View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

The Inventario de Perdón y Reconciliación: Cross-Cultural Evaluation for a Spanish Translation of the Forgiveness Reconciliation Inventory

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: The Inventario de Perdón y Reconciliación: Cross-Cultural Evaluation for a Spanish Translation of the Forgiveness Reconciliation Inventory
Language: English
Authors: Mario D. Sobrino (ORCID 0000-0002-9293-3849), Richard S. Balkin (ORCID 0000-0003-4134-6385)
Source: Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development. 2025 58(3):250-268.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 19
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Spanish, Translation, Factor Structure, Goodness of Fit, Semantic Differential, Psychometrics, Scores, Test Validity, Counseling, Foreign Countries
Geographic Terms: Mexico, Spain, Portugal
DOI: 10.1080/07481756.2025.2458888
ISSN: 0748-1756
1947-6302
Abstract: Objective: Spanish-speaking counseling professionals developed a Spanish translation for the Forgiveness Reconciliation Inventory (FRI). Method: Spanish-speaking participants (N=199) completed the Inventario del Perdón y Reconciliación (IPR) and a demographics questionnaire through Qualtrics. Results: The IPR reported a four-factor structure and comparable fit indices to the FRI. Multigroup confirmatory factor analysis of FRI and IPR samples demonstrated evidence of partial invariance. Conclusions: While sufficient evidence and interpretations can be made for clinical use, additional evaluation of test items and psychometric construction is recommended to improve the validity and reliability of the FRI and IPR for use as research tools.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2026
Accession Number: EJ1505756
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGiT2TQ9UQrJR-ua_J6vxYxAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDFdQ2blb9F1HX2_7gAIBEICBmhxIjWxzuzvkDMxLB4K_DJLtibMw3gdvpqS-5Uv7PmMJ7_Ck238Dx3P750ZHbvznPttZtBA26iapRlPAbeTyCALpMAVmDoM3dxiJOOP0BrXzvjW9_1J_OAvHsIVbyOJ8DcUhA-0JaVY7pKdJOEhwsEJ4Zm4Dc2zj43lPozC9D9ITmRtPJm4IrJdN2cigGYXOaAViKdI7OYVVH5k=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0186248916;mev01jul.25;2025Jul01.03:45;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0186248916-1">The Inventario de Perdón y Reconciliación: Cross-Cultural Evaluation for a Spanish Translation of the Forgiveness Reconciliation Inventory </title> <p>Objective: Spanish-speaking counseling professionals developed a Spanish translation for the Forgiveness Reconciliation Inventory (FRI). Method: Spanish-speaking participants (N = 199) completed the Inventario del Perdón y Reconciliación (IPR) and a demographics questionnaire through Qualtrics. Results: The IPR reported a four-factor structure and comparable fit indices to the FRI. Multigroup confirmatory factor analysis of FRI and IPR samples demonstrated evidence of partial invariance. Conclusions: While sufficient evidence and interpretations can be made for clinical use, additional evaluation of test items and psychometric construction is recommended to improve the validity and reliability of the FRI and IPR for use as research tools.</p> <p>SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Scores on the FRI/IPR can support clinical practice with culturally responsive evaluation and actionable processes for topics of forgiveness/reconciliation, commonly explored in individual, group, family, and couples counseling settings across English and Spanish-speaking populations. Cross-cultural use of the FRI/IPR for research purposes would benefit from further evaluation of psychometric structure.</p> <p>Keywords: Forgiveness; Spanish; translation; measurement; confirmatory factor analysis</p> <hd id="AN0186248916-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Forgiveness as a tool for mental health counseling support is best described through the results that the process yields, "A release from a whole spectrum of negative emotions like fear, anger, suspicion, loneliness, alienation, mistrust." (Augsburger, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref1">6</reflink>], p. 68, as cited in Enright & Zell, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref2">25</reflink>]). Balkin et al. ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref3">8</reflink>]) adopted this philosophy when developing the <emph>forgiveness reconciliation model</emph> (FRM), which details the necessary steps and decisions culminating in an individual's choice to engage in either interpersonal forgiveness or intrapersonal forgiveness.</p> <p>Interpersonal forgiveness can be qualified in two ways: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref4">1</reflink>) as an active process in which an offender communicates with their victim(s) by acknowledging their wrongdoing, acknowledging the negative effects from their wrongdoing, expressing remorse for their behaviors, and identifying ways to prevent the behavior from recurring in the future; or (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref5">2</reflink>) as a victim acknowledging the wrongdoing of an offender and relinquishing negative emotions toward the offender's harmful behavior in an attempt to recover the damaged relationship (Augsburger, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref6">6</reflink>]; Blumenthal, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref7">12</reflink>]; Enright & The Human Development Study Group, 1991; Enright & Zell, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref8">25</reflink>]).</p> <p>Intrapersonal forgiveness is a process that begins when a victim's offender has not actively sought interpersonal forgiveness or has continuously demonstrated a lack of remorse/lack of changes in behavior; in that awareness, a victim chooses to accept their inability to change the situation, acknowledges that holding negative emotions (e.g. anger, sadness) is primarily causing harm to self, and ceases to allow the negative emotions to negatively affect their life (Griffin et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref9">33</reflink>]; Kaufman, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref10">45</reflink>]; Wenzel et al., [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref11">87</reflink>]). Likewise, if an offender has not received forgiveness from their victim even after communicating remorse and enacting change, the offender chooses to accept they have done all they could and ceases to allow the lingering feelings of remorse (e.g. guilt, shame) to negatively affect their life (Griffin et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref12">33</reflink>]; Wenzel et al., [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref13">87</reflink>]).</p> <p>The FRM is rooted in a moral development theory of forgiveness, specifically the procedural model of forgiveness within Judaism called <emph>mechila</emph> (Balkin et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref14">8</reflink>]). Mechila, with the literal translation of "pardon," is a Hebrew term referring to the forgiveness of debt, as transgressors are called not only to ask the victim for forgiveness, but to offer some type of genuine restitution (Blumenthal, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref15">12</reflink>]). A victim who identifies that their transgressor is genuine in both their apology and actions toward restitution is called to offer them mechila; their debt is considered paid, but the transgression itself is not forgotten (Adler, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref16">3</reflink>]). Balkin et al. ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref17">8</reflink>]) extended the usefulness of mechila outside of a religious procedure for the FRM, recognizing that mechila can be offered without any perceived apology or feelings of regret from the transgressor. Mechila, in this element, is not for seeking any type of reconciliation, but instead reinforces the individual's choice to push away from negative thought patterns and behaviors of revenge (Balkin, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref18">7</reflink>]).</p> <p>Balkin et al. ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref19">8</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref20">9</reflink>]) identified four phases within the FRM decision-making model: Collaborative Exploration, the Role of Reconciliation, Remorse/Change of the offender, and whether the victim would benefit more from seeking Interpersonal or Intrapersonal Forgiveness. Phase 1, Collaborative Exploration, focuses on processing the emotions, thought patterns, and interpersonal/intrapersonal behaviors associated with both the transgression and the transgressor. Phase 2, the Role of Reconciliation, focuses on evaluating the potential benefits and risks that are possible with the act of reconciliation with the offender. Phase 3, Remorse/Change, confronts the external realities of the forgiveness and reconciliation process, exploring if the transgressor has shown genuine remorse for their actions a pattern of behavioral changes that reflect a change from their previous actions. Phase 4, Interpersonal/Intrapersonal Forgiveness (also referred to as <emph>outcome</emph>), is an internal evaluation of whether a participant proceeds with interpersonal forgiveness (with or without reconciliation of the relationship) or intrapersonal forgiveness. If one is a victim whose transgressor fails to seek forgiveness, or whose transgressor fails to follow up the act of forgiveness-seeking with appropriate behavioral changes, the process of mechila helps one acknowledge that the debt cannot or will not be repaid and, therefore, frees the victim from the suffering mentality of hostility and self-criticism (Adler, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref21">3</reflink>]; Balkin et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref22">11</reflink>]; Blumenthal, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref23">12</reflink>]). If one is a transgressor that is not forgiven by their victim despite long-term, genuine efforts toward change, mechila can be used to address ongoing feelings of guilt. Although some <emph>constructive guilt</emph> can be an essential motivator for long-term behavioral change, <emph>destructive guilt</emph> for a past offense significantly limits one's potential for growth and oftentimes can trigger recurrence of the behavior (Muschel & Galla, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref24">60</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0186248916-3">The Forgiveness Reconciliation Inventory</hd> <p>In 2014, Balkin et al. used the FRM to create a 24-item measurement that evaluates a client's perception of and preparedness for seeking/granting forgiveness using semantic differentiation, a testing method that evaluates how a participant subjectively rates a set of opposing associations (e.g. content-dissatisfied) based on a specific question or context (e.g. "with regards to the person who harmed me, I feel"; Osgood et al., [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref25">65</reflink>]). The instructions in the <emph>Forgiveness Reconciliation Inventory</emph> (FRI) asks participants to recall an experience of being harmed/wrong, then asks questions based on the participant's subjective perception of the relationship with the transgressor. Each item of the FRI uses a 5-point scoring system for each pair of semantic differentials; the four FRM phrases (Collaborative Exploration, Role of Reconciliation, Remorse/Change, Interpersonal/Intrapersonal Forgiveness) are represented as four first-order latent variables, each with six items, for four domain scores ranging from 6 to 30. Within each domain, lower scores represent greater positive feelings toward the relationship with the transgressor; in which case interpersonal forgiveness would likely be more beneficial. Higher scores on the FRI domains represent greater negative feelings toward the relationship with the transgressor, in which case intrapersonal forgiveness would likely be more beneficial.