level. Results: Factor analysis of controls sample yielded 4 factors ranging from immature to mature defense styles. DSQ scores on factor I (maladaptive style) are significantly higher in outpatients than in controls. Maladaptive style score correlates with clinical evaluation of defensive level of functioning (DFS). Conclusion: Psychometric features of the French version are similar to the original scale, although minor differences in individual defense mechanisms are present. Factor I (maladaptive defense style) remains more stable than other factors, accounts for most of variance contribution, has high internal consistency and applies to behaviors, i.e. conscious derivatives of defense mechanisms that can be easily identified. The French version of DSQ is (a) an easy and economical way to rate immature defense style in populations of ‘neurotic’ and borderline patients and (b) further provides a hierarchical grouping of defense mechanisms in defense styles.

1.
Ehlers W, Hettinger R, Paar G: Operational diagnostic approaches in the assessment of defense mechanisms. Psychother Psychosom 1995;63:124–135.
2.
American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, ed 4 (DSM-IV). Washington, American Psychiatric Association, 1994.
3.
Parker JDA, Endler NS: Coping and defense; in Zeidner M, Endler NS (eds): Handbook of Coping. New York, Wiley, 1996.
4.
Laplanche J, Pontalis JB: Vocabulaire de la psychanalyse, ed 9. Paris, Presses Universitaires de France, 1988.
5.
Bond M: An empirical study of defensive styles: the Defense Style Questionnaire; in Vaillant GE (ed): Ego Mechanisms of Defense: a Guide for Clinicians and Researchers. Washington, American Psychiatric Press, 1992, pp 127–158.
6.
Freud A: The Ego and the Mechanisms of Defense. London, Hogarth Press, 1966.
7.
Klein M: A contribution to the psychogenesis of manic depressive states. Int J Psychoanal 1935;16:145–174.
8.
Vaillant GE: Natural history of male psychological health: the relation of choice of ego mechanisms of defense to adult adjustment. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1976;33:535–545.
9.
Perry JC, Cooper SH: Empirical studies of psychological defenses; in Michels R, Cavenar JOJ (eds): Psychiatry. Philadelphia, Lippincott, 1987, vol 1.
10.
Skodol AE, Perry JC: Should an axis for defense mechanisms be included in DSM-IV? Compr Psychiatry 1993;34(2):108–119.
11.
Ehlers W: The structure and process of defense in diagnosis of personality and psychoanalytic treatment; in Hentschel U, Smith GJW, Draguns JG (eds): The Concept of Defense Mechanisms in Contemporary Psychology: Theoretical, Research, and Clinical Perspectives. New York, Springer, 1993, pp 253–274.
12.
Bond M, Gardner ST, Christian J, Siegel JJ: An empirically validated hierarchy of defense mechanisms. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1983;40:333–338.
13.
Andrews G, Pollock C, Stewart G: The determination of defense style by questionnaire. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1989;46:455–460.
14.
Flannery RB, Perry JC: Self-rated defense style, life stress, and health status: An empirical assessment. Psychosomatics 1990;31:313–320.
15.
Reister G, Fellhauer RF, Franz M, Wirth T, Schellberg D, Schepank H, Tress W: Psychometric measurements of ego defense mechanisms: Correlation between questionnaire and expert rating. Psychother Psychosom Med Psychol 1993;43(1):15–20.
16.
Sammallahti P, Aalberg V, Pentinsaari JP: Does defense style vary with severity of mental disorder? An empirical assessment. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1994;90:290–294.
17.
Schauenburg H, Schlüssler G, Leibing E: Empirische Erfassung von Abwehrmechanismen mit einem Selbsteinschätzungsfragebogen (nach Bond et al.). Psychother Psychosom Med Psychol 1991;41:392–400.
18.
Bond M, Perry JC, Gautier M, Goldenberg M, et al: Validating the self-report of defense styles. J Pers Disord 1989;3(2):101–112.
19.
Hentschel U, Ehlers W, Peter R: The measurment of defense mechanisms by self report questionnaires; in Hentschel U, Smith GJW, Ehlers W, Draguns JG (eds): The Concept of Defense Mechanisms in Contemporary Psychology: Theoretical, Research, and Clinical Perspectives. New York, Springer, 1993, pp 53–56.
20.
Morley S, Snaith P: Principles of psychological assessment; in Freeman C, Tyrer P (eds): Research Methods in Psychiatry, ed 2. London, Gaskell, 1992.
21.
Vaillant GE, Bond M, Vaillant CO: An empirically validated hierarchy of defense mechanisms. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1986;43:786–794.
22.
Kernberg OF: Severe Personality Disorders: Psychotherapeutic Strategies, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1984.
23.
Ryff CD, Singer B: Psychological well-being. Psychother Psychosom 1996;65:14–23.
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.