Measuring affective temperaments: a systematic review of validation studies of the Temperament Evaluation in Memphis Pisa and San Diego (TEMPS) instruments

• Published in: Journal of affective disorders Vol. 212; pp. 25 - 37
• Main Authors: Elias, Liana R., Köhler, Cristiano A., Stubbs, Brendon, Maciel, Beatriz R., Cavalcante, Lígia M., Vale, Antonio M.O., Gonda, Xénia, Quevedo, João, Hyphantis, Thomas N., Soares, Jair C., Vieta, Eduard, Carvalho, André F.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Netherlands Elsevier B.V 01.04.2017
• Subjects: Adult; Affective disorders; Affective temperaments; Factor Analysis, Statistical; Female; Humans; Male; Mood disorders; Personality Inventory; Psychiatric/Mental Health; Psychiatry; Reproducibility of Results; Self Report; Surveys and Questionnaires; Temperament; Temperament in Memphis Pisa and San Diego; Validation; Validation; Mood disorders; Temperament in Memphis Pisa and San Diego; Affective disorders; Affective temperaments; Psychiatry
• ISSN: 0165-0327; 1573-2517; 1573-2517
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2017.01.023

The assessment of affective temperaments has provided useful insights for the psychopathological understanding of affective disorders and for the conceptualization of bipolar spectrum disorders. The Temperament in Memphis Pisa and San Diego (TEMPS) instrument has been widely used in research, yet its psychometric properties and optimal factor structure are unclear. The PubMed/MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and EMBASE electronic databases were searched from inception until March 15th, 2016. Validation peer-reviewed studies of different versions of the TEMPS performed in adult samples were considered for inclusion. Twenty-seven studies (N=20,787) met inclusion criteria. Several versions of the TEMPS have been validated in 14 languages across 15 countries. The 110-item self-reported version of the TEMPS has been the most studied version. Most studies (50%) supported a five factor solution although few studies performed confirmatory factor analyses. A five-factor solution has consistently been reported for the 39-item version of the TEMPS-A. Overall, evidence indicates that different versions of the TEMPS have adequate internal consistency reliability, while the TEMPS-A-110 version has acceptable test-retest reliability. The methodological quality of included studies varied. A meta-analysis could not be performed due to the heterogeneity of settings and versions of the TEMPS utilized. Different versions of the TEMPS have been validated across different cultures. The short 39-item version of the TEMPS-A holds promise and merits further investigation. Culture-bound factors may influence the expression and/or assessment of affective temperaments with the TEMPS. •The TEMPS instrument has been extensively used to assess affective temperaments.•A systematic review of validation studies of the TEMPS was performed.•The full-length TEMPS-A-110 was validated in several cultures.•However, the 39-item TEMPS-A may provide a shorter and valid alternative.