</p> <p>To integrate the FRI into a counseling session, the scoring trends between each of the domains (e.g. high/low scores across all domains; high scores in some but low scores in others) are used to assign clients with a scoring profile (Balkin, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref26">7</reflink>]). For example, if a client were to score high on Collaborative Exploration and Remorse/Change yet score low on Role of Reconciliation and Interpersonal/Intrapersonal forgiveness, the scoring profile would determine that the client likely believes there are significant benefits or desires to maintain a relationship with their transgressor despite the client feeling generally negative toward the transgressor and that they do not believe the transgressor has demonstrated remorse or change (Balkin, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref27">7</reflink>]). The counselor must then holistically explore these findings with the client to evaluate and address the incongruence between their generally negative beliefs about the transgressor and the positive value that the relationship brings.</p> <p>As forgiveness and reconciliation are inherently present in all social systems, cultural norms have the potential to significantly shift an individual's perception regarding the importance/need of these concepts, how one engages in seeking/giving forgiveness and reconciliation, and the individual/group outcomes of these behaviors (Cook et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref28">20</reflink>]; Li, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref29">54</reflink>]). ; As research on the application of forgiveness and reconciliation within mental health treatment continues to develop, improving access to and availability of psychoeducation and clinical resources on this subject must be an equivalent priority, exploring best practices across a wide array of cultures, belief systems, and languages.</p> <hd id="AN0186248916-4">Una Población Necesitada (A Population in Need)</hd> <p>Spanish is third most spoken language around the world, only behind English and Mandarin (Nkemjika et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref30">62</reflink>]). The modern cultural norms of the Latinx population, despite their geographical distances and wide variety of native histories, often reflect several similarities throughout the world: primarily Spanish speaking, most often identifying within the Christian religious denominations (mostly Catholic), and commonly express collectivistic worldviews (Arredondo et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref31">5</reflink>]; Pew Research Center, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref32">70</reflink>]). The 2020 U.S. census identified that the Latinx ethnicity accounts for nearly 20% of the total population (62.6 million), representing the largest racial/ethnic minority group within the U.S. (Passel et al., [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref33">67</reflink>]). In a 2020 study, approximately 25.7% of Latinx adults within the U.S. reported experiencing a mental illness, substance use disorder, or co-occurring disorder (18.4% mental illness, 13.5% substance use disorder, and 5.8% co-occurring disorder respectively; SAMHSA (Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration), [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref34">80</reflink>]), with 64.9% of the Latinx adults identified with a mental health disorder also reporting no treatment; multicultural issues and lack of accessible resources were reported as primary barriers to care (SAMHSA (Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration), [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref35">80</reflink>]).</p> <p>Creating translations of existing English language measures is one potential solution to these barriers, but additional steps must be made to evaluate if an English language measure effectively measures its intended constructs in another language. When conducting cross-cultural research, Peña ([<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref36">69</reflink>]) asserted that researchers translating measurements often prioritize linguistic equivalence (directly translating words) while sacrificing functional equivalence (evaluating congruent meanings across the common language structures), cultural equivalence (evaluating congruent meanings across culture-specific language structure), and metric equivalence (evaluating congruence in item difficulty). Cha et al. ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref37">18</reflink>]) recommended a combination of at least two of the four most common techniques for translation to address functional and cultural equivalence: Back-translation (individually creating a translation then translating it back to its original language), the committee approach (multiple researchers contributing to one translation), pilot testing both original and translated version with bilingual populations, and pilot testing with the target language of translated measurement. Additionally, other culture-specific traits contribute to difficulties in establishing invariance between measurement translations, such as individualism vs collectivism (Lacko et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref38">50</reflink>]).</p> <p>Translations of forgiveness measures have become increasingly common, a review by Fernández-Capo et al. ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref39">27</reflink>]) evaluated forgiveness research using translated tests for multiple languages. With a total of 45 English forgiveness measures in publication as of 2017, four popular tests have been formally translated into Spanish: The Decision to Forgive Scale (DFS; Recoder et al., [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref40">76</reflink>]), the Forgiveness Questionnaire (FQ, Quintana-Orts et al., [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref41">74</reflink>]), the Heartland Forgiveness Scale (HFS; Gallo-Giunzioni et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref42">32</reflink>]), and the Transgression-Related Interpersonal Motivations Inventory (TRIM-18; Fernández-Capo et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref43">28</reflink>]). While scores on the translated measurement items demonstrate evidence of psychometric validity and reliability for Spanish speaking populations, they primarily focus on interpersonal forgiveness or a general client conceptualization of forgiveness rather than the FRI's procedural model and incorporation of intrapersonal forgiveness (Balkin et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref44">9</reflink>]). A Spanish translation for the FRI, titled the Inventario del Perdón y Reconciliación (IPR), will serve to challenge the traditional social, cultural, and spiritual pressures toward interpersonal forgiveness that the Latinx community are frequently exposed to (Arredondo et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref45">5</reflink>]; Cabrera et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref46">16</reflink>]).</p> <p>The multicultural and social justice counseling competencies (Ratts et al., [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref47">75</reflink>]) highlighted the clinical importance of understanding the practices and beliefs of clients coming from multicultural backgrounds. The concepts of forgiveness and reconciliation within the Latinx community draw strong ties to traditional religious practices, most commonly with the teachings of Catholicism (Matovina, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref48">57</reflink>]; Oliver et al., [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref49">64</reflink>]). As religion/spirituality is well established in general counseling literature as a predictor for positive mental health outcomes (Kent et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref50">46</reflink>]; King et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref51">47</reflink>]; Kraal et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref52">49</reflink>]; Musgrave et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref53">61</reflink>]; Sharma et al., [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref54">83</reflink>]), the integration of spiritual conversation with Latinx clients is an example of effectively using cultural knowledge, which has shown similar multicultural improvements in therapeutic rapport and treatment outcomes (Campesino & Schwartz, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref55">17</reflink>]; Morgan Consoli et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref56">59</reflink>]; Placeres & Ordaz, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref57">71</reflink>]). Clinical integration of a morally rooted forgiveness and reconciliation model through the IPR integrates these culturally specific traits, helping counselors support Latinx clients in evaluating a client's wellbeing and forgiveness behaviors within the context of their spiritual, cultural, and social protocols (Oliver et al., [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref58">64</reflink>]; Yárnoz-Yaben et al., [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref59">89</reflink>]).