Abstract
Adolescents differ in their degree of Environmental Sensitivity, that is, the ability to perceive and process information about their environment. The present study aimed to investigate the psychometric properties of the Highly Sensitive Child scale (HSC), a self-report measure of Environmental Sensitivity, in two Belgian and UK samples with a total of 3056 adolescents. First, the factor structure, internal consistency, dimensionality, and construct validity of the HSC scale were examined. Second, measurement invariance of the HSC scale across developmental stage, gender, and country was tested. Results supported a bifactor model with a general sensitivity factor and three group factors: Ease of Excitation (EOE), Low Sensory Threshold (LST), and Aesthetic Sensitivity (AES). Cronbach’s alpha and McDonalds’s (hierarchical) omega indicated that the HSC scale is a reliable measure of Environmental Sensitivity, except for AES. Furthermore, AES was associated with different personality traits than EOE and LST. Second, the HSC scale was partially measurement invariant across developmental stage, gender, and country. The results provide important insights in the psychometrics of a first measurement of Environmental Sensitivity in early to late adolescents. Implications for further research are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Acevedo, B. P., Aron, E. N., Aron, A., Sangster, M. D., Collins, N., & Brown, L. L. (2014). The highly sensitive brain: An fMRI study of sensory processing sensitivity and response to others' emotions. Brain and Behavior, 4, 580–594. https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.242.
Aron, E. N., & Aron, A. (1997). Sensory-processing sensitivity and its relation to introversion and emotionality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 345–368. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.2.345.
Aron, E. N., Aron, A., & Davies, K. M. (2005). Adult shyness: The interaction of temperamental sensitivity and an adverse childhood environment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 181–197. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204271419.
Aron, E. N., Aron, A., & Jagiellowicz, J. (2012). Sensory processing sensitivity: A review in the light of the evolution of biological responsivity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16, 262–282. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868311434213.
Assary, E., Zavos, H. M., Krapohl, E., Keers, R., & Pluess, M. (2017). Sensitivity to environmental influences is a heritable trait. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Belsky, J., & Pluess, M. (2009). Beyond diathesis stress: Differential susceptibility to environmental influences. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 885–908. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017376.
Belsky, J., & Pluess, M. (2013). Beyond risk, resilience, and dysregulation: Phenotypic plasticity and human development. Development and Psychopathology, 25, 1243–1261. https://doi.org/10.1017/S095457941300059X.
Belsky, J., & Pluess, M. (2016). Differential susceptibility to environmental influences. In D. Cicchetti (Ed.), Developmental psychopathology. Third edition. Volume two: Developmental neuroscience (pp. 59–106). New York: Wiley.
Boyce, W. T., & Ellis, B. J. (2005). Biological sensitivity to context: I. An evolutionary–developmental theory of the origins and functions of stress reactivity. Development and Psychopathology, 17(2), 271–301. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579405050145.
Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., & Muthén, B. (1989). Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 456.
Caspi, A., Sugden, K., Moffitt, T. E., Taylor, A., Craig, I. W., Harrington, H., . . . Poulton, R. (2003). Influence of life stress on depression: Moderation by a polymorphism in the 5-HTT Gene. Science, 301, 386–389. doi: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1083968.
Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14, 464–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834.
Chen, F. F. (2008). What happens if we compare chopsticks with forks? The impact of making inappropriate comparisons in cross-cultural research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1005–1018. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013193.
Cho, E. (2016). Making reliability reliable. Organizational Research Methods, 19, 651–682. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428116656239.
Dunn, T. J., Baguley, T., & Brunsden, V. (2014). From alpha to omega: A practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. British Journal of Psychology, 105, 399–412. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12046.
Ellis, B. J., Boyce, W. T., Belsky, J., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & van Ijzendoorn, M. H. (2011). Differential susceptibility to the environment: An evolutionary-neurodevelopmental theory. Development and Psychopathology, 23, 7–28. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579410000611.
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the big-five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26–42. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.26.
