Assessment of the Validity and Reliability of the Persian Version of the Breakup Distress Scale and Its Relationship with Resilience Among College Students

Abstract

Background: This research investigates the validity and reliability of the Persian adaptation of the Breakup Distress Scale (BDS) while exploring its association with resilience in Iranian students. Objectives: The primary aim is to assess the psychometric properties of the Persian BDS and analyze the relationship between resilience and breakup distress among single students, ultimately contributing to the development of effective interventions for managing emotional distress following breakups. Methods: Utilizing a cross-sectional survey design, this study involved a sample of 350 single students (131 males and 219 females) aged 18 to 30, each of whom had experienced a romantic breakup at least six months prior. Participants completed the Persian version of the BDS alongside the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC). Psychometric analyses included confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and evaluations of internal consistency. The data were analyzed using AMOS and SPSS version 23. Results: The initial CFA revealed inadequate model fit; however, subsequent adjustments, including item removal and covariance modifications, resulted in a final model with acceptable fit indices (RMSEA = 0.075, IFI = 0.91, CFI = 0.91, x2df = 2.97). Both the original and revised versions of the BDS reflected robust internal consistency, as indicated by Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging from 0.79 to 0.86. Moreover, significant negative correlations existed between resilience and breakup-related distress (β = -0.36), with emotional control identified as the most significant predictor of distress (P < 0.001). Conclusions: The Persian version of the BDS is a reliable and valid measure of breakup distress, showing a negative correlation with resilience. However, important limitations warrant caution in interpreting the findings: Reliance on self-report data, lack of clinical evaluation, no focus on traumatic separations for validating low-loading Item 11, absence of a determined cutoff point, and lack of inter-rater agreement coefficients. Additionally, the convenience sampling method may introduce bias, and the study did not examine the interaction between resilience and coping strategies. Addressing these limitations in future research is crucial for enhancing the robustness and applicability of the BDS in understanding breakup distress and resilience.