</p> <p>Understanding the intersectionality of traditional religious values with the Latinx norms of gender and family is vital cultural knowledge for this population. Emotional vulnerability becomes a high-risk experience as interpersonal forgiveness requires an acknowledgement of wrongdoing, which lead to potential harm to the reputations of individuals and their families/groups (Balkin, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref60">7</reflink>]). Within the Latinx cultural norm of <emph>familismo</emph>, the family unit is emphasized over all other socialization; in this system, one's behaviors and beliefs are primarily a representation of the family rather than the responsibility and choices of the individual (Smith-Morris et al., [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref61">85</reflink>]). As this can lead to feelings of protection and security for some individuals, familismo is a potential catalyst for guilt rationalizations of silencing abuse victims abuse while pardoning perpetrators (Fontes, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref62">31</reflink>]; Patrón, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref63">68</reflink>]). Hierarchal dynamics also have a significant influence between genders/ages/generations, Latinx women and children often having even greater pressure to either forgive/reconcile or suppress the need for accountability due to cultural norms (Morales & Rojas-Pérez, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref64">58</reflink>]; Rodriguez et al., [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref65">77</reflink>]). Use of the IPR in practice presents counselors with an opportunity to broach these considerations with their Spanish-speaking clients, understanding that choosing not to reconcile (a primary consideration when engaging in intrapersonal forgiveness) leaves individuals with complicated systemic consequences, many of which cause just as much emotional anguish as the transgression itself.</p> <p>While the themes of forgiveness and reconciliation are commonly addressed in clinical practice, and counselors often engage in these topics organically when presented with a relevant interpersonal situation, integrating the FRI/IPR into counseling offers several additional benefits and long-term resources for clients: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref66">1</reflink>) Counselors are able to track progress/change of a client's perspective between themselves and their transgressor over time, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref67">2</reflink>) Counselors can use the FRI/IPR to broach the Forgiveness Reconciliation Model with clients, providing clients with a decisional framework for evaluating interpersonal/intrapersonal forgiveness, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref68">3</reflink>) Counselors can use the scoring profiles of the FRI/IPR to provide clients with a psychoeducational tool for evaluating different experiences of interpersonal transgressions (examples of scoring profiles provided in discussion session) after they have completed counseling, and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref69">4</reflink>) Counselors with clients demonstrating a lack of awareness or denial of the incongruence between their feelings (e.g. anger, disappointment) and behaviors (e.g. ignoring negative behaviors, lack of accountability) toward a transgressor can use the FRI/IPR as a psychoeducational tool for demonstrating the lack of congruence in relation to the client's multicultural themes such as cultural pressure or collectivistic expectations (Balkin, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref70">7</reflink>]).</p> <p>The primary goal of this study was to validate the Spanish translation of the FRI, the IPR. A secondary goal of this study was to compare the cross-cultural components of internal structure between the FRI and IPR. Simply assuming that the translation process inherently produces equivalencies in application is injudicious, as research gathered from (and therefore most applicable to) a specific population does not provide evidence of generalizability for other populations (Ervin & Smith, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref71">26</reflink>]; Ratts et al., [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref72">75</reflink>]). Therefore, the primary research question focused on whether scores on the IPR demonstrate comparable psychometric properties of validity and reliability to scores on the FRI. The secondary research question explored cross-cultural measurement invariance between the FRI and IPR to evaluate if both instruments measure the same latent constructs across language groups.</p> <hd id="AN0186248916-5">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186248916-6">Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria</hd> <p>Our inclusion criteria were: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref73">1</reflink>) all participants must be at least 18 years of age or older, and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref74">2</reflink>) all participants must correctly answer Spanish fluency questions. A declaration of consent statement was placed on the first page of the Qualtrics survey, participants were required to check a box in order to continue participation. Three questions were used to evaluate Spanish fluency, asking participants to identify a specific item/object amongst four pictures; any incorrect responses to these questions would exclude participants from the final sample.</p> <hd id="AN0186248916-7">Participant Characteristics</hd> <p>Participants identified their gender as male (<emph>n</emph> = 106, 53%), female (<emph>n</emph> = 83, 42%), and non-binary/other (<emph>n</emph> = 10, 5%). Approximately 75% of participants identified within the Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity (<emph>n</emph> = 149). Most participants were international (<emph>n</emph> = 174, 87%), with Mexico as the most commonly reported country of primary residence (<emph>n</emph> = 104, 52%) and nearly a third identifying as European, living in Spain (<emph>n</emph> = 35, 17%) or Portugal (<emph>n</emph> = 30, 15%) respectively. Nearly all participants (<emph>n</emph> = 182, 91%) identified currently living within their country of birth, and the same country where their parents/primary caretakers were born, showing a relatively small immigrant population within the sample. Most participants reported Spanish as their primary spoken language throughout their childhood (<emph>n =</emph> 145, 73%) and Spanish as their primary language of use within the last 6 months (<emph>n</emph> = 142, 71%).</p> <p>As age was not a significant consideration for the study, age demographics were collected with anonymous ranges. 5-year nominal age ranges started from 18 to 22 (scored as 0), went up to 63–67 (scored as 9), and ended with 68+ (scored as 10) as a final range since the data collection was not predicted to skew toward a high number of geriatric participants. Most participants reported between the age ranges of 18 to 37 (<emph>n =</emph> 175, 88%), demonstrating a predominantly younger demographic.</p> <hd id="AN0186248916-8">Procedures</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186248916-9">Sampling Procedures</hd> <p>Utilizing a non-parametric sampling approach, a cross-sectional research design was used to evaluate evidence of psychometric validity and reliability for scores associated with a Spanish-language translation of the FRI. An exempt application to the university institutional review board was submitted and approved (#23x-141) prior to the data collection process. Demographic questions evaluating identifiable or vulnerable information were either deidentified using categorical variables (e.g. age ranges) or not used (e.g. legal status of citizenship) for the study.</p> <p>The three-part Spanish questionnaire for this study was created and distributed to participants exclusively through Qualtrics, an online survey and data collection software; no in-person data collection took place due to limitations in regional access to Spanish-speaking populations during the time of data collection. The Qualtrics questionnaire could be completed either on an internet-connected computer or mobile device (e.g. smartphone, tablet), with instructions provided using visual aids of both computer and mobile device formats. The first page of the questionnaire was the consent form, providing participants with basic information on the study and a "declaration of consent" attesting their consent and acknowledgement of the minimum age requirement. The second page of the questionnaire consisted of the 24-item IPR, the third page consisted of the Index of Core Spiritual Experiences—Spanish Version (INSPIRIT-S; Kass, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref75">44</reflink>]) which was omitted from analysis for this study, and the fourth page consisted of demographics questions. At the end of pages two through four, one basic Spanish fluency question was added.</p> <p>Participant recruitment for this study was conducted using a crowdsourcing resource (Prolific Academic). From the Prolific Academic platform, 200 responses were received in March 2023. The Prolific Academic participants were compensated through the payment system of the crowdsourcing platform using a code provided at the end of the survey. A separate Qualtrics link was used for collecting data with the Prolific participants to distinguish from the calls for participants. Out of the 200 total participants, 99.5% (<emph>n</emph> = 199) of the responses were used for the final data collection, with 1 participant removed from due to incorrect responses to the Spanish fluency items.</p> <hd id="AN0186248916-10">Translation Procedures</hd> <p>The English-to-Spanish forward translation and back translation of the IPR and demographics questionnaire were completed in parallel by a Spanish-speaking doctoral student of counselor education and a Spanish-speaking adjunct professor of counselor education in October 2021. Both translators are heritage Spanish speakers, with Spanish as the primary language spoken in their childhood home. Two common Spanish dialects within the United States (Puerto Rican and Mexican) were used simultaneously during the translation process, using the most appropriate language that worked across both dialects. After the parallel process, two external parties sequentially reviewed the translation: an assistant professor of counselor education with a Columbian dialect, and a master's level instructor of Spanish at a Puerto Rican university using a Puerto Rican dialect. The only edits recommended by either of the reviewers were small semantic modifications to the Spanish translation of the instructions, no changes were recommended for the items. To evaluate participants for basic fluency in reading Spanish, three questions were added throughout the survey. The questions asked participants to identify a specified animate or inanimate item with 4 pictures to choose from (e.g. a lighthouse). Items were carefully chosen to avoid using objects that have multiple names across Spanish dialects.