Green, S. B., & Yang, Y. (2015). Evaluation of dimensionality in the assessment of internal consistency reliability: Coefficient alpha and omega coefficients. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 34, 14–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/emip.12100.
Haworth, C. M., Davis, O. S., & Plomin, R. (2013). Twins Early Development Study (TEDS): A genetically sensitive investigation of cognitive and behavioral development from childhood to young adulthood. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 16, 117–125. https://doi.org/10.1017/thg.2012.91.
Jagiellowicz, J., Xu, X., Aron, A., Aron, E., Cao, G., Feng, T., & Weng, X. (2011). The trait of sensory processing sensitivity and neural responses to changes in visual scenes. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 6, 38–47. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsq001.
Keith, T. Z. (2014). Multiple regression and beyond: An introduction to multiple regression and structural equation modeling. New York: Taylor & Francis.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Kochanska, G., Kim, S., Barry, R. A., & Philibert, R. A. (2011). Children's genotypes interact with maternal responsive care in predicting children's competence: Diathesis–stress or differential susceptibility? Development and Psychopathology, 23, 605–616. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579411000071.
Leary, M. R. (2008). Introduction to behavioral research methods (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81.
McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Mervielde, I., De Fruyt, F., & De Clercq, B. (2009). HiPIC: Hiërarchische Persoonlijkheidsvragenlijst voor Kinderen. [HiPIC: Hierarchical personality questionnaire for children]. Amsterdam: Hogrefe.
Monroe, S. M., & Simons, A. D. (1991). Diathesis–Stress theories in the context of life stress research: Implications for the depressive disorders. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 406–425. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.110.3.406.
Nigg, J. T. (2006). Temperament and developmental psychopathology. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47, 395–422. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2006.01612.x.
Nocentini, A., Menesini, E., & Pluess, M. (2018). The personality trait of environmental sensitivity predicts children’s positive response to school-based antibullying intervention. Clinical Psychological Science, 6, 848–859. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702618782194.
Obradović, J., Bush, N. R., Stamperdahl, J., Adler, N. E., & Boyce, W. T. (2010). Biological sensitivity to context: The interactive effects of stress reactivity and family adversity on socioemotional behavior and school readiness. Child Development, 81, 270–289. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01394.x.
Pluess, M. (2015). Individual differences in environmental sensitivity. Child Development Perspectives, 9, 138–143. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12120.
Pluess, M. (2017). Vantage sensitivity: environmental sensitivity to positive experiences as a function of genetic differences. Journal of Personality, 85, 38–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12218.
Pluess, M., & Belsky, J. (2013). Vantage sensitivity: Individual differences in response to positive experiences. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 901–916. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030196.
Pluess, M., & Boniwell, I. (2015). Sensory-processing sensitivity predicts treatment response to a school-based depression prevention program: Evidence of vantage sensitivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 82, 40–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.03.011.
Pluess, M., Assary, E., Lionetti, F., Lester, K. J., Krapohl, E., Aron, E., & Aron, A. (2018). Environmental sensitivity in children: Development of the highly sensitive child scale and identification of sensitivity groups. Developmental Psychology, 54, 51–70. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000406.
Reise, S. P. (2012). The rediscovery of bifactor measurement models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47, 667–696. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2012.715555.
Reise, S. P., Moore, T. M., & Haviland, M. G. (2010). Bifactor models and rotations: Exploring the extent to which multidimensional data yield univocal scale scores. Journal of Personality Assessment, 92, 544–559. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2010.496477.
Reise, S. P., Bonifay, W. E., & Haviland, M. G. (2013). Scoring and modeling psychological measures in the presence of multidimensionality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95, 129–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2012.725437.
Revelle, W. (1979). Hierarchical cluster analysis and the internal structure of tests. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 14, 57–74. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr1401_4.
Rodriguez, A., Reise, S. P., & Haviland, M. G. (2015). Evaluating bifactor models: Calculating and interpreting statistical indices. Psychological Methods, 21, 137.
Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (1994). Corrections to test statistics and standard errors in covariance structure analysis. In A. V. Eye & C. C. Clogg (Eds.), Latent variables analysis: Applications for developmental research (pp. 399–419). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Schmitt, N., Golubovich, J., & Leong, F. T. (2011). Impact of measurement invariance on construct correlations, mean differences, and relations with external correlates: An illustrative example using big five and RIASEC measures. Assessment, 18, 412–427. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191110373223.
Scrimin, S., Osler, G., Pozzoli, T., & Moscardino, U. (2018). Early adversities, family support, and child well-being: The moderating role of environmental sensitivity. Child: Care, Health and Development, 44, 885–891. https://doi.org/10.1111/cch.12596.
Sijtsma, K. (2008). On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach’s alpha. Psychometrika, 74, 107–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-008-9101-0.
Slagt, M., Dubas, J. S., Dekovic, M., & van Aken, M. A. G. (2016). Differences in sensitivity to parenting depending on child temperament: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 142, 1068–1110. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000061.
Slagt, M., Dubas, J. S., van Aken, M. A. G., Ellis, B. J., & Dekovic, M. (2018). Sensory processing sensitivity as a marker of differential susceptibility to parenting. Devopmental Psychology, 54, 543–558. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000431.
Smolewska, K. A., McCabe, S. B., & Woody, E. Z. (2006). A psychometric evaluation of the highly sensitive person scale: The components of sensory-processing sensitivity and their relation to the BIS/BAS and "big five". Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 1269–1279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.09.022.
Sperber, A. D. (2004). Translation and validation of study instruments for cross-cultural research. Gastroenterology, 126(Supplement 1), S124–S128. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2003.10.016.
Steinmetz, H. (2013). Analyzing observed composite differences across groups: Is partial measurement invariance enough? Methodology: European Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 9, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241/a000049.
Stright, A. D., Gallagher, K. C., & Kelley, K. (2008). Infant temperament moderates relations between maternal parenting in early childhood and children's adjustment in first grade. Child Development, 79, 186–200.
Van de Schoot, R., Lugtig, P., & Hox, J. (2012). A checklist for testing measurement invariance. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9, 486–492. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2012.686740.
van IJzendoorn, M. H., Belsky, J., & Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J. (2012). Serotonin transporter genotype 5HTTLPR as a marker of differential susceptibility? A meta-analysis of child and adolescent gene-by-environment studies. Translational Psychiatry, 2, e147. https://doi.org/10.1038/tp.2012.73.
Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 4–70.
Vermulst, A., & Gerris, J. (2005). QBF: Quick big five Persoonlijkheidstest Handleiding [Quick big five personality test manual]. Leeuwarden: LDC Publications.
Walda, S. A. E. (2007). Hoogsensitiviteit bij kinderen in het basisonderwijs [High sensitivity in children from regular education]. Unpublished Master's thesis. Radboud University. Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Zinbarg, R. E., Revelle, W., Yovel, I., & Li, W. (2005). Cronbach’s α, Revelle’s β, and Mcdonald’s ω H : Their relations with each other and two alternative conceptualizations of reliability. Psychometrika, 70, 123–133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-003-0974-7.
Acknowledgements
We would like to express our gratitude to all the participating children and adolescents from the primary and secondary schools in Belgium and the UK as well as their parents and teachers. The STRATEGIES project received financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This project was supported by a Concerted Research Action grant (GOA/12/009) from the KU Leuven Research Fund. We gratefully acknowledge the ongoing contribution of the participants in TEDS and their families. TEDS is supported by a programme grant to Dr. Robert Plomin from the UK Medical Research Council [MR/M021475/1; and previously G0901245]. Francesca Lionetti was supported with a fellowship from the European Commission, H2020 –MSCA–IF–2015-704283.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical Approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.
Informed Consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix 1
INSTRUCTIONS: Answer each question according to the way you personally feel, using follow scale
The Highly Sensitive Child scale
Appendix 2
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Weyn, S., Van Leeuwen, K., Pluess, M. et al. Psychometric properties of the Highly Sensitive Child scale across developmental stage, gender, and country. Curr Psychol 40, 3309–3325 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00254-5
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00254-5