Disclosure Expectancy Scale (DExS)

Abstract

The Disclosure Expectancy Scale (DExS), also known as the Disclosure Expectancy Scale—Civilian Version, is an original 33-item psychometric inventory. It is specifically designed to quantify trauma survivors’ expectations regarding the potential risks and benefits associated with the disclosure of their traumatic experiences. The scale’s content is informed by existing empirical research, such as the work of Ullman (2011), and the clinical expertise of the authors working with diverse survivor populations.

This instrument aims to measure individual differences that influence a survivor’s motivation to engage in self-disclosure. This motivation is considered a significant factor influencing the trajectory of post-trauma recovery. Initial validation studies, conducted on a sample of trauma-exposed undergraduates, provided robust evidence supporting its proposed factor structure, reliability, and validity, establishing the DExS as a valuable clinical and research tool.

Keywords

Traumatic Experiences, Disclosure, Negative Expectations, Positive Expectations, Self-Disclosure, Post-Trauma Cognitions, Trauma Measures, Psychometric Instrument.

Authors

Clapp, Joshua D., Gray, Matt J., Litz, Brett T., Lang, Ariel J., Sowers, Alexandria F.

[quads id=5]

Purpose

The primary purpose of the DExS questionnaire is to systematically measure the individual psychological differences that influence a trauma survivor’s motivation to share their traumatic experiences. These differences in expectancy are hypothesized to play a critical role in shaping the overall trajectory of post-trauma recovery and adaptation.

By quantifying anticipated positive outcomes (e.g., support, relief) and negative outcomes (e.g., blame, rejection), the scale provides clinicians and researchers with insight into the barriers and facilitators of disclosure behaviors, which are often central to therapeutic intervention.

Construct

The DExS measures the psychological construct of disclosure expectancy, which is conceptualized as the cognitive appraisal of anticipated consequences following the sharing of a traumatic event. This construct is explicitly divided into two correlated dimensions: Negative Expectations and Positive Expectations.

The Negative Expectations subscale captures fears related to social stigma, rejection, emotional loss of control, and professional damage. Conversely, the Positive Expectations subscale assesses beliefs related to anticipated relief, improved relationships, gaining support, and long-term mental health benefits derived from self-disclosure.

Validity

The initial validation study confirmed both convergent and discriminant validity for the DExS subscales through statistical analysis of a trauma-exposed undergraduate sample.

Convergent Validity: Results indicated moderate to strong magnitude associations between negative disclosure expectancies and maladaptive post-trauma cognitions, low perceived support, and reluctance to engage support networks. Positive expectancies, by contrast, demonstrated a stronger correlation with the frequency of previous disclosure, as reported on the initial descriptive item of the DExS (z = 4.21, p < .001).

Discriminant Validity: Negative disclosure expectancies demonstrated weak associations with measures assessing distinct constructs, including trait expressivity, social anxiety disorder, and impression management. A similar pattern of weak associations was observed for positive disclosure expectancies, with the strongest association with discriminant measures observed for state positive affect (r = .30, 95% CI = [.18, .42]).

Reliability

The internal consistency of the DExS was assessed using the omega coefficient (ω), establishing excellent reliability for both primary subscales. The positive items demonstrated a reliability coefficient of ω = .94, and the negative items showed a coefficient of ω = .93. These high coefficients confirm that the items within each subscale consistently measure their respective latent constructs.

Factor Analysis

A Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted to test the hypothesized structure of the DExS. The CFA provided strong empirical support for the plausibility of the correlated two-factor solution, separating Positive and Negative Expectancies, χ2(494) = 1,257.9; p < .001.

The model fit indices strongly supported the structural model. Specifically, the Comparative Fit Index (CFI = .954), the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI = .951), and the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR = .065) values all exceeded established benchmarks for inferring a close fit of the hypothesized model, confirming the dimensional structure of the scale.

Instrument

Test Type: Original psychometric inventory.

Format: The 33-item DExS uses a multi-stage process. Respondents first quantify the frequency of discussing traumatic memories (ranging from 1 = Never to 5 = Very often). If they report any prior disclosure (scores 2-5), they rate its helpfulness (1 = Not at all helpful to 5 = Extremely helpful). Finally, all respondents rate the likelihood (1 = Extremely unlikely to 5 = Extremely likely) of 18 negative and 15 positive outcomes resulting from disclosure. Total scores are calculated as the mean of endorsed items multiplied by a factor of 10 (range = 10–50) for easier interpretation in clinical settings.

Language Available: English.

Population Group: Human (Male; Female).

Age Group: Adulthood (18 yrs & older).

Population Details: The validation sample consisted of Trauma-Exposed Undergraduates located in the United States. Other versions include the Disclosure Expectancy Scale—Military Version, Revision.

Test Methodology: Test Validity; Convergent Validity; Discriminant Validity; Test Reliability; Internal Consistency; Factor Analysis; Confirmatory Factor Analysis.

Keywords

Trauma recovery, Posttraumatic Stress, Cognitive appraisal, Psychometric scale, Validity, Factor Analysis, Psychological measurement, Self-Disclosure.

[quads id=5]

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier:

• Clapp, Joshua D.: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2897-5363

• Litz, Brett T.: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0479-8887

Affiliation Email addresses:

• Clapp, Joshua D.: University of Wyoming

• Gray, Matt J.: University of Wyoming

• Litz, Brett T.: VA Boston Healthcare System and Boston University

• Lang, Ariel J.: VA San Diego Center of Excellence for Stress and Mental Health (CESAMH)

• Sowers, Alexandria F.: University of Wyoming

• Corresponding email: [email protected]

Correspondence Address:

• Clapp, Joshua D.: University of Wyoming, Department of Psychology, 1000 University Drive, Laramie, Wyoming, United States, 82071, [email protected]

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Permissions: May use for Research/Teaching

Fee: No

Test Year: 2023

Reference’s

Clapp, J. D., Gray, M. J., Litz, B. T., Lang, A. J., & Sowers, A. F. (2023). Development and validation of the Disclosure Expectancy Scale. Assessment, 30(6), 1969–1984. https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911221128947

[quads id=5]

Items of the Disclosure Expectancy Scale (DExS)

This measure consists of 33 items.

Subscales: Negative expectations; Positive expectations.

This questionnaire is designed to assess the extent to which individuals talk about or disclose memories of stressful life events and their attitudes about talking. One of the things people often struggle with is whether it is OK to talk about memories of really bad things that happened, especially with those who weren’t there. You may have someone or several people that you trust and are comfortable talking to. You may choose not to talk with anyone at this time. You may think that you will never talk about some parts of your experiences. Regardless, you still have opinions about telling others about what happened and we would like to get you to think about these opinions.

First, we want to get a snapshot of your experiences talking about stressful or traumatic life events and your subsequent reactions. Circle the number of the item below that best represents the number of times you have talked about very bothersome or disturbing memories since the event.

If you circled 2-5, in general, how useful or helpful was talking about your experiences? By useful or helpful, we mean that it was a positive experience. You may have felt relieved, you may have felt supported and understood, and you may have gained some insight, and so on.

Next, regardless of the extent of your current conversations about your experiences, we want to get your opinion about how likely it is that the following might happen if you talked about anything that is bothersome about your experience, using the scale below.

Disclosure-Related Apprehensions/Negative Expectations

Rating Scale: 1 = Extremely unlikely, 2 = Very unlikely, 3 = Moderately likely, 4 = Very likely, 5 = Extremely likely

Disclosure-Related Positive Expectations

Rating Scale: 1 = Extremely unlikely, 2 = Very unlikely, 3 = Moderately likely, 4 = Very likely, 5 = Extremely likely