</p> <hd id="AN0186248916-11">Sample Size, Power, and Precision</hd> <p>Literature discussing minimum sample size for CFA provides an assortment of answers. Some scholars identified an absolute minimum of 200 participants regardless of the number of factors/variables (Boomsma, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref76">13</reflink>]), while others suggested heuristic calculations such as 10 participants for every observed variable or parameter within the model (Koran, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref77">48</reflink>]; Wolf et al., [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref78">88</reflink>]). For a model such as the IPR, with a total of 4 factors and 6 indicators per factor, Jackson et al. similarly reported an unconditional minimum sample size of 200 participants (2013, p. 93).</p> <hd id="AN0186248916-12">Measurements of Constructs</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186248916-13">Forgiveness reconciliation Inventory (FRI)</hd> <p>Created and validated by Dr. Richard Balkin in 2014, the FRI asks participants to recall an experience of being harmed/wrong, then asks questions based on the participant's subjective perception of the relationship. The original FRI study used a 4-factor, 24-item measure, each factor having a minimum score of 6 and a maximum score of 30 based on responses valued from 1 to 5 (Balkin et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref79">9</reflink>]). Evidence of psychometric reliability among the 200 FRI participants measured internal consistency using Cronbach's α across the four factors: Collaborative Exploration (α =.90), Role of Reconciliation (α =.88), Remorse/Change (α =.92) and Interpersonal/Intrapersonal Forgiveness (α =.93). For evidence of psychometric validity, the original FRI study used confirmatory factor analysis to evaluate the four-factor model, initially showing a significant chi square (χ<sups>2</sups> [<reflink idref="bib246" id="ref80">246</reflink>] = 693.17, <emph>p</emph> <.001) and mediocre (CFI =.88, TLI =.87) to good fit (SRMR =.069) amongst the fit indices (Balkin et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref81">9</reflink>]). Through the examination of modification indices, Balkin et al. identified two outlying pairs of error variances that were then correlated for the final model, showing an improved chi square (χ<sups>2</sups> = 598.49, <emph>p</emph> <.001) and acceptable fit across the fit indices (CFI =.91; TLI =.90; SRMR =.069).</p> <hd id="AN0186248916-14">Inventario de Perdón y Reconciliación (IPR)</hd> <p>Out of the 48 words used in the IPR items (24 pairs of semantically differentiated words), 13 words (27%) were either changed or moved to other pairings in order to align with Spanish grammar structures and appropriately conceptualize the positive traits (e.g. <emph>content</emph> to <emph>satisfied [satisfecho/a]</emph>, <emph>affection</emph> to <emph>affectionate [afectuoso/a]</emph>) and negative traits (e.g. <emph>indifferent</emph> to <emph>apathetic [apático/a]</emph>) in their linguistic context. Scoring for the six Collaborative Exploration items was based on how the participant feels toward the person that harmed them, based on the back-translated question "In respect to the person that harmed me, I feel..." Scoring for the six Role of Reconciliation items was based on how the participant feels about reestablishing a relationship with the transgressor through the question "To reestablish a relationship with the person that harmed me would be..." Scoring for the six Remorse/Change items were evaluated by the participant identifying how they felt about the offender as well as any perceived change in behaviors, through the question "The person who harmed me is..." Finally, scoring for the six Interpersonal/Intrapersonal Forgiveness items was based on how the participant feels their future relationship would be with the person who harmed them, based on the question "In the future, my relationship with the person that harmed me will probably be..."</p> <hd id="AN0186248916-15">Data Diagnostics</hd> <p>Reliability estimates for the FRI and IPR were conducted using SPSS 29.0.0.0, reporting Cronbach's α for comparison to the original FRI data, as well as McDonald's ω values with confidence intervals (Flora, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref82">30</reflink>]; Hayes & Coutts, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref83">36</reflink>]; Lenz, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref84">53</reflink>]). For both Cronbach's α and McDonald's ω, a value of.70 is the minimum benchmark for an acceptable degree of internal consistency, with values between.80 and.89 deemed as adequate and values ≥.90 deemed as excellent (Hayes & Coutts, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref85">36</reflink>]; Lance et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref86">51</reflink>]; Taber, [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref87">86</reflink>]).</p> <p>Without controlling for factors such as transgression severity and processing time, it is possible that the model assumption of normality for the FRI and IPR would not be met, particularly with potential vulnerabilities of floor and ceiling effects. These factors were not controlled within the study as ethical, multiculturally competent counselors are expected to holistically explore these transgressions and relationships with the client when implementing an assessment such as the FRI in session rather than make assumptions from the factors (ACA (American Counseling Association), [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref88">1</reflink>]). Therefore, alternative null hypothesis statistical testing (NHST) methods that account for non-normal data distribution must be used when violations of normality are found in Q-Q plot analysis.</p> <hd id="AN0186248916-16">Analytic Plan</hd> <p>For evidence of internal structure in both the IPR and FRI, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted using the lavaan 0.6–18 package in R Studio version 2024.04.2 (Lin, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref89">55</reflink>]; Rosseel, [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref90">78</reflink>]). To control for non-normality in confirmatory factor analysis, maximum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors and Satorra-Bentler scaled test statistic (MLM) uses simulation modeling to obtain sample-corrected fit indices (Acock, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref91">2</reflink>]; Brosseau-Liard et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref92">15</reflink>]; Brosseau-Liard & Savalei, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref93">14</reflink>]; Satorra & Bentler, [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref94">82</reflink>]). To measure model fit, four fit indices were used: comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and standardized root-mean square residual (SRMR). The MLM model provides robust estimations specifically for CFI, TLI, and RMSEA (Brosseau-Liard et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref95">15</reflink>]; Brosseau-Liard & Savalei, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref96">14</reflink>]). While one-size-fits-all cutoff values for model fit indices are generally contested (Groskurth et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref97">34</reflink>]; Heene et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref98">37</reflink>]; Marsh et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref99">56</reflink>]), excellent model fit is generally identified at values of CFI ≥.95, TLI ≥.95, RMSEA ≤.05, and SRMR ≤.05, while acceptable model fit is generally identified at values of CFI ≥.90, TLI ≥.90, RMSEA ≤.06, and SRMR ≤.08 (Dimitrov, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref100">22</reflink>]). An additional indicator of internal structure is standardized factor loadings, Hair et al. ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref101">35</reflink>]) identifying a minimum factor loading cutoff score of.5 for each item.</p> <p>In order to psychometrically compare participant scores on the IPR with participant scores on the FRI, revisions were made to the original FRI data set. As the IPR's data set had no missing values, 4 of the 200 participants were removed from the original FRI data set due to missing responses, leaving 196 participants for the adjusted FRI data set. Additionally, while the original FRI used modification indices to correlate two pairs of error variances to report an improved model fit, these procedures were removed from the adjusted FRI. All of the validity and reliability analyses that were conducted for the IPR were then conducted using the adjusted FRI data set.</p> <p>When evaluating cross-cultural measurements, it is vital to identify the degree to which participants of each cultural group (or language group in this case) report their perception of each factor in the same way. This is statistically evaluated through three tests of invariance: configural invariance (similar factor loading patterns across groups), metric invariance (similar magnitude of factor loadings across groups), and scalar invariance (similar item intercepts across groups; Fischer & Karl, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref102">29</reflink>]; Hirschfeld & von Brachel, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref103">38</reflink>]). To evaluate invariance between the IPR and FRI groups, a multigroup confirmatory factor analysis (MGCFA) was conducted using the lavaan 0.6–18, semTools, and ccpsyc packages in <emph>R</emph> Studio version 2024.04.2 (Jorgensen et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref104">42</reflink>]; Karl, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref105">43</reflink>]; Rosseel et al., [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref106">79</reflink>]).</p> <p>Configural invariance was evaluated through results of chi-square analysis and the following cutoffs for excellent model fit (CFI ≥.95, RMSEA ≤.05, and SRMR ≤.05) and adequate/fair model fit (CFI ≥.90, RMSEA ≤.08, and SRMR ≤.08) for testing of configural invariance (D'Urso et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref107">21</reflink>]; Lacko et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref108">50</reflink>]). Metric invariance was evaluated by measuring overall change (delta, Δ) between the chi-square values and fit indices of the configural and metric invariance MGCFAs. Because of adequate sample size (<emph>N</emph> > 300), nearly identical sample sizes for the IPR and FRI groups, and non-uniform/mixed invariance (items on the IPR loading both higher and lower than the FRI<subs>A</subs>), an overall change in CFI less than.01, change in RMSEA less than.015, change in SRMR less than.03, and a non-significant chi square were identified as the cutoffs for metric invariance (Chen, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref109">19</reflink>], p. 501; Putnick & Bornstein, [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref110">73</reflink>], p. 9). For scalar invariance, the same evaluation occurs between the metric and scalar invariance MGCFAs, with change in SRMR reduced to.015 (Chen, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref111">19</reflink>], p. 501; Putnick & Bornstein, [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref112">73</reflink>], p. 9,). TLI/Change in TLI were not used due to being vulnerable to inflated type 1 error rate within measurement invariance metrics (Protzko, [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref113">72</reflink>]; Sass et al., [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref114">81</reflink>]). Failure to meet full invariance (uniformly meet all three levels of invariance) within the model may signify that participants of the FRI group and IPR group demonstrate statistically significant differences in scoring across the latent factors of the forgiveness reconciliation model between the two language versions. However, research suggests that full invariance is rarely met in survey data, with partial invariance (meeting some but not all invariance criteria) more commonly reported and accepted in psychological research (Leitgöb et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref115">52</reflink>]; Putnick & Bornstein, [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref116">73</reflink>]).</p> <p>Testing the practical significance of nonequivalence between the IPR and FRI groups identifies items that significantly contribute to invariance within each factor, evaluating for cross-cultural differences in how items are interpreted (Nye & Drasgow, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref117">63</reflink>]). The effect sizes were measured using the dMACS package in R Studio version 2024.04.2, which outputs a modified Cohen's <emph>d</emph> value with the same cutoffs as the original (≥.20 = small effect, ≥.50 = moderate, ≥.80 = large; Fischer & Karl, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref118">29</reflink>]; Nye & Drasgow, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref119">63</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0186248916-17">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186248916-18">Descriptive Statistics</hd> <p>Descriptive statistics and correlation values for scores on the IPR, adjusted FRI, and the combined models were evaluated, findings are reported in Table 1. Distribution plots and Q-Q plots for IPR and adjusted FRI factor scores were conducted, initial review of Q-Q and distribution plots identified potential violations of normality within the data. Evidence of ceiling effects were identified among all four factors across both the IPR and adjusted FRI. Evidence of floor effects were also identified among all four factors of the IPR and adjusted FRI, but to a lesser degree. Violations of normality were expected and accounted for when selecting the statistical testing methods and test statistics for data analysis.</p> <p>Table 1. Descriptive statistics, bivariate correlations, and reliability estimates for all data sets.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Scale/factor</td><td>Descriptive statistics</td><td>Bivariate correlations</td><td>Internal consistency reliability estimates</td></tr><tr><td>N</td><td>M</td><td>SD</td><td>ROR</td><td>RC</td><td>OUT</td><td>α (95% CI)</td><td>ω (95% CI)</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>IPR</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> EXP</td><td char=".">199</td><td char=".">20.30</td><td char=".">4.76</td><td char=".">.31<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">*</xref></td><td char=".">.48<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">*</xref></td><td char=".">.54<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">*</xref></td><td char=".">.83 (.80,.86)</td><td char=".">.83 (.79,.86)</td></tr><tr><td> ROR</td><td char=".">199</td><td char=".">18.90</td><td char=".">5.43</td><td>--</td><td char=".">.48<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">*</xref></td><td char=".">.66<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">*</xref></td><td char=".">.84 (.80,.88)</td><td char=".">.84 (.79,.87)</td></tr><tr><td> RC</td><td char=".">199</td><td char=".">21.68</td><td char=".">5.31</td><td /><td>--</td><td char=".">.65<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">*</xref></td><td char=".">.86 (.82,.90)</td><td char=".">.86 (.80,.89)</td></tr><tr><td> OUT</td><td char=".">199</td><td char=".">22.33</td><td char=".">5.80</td><td /><td /><td>--</td><td char=".">.89 (.85,.91)</td><td char=".">.89 (.85,.91)</td></tr><tr><td>Original FRI</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> EXP</td><td char=".">200</td><td char=".">20.10</td><td char=".">6.06</td><td char=".">.46<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">*</xref></td><td char=".">.47<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">*</xref></td><td char=".">.42<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">*</xref></td><td char=".">.90 (.88,.92)</td><td char=".">.90 (.88,.93)</td></tr><tr><td> ROR</td><td char=".">200</td><td char=".">17.55</td><td char=".">6.21</td><td>--</td><td char=".">.57<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">*</xref></td><td char=".">.67<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">*</xref></td><td char=".">.88 (.85,.90)</td><td char=".">.88 (.86,.91)</td></tr><tr><td> RC</td><td char=".">200</td><td char=".">22.08</td><td char=".">6.43</td><td /><td>--</td><td char=".">.68<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">*</xref></td><td char=".">.92 (.90,.94)</td><td char=".">.92 (.90,.94)</td></tr><tr><td> OUT</td><td char=".">200</td><td char=".">20.47</td><td char=".">6.95</td><td /><td /><td>--</td><td char=".">.93 (.92,.95)</td><td char=".">.93 (.92,.95)</td></tr><tr><td>Adjusted FRI</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> EXP</td><td char=".">196</td><td char=".">20.15</td><td char=".">6.04</td><td char=".">.46<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">*</xref></td><td char=".">.48<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">*</xref></td><td char=".">.42<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">*</xref></td><td char=".">.90 (.88,.92)</td><td char=".">.90 (.88,.93)</td></tr><tr><td> ROR</td><td char=".">196</td><td char=".">17.58</td><td char=".">6.21</td><td>--</td><td char=".">.58<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">*</xref></td><td char=".">.67<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">*</xref></td><td char=".">.88 (.85,.90)</td><td char=".">.88 (.85,.91)</td></tr><tr><td> RC</td><td char=".">196</td><td char=".">22.07</td><td char=".">6.43</td><td /><td>--</td><td char=".">.68<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">*</xref></td><td char=".">.92 (.90,.94)</td><td char=".">.92 (.90,.94)</td></tr><tr><td> OUT</td><td char=".">196</td><td char=".">20.45</td><td char=".">6.88</td><td /><td /><td>--</td><td char=".">.93 (.91,.95)</td><td char=".">.93 (.92,.95)</td></tr><tr><td>Combined</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> EXP</td><td char=".">438</td><td char=".">20.02</td><td char=".">5.46</td><td char=".">.41<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">*</xref></td><td char=".">.49<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">*</xref></td><td char=".">.49<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">*</xref></td><td char=".">.87 (.85,.89)</td><td char=".">.88 (.86,.90)</td></tr><tr><td> ROR</td><td char=".">438</td><td char=".">18.09</td><td char=".">5.86</td><td>--</td><td char=".">.52<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">*</xref></td><td char=".">.67<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">*</xref></td><td char=".">.86 (.84,.88)</td><td char=".">.86 (.84,.88)</td></tr><tr><td> RC</td><td char=".">438</td><td char=".">21.81</td><td char=".">5.92</td><td /><td>--</td><td char=".">.67<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">*</xref></td><td char=".">.90 (.88,.91)</td><td char=".">.90 (.88,.91)</td></tr><tr><td> OUT</td><td char=".">438</td><td char=".">21.23</td><td char=".">6.50</td><td /><td /><td>--</td><td char=".">.92 (.90,.93)</td><td char=".">.92 (.90,.93)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note</emph>. EXP = Collaborative Exploration, ROR = Role of Reconciliation, RC = Remorse/Change, OUT = Interpersonal/Intrapersonal Forgiveness, α = Cronbach's alpha, ω = McDonald's omega.</p> <p>2 <emph>p</emph> <.001.</p> <hd id="AN0186248916-19">Comparing Psychometric Properties of the Original FRI, Adjusted FRI, and IPR</hd> <p>Descriptive statistics, bivariate correlations, and reliability estimates for the IPR and adjusted FRI scores are reported in Table 1, results across all factors were significantly above the minimum recommended cutoff value of >.70. Using McDonald's ω values, reliability estimates for the IPR ranged from.83 [.79,.86] (Collaborative Exploration) to.89 [.85,.91] (Interpersonal/Intrapersonal Forgiveness) across the four factors. Both Cronbach's α and McDonald's ω yielded lower values for the IPR in comparison to the adjusted FRI.</p> <p>Results for the confirmatory factor analysis using maximum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors and Satorra-Bentler scaled test statistic (MLM) are presented in Table 2 along with the findings used in the original FRI. The chi square model fit for the adjusted FRI (χ<sups>2</sups> = 540.661, <emph>p</emph> <.001) showed a slight improvement in comparison to the original FRI (χ<sups>2</sups> = 598.491, <emph>p</emph> <.001). However, compared to the original FRI (CFI =.906, TLI =.895, RMSEA =.085 [.077,.094], SRMR =.069), all fit indices showed a slight reduction in model fit for the adjusted FRI (CFI =.900, TLI =.886, RMSEA =.088 [.078,.098], SRMR =.070), acceptable model fit results only found with CFI and SRMR. An important reminder when interpreting the differences between the original and adjusted FRI is that no error variances were paired in the adjusted FRI analysis and the sample size was reduced by 4 (<emph>n</emph> = 196), falling slightly below the CFA sample size minimum of 200 for the four factor, six item model (Jackson et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref120">40</reflink>]). Additionally, the CFI, TLI, and RMSEA results for the adjusted FRI used the robust estimations provided by the MLM analysis.</p> <p>Table 2. Confirmatory factor analysis results: chi square, fit indices, and other fit measures.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Fit indices and other fit measures</td><td>FRI<sub>O</sub></td><td>FRI<sub>A</sub></td><td>IPR</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Model chi square (χ<sup>2</sup>)</td><td char=".">598.491<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">*</xref></td><td char=".">540.661<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">*</xref>^</td><td char=".">459.245<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">*</xref>^</td></tr><tr><td>Comparative fit index (CFI)</td><td char=".">.906</td><td char=".">.900^</td><td char=".">.900^</td></tr><tr><td>Tucker-Lewis index (TLI)</td><td char=".">.895</td><td char=".">.886^</td><td char=".">.888^</td></tr><tr><td>Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)</td><td char=".">.085<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">*</xref></td><td char=".">.088<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">*</xref>^</td><td char=".">.072<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">*</xref>^</td></tr><tr><td>RMSEA 90% CI lower bound</td><td char=".">.077</td><td char=".">.078^</td><td char=".">.062^</td></tr><tr><td>RMSEA 90% CI upper bound</td><td char=".">.094</td><td char=".">.098^</td><td char=".">.082^</td></tr><tr><td>Standardized root mean square residual (SRMR)</td><td char=".">.069</td><td char=".">.070^</td><td char=".">.070^</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>3 <emph>Note</emph>. Excellent model fit is generally identified at values of CFI ≥.95, TLI ≥.95, RMSEA ≤.05, and SRMR ≤.05, while acceptable model fit is generally identified at values of CFI ≥.90, TLI ≥.90, RMSEA ≤.06, and SRMR ≤.08 (Dimitrov, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref121">22</reflink>]). ^ = robust estimations using the maximum likelihood with robust corrections model (MLM; Brosseau-Liard & Savalei, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref122">14</reflink>]; Brosseau-Liard et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref123">15</reflink>]).</item> <item>4 = <emph>p</emph> <.001.</item> </ulist> <p>The chi square model fit for the IPR (χ<sups>2</sups> = 459.245, <emph>p</emph> <.001) additionally showed a slight improvement in fit in comparison to the adjusted FRI. Robust fit indices for the IPR (CFI =.900, TLI =.888, RMSEA =.072 [.062,.082], SRMR =.070) showed nearly identical results to the adjusted FRI, acceptable model fit results similarly only found for CFI and SRMR. Findings suggest modification of test items is needed to improve evidence of internal structure, and the additional analysis should be interpreted with caution.</p> <p>Standardized factor loadings and standard error scores for the original FRI, adjusted FRI, and IPR scores are reported in Table 3. Standardized factor loadings for items on the original FRI and adjusted FRI ranged from.61 to.91, well above the.5 minimum factor loading score for CFA (Hair et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref124">35</reflink>]). Differences in standardized factor loading scores between items on the original FRI and adjusted FRI ranged from −0.04 and.07; on average, standardized factor loadings scores per item for the adjusted FRI were.0025 higher than the original FRI, demonstrating evidence of near equivalence for the standardized factor loadings despite the removal of modification indices with the adjusted FRI. Standardized factor loadings for items on the IPR ranged from.54 to.86, slightly reduced in comparison to the adjusted FRI but all exceeding minimum standards. Differences in standardized factor loading scores between items on the IPR and adjusted FRI ranged from −0.24 to.05; on average, standardized factor loadings scores per item for the IPR were.08 lower than the adjusted FRI.</p> <p>Table 3. Comparison of standardized estimates for factor pattern coefficients between the original FRI, adjusted FRI, and IPR.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td /><td>Standardized factor loadings (β)</td><td>Standard error (<italic>SE</italic>)</td></tr><tr><td>Item</td><td>Latent construct</td><td>FRI<sub>O</sub></td><td>FRI<sub>A</sub></td><td>IPR</td><td>FRI<sub>O</sub></td><td>FRI<sub>A</sub></td><td>IPR</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>1</td><td>Collaborative Exploration</td><td char=".">0.85</td><td char=".">0.81</td><td char=".">0.73</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Collaborative Exploration</td><td char=".">0.71</td><td char=".">0.76</td><td char=".">0.63</td><td char=".">0.07</td><td char=".">0.07</td><td char=".">0.08</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Collaborative Exploration</td><td char=".">0.72</td><td char=".">0.79</td><td char=".">0.64</td><td char=".">0.07</td><td char=".">0.07</td><td char=".">0.09</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Collaborative Exploration</td><td char=".">0.81</td><td char=".">0.82</td><td char=".">0.73</td><td char=".">0.07</td><td char=".">0.07</td><td char=".">0.10</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>Collaborative Exploration</td><td char=".">0.75</td><td char=".">0.71</td><td char=".">0.61</td><td char=".">0.07</td><td char=".">0.07</td><td char=".">0.09</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>Collaborative Exploration</td><td char=".">0.79</td><td char=".">0.78</td><td char=".">0.73</td><td char=".">0.07</td><td char=".">0.07</td><td char=".">0.08</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>Role of Reconciliation</td><td char=".">0.72</td><td char=".">0.72</td><td char=".">0.76</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>Role of Reconciliation</td><td char=".">0.62</td><td char=".">0.61</td><td char=".">0.56</td><td char=".">0.10</td><td char=".">0.09</td><td char=".">0.10</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>Role of Reconciliation</td><td char=".">0.67</td><td char=".">0.67</td><td char=".">0.56</td><td char=".">0.10</td><td char=".">0.10</td><td char=".">0.10</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>Role of Reconciliation</td><td char=".">0.83</td><td char=".">0.83</td><td char=".">0.68</td><td char=".">0.10</td><td char=".">0.10</td><td char=".">0.10</td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>Role of Reconciliation</td><td char=".">0.84</td><td char=".">0.83</td><td char=".">0.68</td><td char=".">0.11</td><td char=".">0.09</td><td char=".">0.09</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>Role of Reconciliation</td><td char=".">0.76</td><td char=".">0.76</td><td char=".">0.81</td><td char=".">0.10</td><td char=".">0.09</td><td char=".">0.08</td></tr><tr><td>13</td><td>Remorse/Change</td><td char=".">0.66</td><td char=".">0.71</td><td char=".">0.57</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>Remorse/Change</td><td char=".">0.77</td><td char=".">0.81</td><td char=".">0.73</td><td char=".">0.08</td><td char=".">0.07</td><td char=".">0.10</td></tr><tr><td>15</td><td>Remorse/Change</td><td char=".">0.75</td><td char=".">0.78</td><td char=".">0.54</td><td char=".">0.11</td><td char=".">0.06</td><td char=".">0.11</td></tr><tr><td>16</td><td>Remorse/Change</td><td char=".">0.88</td><td char=".">0.87</td><td char=".">0.83</td><td char=".">0.12</td><td char=".">0.08</td><td char=".">0.14</td></tr><tr><td>17</td><td>Remorse/Change</td><td char=".">0.89</td><td char=".">0.86</td><td char=".">0.85</td><td char=".">0.11</td><td char=".">0.08</td><td char=".">0.14</td></tr><tr><td>18</td><td>Remorse/Change</td><td char=".">0.87</td><td char=".">0.86</td><td char=".">0.77</td><td char=".">0.11</td><td char=".">0.08</td><td char=".">0.14</td></tr><tr><td>19</td><td>Interpersonal/Intrapersonal</td><td char=".">0.78</td><td char=".">0.78</td><td char=".">0.73</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>20</td><td>Interpersonal/Intrapersonal</td><td char=".">0.74</td><td char=".">0.73</td><td char=".">0.60</td><td char=".">0.07</td><td char=".">0.07</td><td char=".">0.10</td></tr><tr><td>21</td><td>Interpersonal/Intrapersonal</td><td char=".">0.88</td><td char=".">0.87</td><td char=".">0.79</td><td char=".">0.07</td><td char=".">0.06</td><td char=".">0.07</td></tr><tr><td>22</td><td>Interpersonal/Intrapersonal</td><td char=".">0.85</td><td char=".">0.84</td><td char=".">0.82</td><td char=".">0.07</td><td char=".">0.06</td><td char=".">0.07</td></tr><tr><td>23</td><td>Interpersonal/Intrapersonal</td><td char=".">0.89</td><td char=".">0.89</td><td char=".">0.86</td><td char=".">0.06</td><td char=".">0.06</td><td char=".">0.07</td></tr><tr><td>24</td><td>Interpersonal/Intrapersonal</td><td char=".">0.91</td><td char=".">0.91</td><td char=".">0.83</td><td char=".">0.07</td><td char=".">0.06</td><td char=".">0.07</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>5 <emph>Note.</emph> FRI<subs>O</subs> = Original Forgiveness Reconciliation Inventory data set, FRI<subs>A</subs> = Adjusted Forgiveness Reconciliation Inventory data set, IPR = Inventario del Perdón y Reconciliación.</p> <hd id="AN0186248916-20">Measurement Invariance</hd> <p>All scores for the multigroup CFA model are reported in Table 4. The configural invariance test revealed a statistically significant chi-square analysis, χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib492" id="ref125">492</reflink>) = 1,002.17, <emph>p</emph> <.001. All minimum cutoffs scores for configural invariance were met, CFI =.90, RMSEA =.080, and SRMR =.067; the 90% confidence intervals for RMSEA [CI<subs>90</subs>:.073,.087] fall outside of the cutoff scores, suggesting limited generalizability. When evaluating metric invariance (by constraining factor loadings to be equal across groups), the overall changes in χ<sups>2</sups> (Δdf = 20, Δ χ<sups>2</sups> = 28.87, <emph>p</emph> >.05) and all fit indices (ΔCFI = −0.001, ΔRMSEA = −0.001, ΔSRMR =.004) suggest that metric invariance was met; the 90% confidence intervals for RMSEA [CI<subs>90</subs>:.072,.086] similarly indicate limitations of generalizability. When evaluating scalar invariance (by constraining intercepts to be equal across groups), the overall changes in χ<sups>2</sups> (Δdf = 20, Δ χ<sups>2</sups> = 131.85, <emph>p</emph> <.001) and CFI (Δ = −0.017) suggest that scalar invariance was not met, whereas changes in RMSEA (Δ =.005) and SRMR (Δ =.002) suggest scalar invariance was met. Failure to uniformly meet scalar invariance signifies that only partial invariance was met within the model.</p> <p>Table 4. Multigroup confirmatory factor analysis results: chi square, fit indices, and other fit measures.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Fit indices and other fit measures</td><td>Configural</td><td>Metric</td><td>Scalar</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Model chi square (χ<sup>2</sup>)</td><td char=".">1,002.17<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn7">*</xref></td><td char=".">1,031.04<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn7">*</xref></td><td char=".">1,162.89<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn7">*</xref></td></tr><tr><td><italic>Change in χ<sup>2</sup> (Δ χ<sup>2</sup>)</italic></td><td><italic>--</italic></td><td><italic>28.87</italic></td><td><italic>131.85</italic><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn7">*</xref></td></tr><tr><td>Comparative fit index (CFI)</td><td char=".">.899</td><td char=".">.898</td><td char=".">.881</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Change in CFI (Δ CFI)</italic></td><td><italic>--</italic></td><td><italic>−0.001</italic></td><td><italic>−0.017</italic></td></tr><tr><td>Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)</td><td char=".">.080</td><td char=".">.079</td><td char=".">.084</td></tr><tr><td>RMSEA 90% CI lower bound</td><td char=".">.073</td><td char=".">.072</td><td char=".">.077</td></tr><tr><td>RMSEA 90% CI upper bound</td><td char=".">.087</td><td char=".">.086</td><td char=".">.090</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Change in RMSEA (Δ RMSEA)</italic></td><td><italic>--</italic></td><td><italic>−0.001</italic></td><td><italic>.005</italic></td></tr><tr><td>Standardized root mean square residual (SRMR)</td><td char=".">.067</td><td char=".">.071</td><td char=".">.073</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Change in SRMR (Δ SRMR)</italic></td><td><italic>--</italic></td><td><italic>.004</italic></td><td><italic>.002</italic></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>6 <emph>Note</emph>. Cutoffs for excellent model fit (CFI ≥.95, RMSEA ≤.05, and SRMR ≤.05) and adequate/fair model fit (CFI ≥.90, RMSEA ≤.08, and SRMR ≤.08) in configural invariance testing (D'Urso et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref126">21</reflink>]; Lacko et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref127">50</reflink>]). Change in χ<sups>2</sups> with <emph>p</emph> > 0.05, CFI ≤.01, RMSEA ≤.015, and SRMR ≤.03 for metric and ≤.015 for scalar signify model invariance (Chen, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref128">19</reflink>], p. 501; Putnick & Bornstein, [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref129">73</reflink>], p. 9). All values used robust estimations using the maximum likelihood with robust corrections model (MLM; Brosseau-Liard & Savalei, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref130">14</reflink>]; Brosseau-Liard et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref131">15</reflink>]).</item> <item>7 = <emph>p</emph> <.001.</item> </ulist> <p>The effect sizes of item nonequivalence are reported in Table 5. Small approaching moderate effect sizes (between.35 and.50) were found in 1 item of the Role of Reconciliation factor and 2 items of the Interpersonal/Intrapersonal Forgiveness factor. Small effect sizes (between.20 and.34) were found in 3 items of the Collaborative Exploration factor, 2 items of the Role of Reconciliation factor, and 1 item of the Interpersonal/Intrapersonal Forgiveness factor. As there are no standardized procedures on addressing nonequivalence effect sizes, practically significant findings must be interpreted with context of the measurement; as the FRI and IPR are used within the context of informing a client's perception of an interpersonal problem rather than as a tool to make systemic-level decisions, there is greater tolerance for nonequivalence findings (Fischer & Karl, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref132">29</reflink>]).</p> <p>Table 5. Effect size of nonequivalence between the FRI and IPR groups.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Item</td><td>Latent construct</td><td><italic>d</italic><sub>ne</sub></td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>1</td><td>Collaborative Exploration</td><td char=".">0.04</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Collaborative Exploration</td><td char=".">0.24<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn9">*</xref></td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Collaborative Exploration</td><td char=".">0.23<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn9">*</xref></td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Collaborative Exploration</td><td char=".">0.32<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn9">*</xref></td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>Collaborative Exploration</td><td char=".">0.13</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>Collaborative Exploration</td><td char=".">0.17</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>Role of Reconciliation</td><td char=".">0.43<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn10">**</xref></td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>Role of Reconciliation</td><td char=".">0.10</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>Role of Reconciliation</td><td char=".">0.28<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn9">*</xref></td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>Role of Reconciliation</td><td char=".">0.12</td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>Role of Reconciliation</td><td char=".">0.08</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>Role of Reconciliation</td><td char=".">0.33<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn9">*</xref></td></tr><tr><td>13</td><td>Remorse/Change</td><td char=".">0.01</td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>Remorse/Change</td><td char=".">0.07</td></tr><tr><td>15</td><td>Remorse/Change</td><td char=".">0.15</td></tr><tr><td>16</td><td>Remorse/Change</td><td char=".">0.06</td></tr><tr><td>17</td><td>Remorse/Change</td><td char=".">0.12</td></tr><tr><td>18</td><td>Remorse/Change</td><td char=".">0.11</td></tr><tr><td>19</td><td>Interpersonal/Intrapersonal</td><td char=".">0.44<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn10">**</xref></td></tr><tr><td>20</td><td>Interpersonal/Intrapersonal</td><td char=".">0.03</td></tr><tr><td>21</td><td>Interpersonal/Intrapersonal</td><td char=".">0.13</td></tr><tr><td>22</td><td>Interpersonal/Intrapersonal</td><td char=".">0.46<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn10">**</xref></td></tr><tr><td>23</td><td>Interpersonal/Intrapersonal</td><td char=".">0.16</td></tr><tr><td>24</td><td>Interpersonal/Intrapersonal</td><td char=".">0.34<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn9">*</xref></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>8 <emph>Note.</emph> The effect size of nonequivalence (<emph>d</emph><subs>ne</subs>) has similar cutoff values to Cohen's <emph>d</emph>, small significance at.2, moderate at.5, large at.8 (Fischer & Karl, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref133">29</reflink>]).</item> <item>9 mall effect size (.20 to.34).</item> <item>10 Small approaching moderate effect size (.35 to.49).</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0186248916-21">Discussion</hd> <p>The primary goal of this cross-cultural study was to compare the internal structure of scores on the FRI with scores on its newly developed Spanish translation, the IPR. Using confirmatory factor analysis to evaluate internal structure validity, the IPR generally demonstrated slightly reduced to equal psychometric properties when compared to an adjusted data set from the original FRI validation study. Without using modification indices to pair error variances, both the IPR scores and adjusted FRI scores demonstrated adequate to excellent reliability scores (McDonald's ω, Cronbach's α) and met the acceptable model fit cutoffs of the CFI and SRMR; but both failed to meet model fit cutoffs of TLI and RMSEA (Balkin & Kleist, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref134">10</reflink>]; Dimitrov, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref135">22</reflink>]). The standardized factor loadings for the IPR scores were often lower than the adjusted FRI scores, with factor loading discrepancies as large as −0.25. IPR scores and adjusted FRI scores met the cutoff values of item loadings in CFA (>.5; Hair et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref136">35</reflink>]), with all IPR items loading onto the four-factor forgiveness reconciliation model (FRM; Balkin et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref137">8</reflink>]) that the FRI was built upon (Balkin et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref138">9</reflink>]).</p> <p>The secondary goal of this study was to evaluate for potential cross-cultural differences between scores of the English-speaking FRI group and scores of the Spanish-speaking IPR group. By combining the data from the IPR and the adjusted FRI, two evaluation methods were used: MGCFA and measurement of effect size invariance. The MGCFA demonstrated partial invariance between the IPR and FRI groups; this finding is similar to the initial comparison of internal structure with the adjusted FRI and the IPR, showing that differences between the groups are small but present. The measurement of nonequivalence effect sizes provides more context, with items 7 (helpful-harmful), 19 (continued-discontinued), and 22 (pursued-avoided) reporting small approaching moderate nonequivalent effect sizes; this provides implications both for potential cultural differences and a potential need for IPR item modifications in the future.</p> <hd id="AN0186248916-22">Generalizability</hd> <p>The outcomes of the IPR findings must be cautiously interpreted due to a lack of robust findings for internal structure and only partial measurement invariance found; additional validation and evaluation of the metric is needed for generalizability within research. Time and scope limitations during the development of the study prevented additional measurement within the data collection, restricting the current study to a single form of validity evidence. All participants were acquired using convenience sampling methods (using a crowdsourcing platform), which creates greater risk for biased data and limit generalizability in comparison to probability sampling methods (Jager et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref139">41</reflink>]; Palmer & Strickland, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref140">66</reflink>]). The IPR and FRI samples were both marginally under the minimum CFA sample size criteria of 200 participants, which limited the data from the protective factors of large sample sizes (e.g. attenuation effects). Although age was not considered a primary factor of focus within the study, data collection processes limit analysis and generalizability of age-related considerations.</p> <p>While the geographically diverse sample was in part beneficial, as it tested the IPR across a wide array of Spanish dialects, the trends are not representative of Spanish-speaking participants living within the United States, where the counseling profession is mostly concentrated. As nearly 33% of participants reported living in Spain or Portugal, the limited size and dialects of the translation team may have contributed to measurement error. Both countries commonly use dialects that are distinct from Spanish-Speaking countries within North, Central, and South America. Within the sample, there was a significant lack of individuals who identified as first-generation immigrants, which limits generalizability to bicultural populations. The use of Qualtrics, a digital platform requiring technological competencies and internet access, restricts generalizability for populations with limited access to technology or education on accessing these types of services (Palmer & Strickland, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref141">66</reflink>]). For the second research question, a limitation of generalizability when comparing scores between the IPR and FRI groups is the number of years between each administration, the original FRI group having likely taken the FRI between 2012 and 2013 and the IPR group having taken the IPR in 2023.</p> <p>Within the model assumptions analysis of the four IPR and adjusted FRI factors, floor and ceiling effects were found; while nonnormality was addressed within the statistical testing methods, additional considerations can be made for future research of the IPR or FRI to improve normal distribution of data. The initial prompt of both the FRI and IPR asks participants to evaluate test items based on their subjective perspectives of a person who wronged them. The open-ended nature of this prompt is intended to make the FRI and IPR applicable across a wide array of severities and situations, whether a client considers a transgression more akin to an annoyance/inconvenience, or if the transgression classifies closer to the DSM-5-TR definitions of a traumatic event (e.g. threat of death, physical/sexual abuse, neglect; APA, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref142">4</reflink>]). In addition to the severity of the situation itself, the amount of time between a transgression and the client completing the FRI/IPR may also create a perceptual impact; if a client refers to a less severe transgression that occurred the day before, it is possible for attitudes regarding their transgressor to skew negatively as there hasn't been a chance for the transgressor to seek remorse or change. Controlling for normal data distribution would likely require context for traits such as severity for the transgression that participants use to answer the IPR/FRI questions, the relationship between the participant and the transgressor, and the length of time between the transgression and the completion of the IPR/FRI; all of which are limitations to be considered for future research.</p> <hd id="AN0186248916-23">Implications for Counseling and Future Research</hd> <p>While fit indices were nearly identical for the FRI and IPR, small to moderate reductions in factor loadings with the IPR group, in addition to the partial invariance found between the two models, demonstrate the need for larger sample sizes, additional statistical examination of outliers, and the integration of other measurement evaluation models, such as item response theory (IRT; Embretson & Reise, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref143">23</reflink>]). Rasch modeling analyses (e.g. rating scale functioning, item difficulty) were omitted from the current study as they are diagnostically distinct from the methods used during the original FRI study; future manuscripts using the IPR would benefit from incorporating Rasch model and IRT analyses to evaluate potential improvements to factor structure and test reliability. Establishing additional forms of validity evidence will be vital to reinforcing the use of the IPR for research; for example, collecting data on other Spanish translations of forgiveness measurements and/or forgiveness measurements originally created in Spanish would allow the IPR to be evaluated for evidence of convergent validity.</p> <p>With the intention of using the IPR in clinical settings, counselors must first acknowledge that their own perceptions of interpersonal and intrapersonal forgiveness are influenced by their cultural and spiritual self (Singh et al., [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref144">84</reflink>]). When interpreting the IPR in session, counselors would benefit from collaboratively exploring the scoring motivations of each factor with their clients; the scores provide an opportunity to broach a client's beliefs regarding an interpersonal relationship. While scoring trends on the IPR can provide evidence of clients tolerating (and perhaps enabling) negative behaviors from others, it is imperative for counselors to discuss a client's cultural and spiritual norms regarding relationships and forgiveness to evaluate if a client is behaving congruent to their core beliefs or behaving in obedience to external systems. As Latinx cultures and spiritual practices often engrain collectivistic pressures, it must become clear whether clients believe that they have a choice in how they proceed through the forgiveness reconciliation model (Balkin et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref145">8</reflink>]). One example would be a client who presents with low scores on Collaborative Exploration and Remorse/Change yet presents with high scores on Role of Reconciliation and Interpersonal/Intrapersonal Forgiveness: The client believes their transgressor is harmful and unwilling to change yet believes having a relationship with this person is valuable. This type of profile could be assumed in cases of abuse where victims may depend on financial support or similar resources from their transgressor but may also be influenced by cultural expectations of familismo or rigid gender norms (Patrón, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref146">68</reflink>]). Counselors can use the IPR to broach the incongruence between their significantly negative sentiments toward the transgressor yet significantly positive sentiments toward continuing the relationship, showing clients where their decision-making deviates from the forgiveness reconciliation model.</p> <p>Scoring profiles can assist the client and counselor in understanding the extent to which a client desires reconciliation or even if reconciliation is viable, as well as providing an understanding of how a client is able to pursue intrapersonal forgiveness. The IPR should be viewed as a process measure, designed to provide feedback of the forgiveness process related to a specific situation, as opposed to a diagnostic or labeling measure that describes a characteristic of a person. Forgiveness is time and context bound and may vary from situation to situation (Balkin, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref147">7</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0186248916-24">Conclusion</hd> <p>While additional research on the IPR is needed to identify potential improvements in internal structure and provide evidence of other validity types, mental health counselors can use the IPR to help clients identify the benefits and limitations of their current cultural experiences and belief systems. The IPR can be used to broach patterns of emotions, thought patterns, and behaviors regarding the participant's past uses of interpersonal or intrapersonal forgiveness. A counselor's most important outcome is providing clients with the knowledge and confidence to make independent decisions, and counselors must be ready to acknowledge that clients may be willing to consciously make personal sacrifices of their freedoms to achieve their desired collectivistic or spiritual outcomes. A culturally competent counselor will support clients in identifying how they can most effectively maintain their wellness through the lenses of their free will choices.</p> <hd id="AN0186248916-25">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>We wish to acknowledge the contributions of Drs. Denise Dominguez (LPC-S) and Anthony Vajda (Alvernia University) for supporting the IPR Spanish translation process.</p> <hd id="AN0186248916-26">Disclosure Statement</hd> <p>We declare no potential conflicts of interest regarding the authorship and/or publication of this article.</p> <ref id="AN0186248916-27"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref4" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> ACA (American Counseling Association) (2014). 2014 ACA code of ethics. https://<ulink href="http://www.counseling.org/docs/default-source/default-document-library/2014-code-of-ethics-finaladdress.pdf">www.counseling.org/docs/default-source/default-document-library/2014-code-of-ethics-finaladdress.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref5" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Acock, A. C. (2013). Discovering structural equation modeling using Stata. Stata Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref16" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Adler, E. (2018). Mechila in human and Halachic terms: Implications for Yom Kippur and beyond. The Benjamin and Rose Berger CJF Torah To‑Go Series, 5779, 30–38.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref69" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> American Psychiatric Association. (2022). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed., text rev.). https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425787</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref31" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Arredondo, P., Gallardo-Cooper, M., Delgado-Romero, E. A., & Zapata, A. L. (2014). Culturally responsive counseling with Latinas/os (1st ed.) American Counseling Association.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref1" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Augsburger, D. W. (1981). Caring enough to forgive: True forgiveness. Herald Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref18" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Balkin, R. S. (2020). Practicing forgiveness: A path towards healing. Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref3" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Balkin, R. S., Freeman, S. J., & Lyman, S. R. (2009). Forgiveness, reconciliation, and mechila: Integrating the Jewish concept of forgiveness into clinical practice. Counseling and Values, 53 (2), 153 – 160. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-007X.2009.tb00121.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref20" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Balkin, R. S., Harris, N. A., Freeman, S. J., & Huntington, S. (2014). The forgiveness reconciliation inventory: An instrument to process through issues of forgiveness and conflict. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 47 (1), 3 – 13. https://doi.org/10.1177/0748175613497037</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Balkin, R. S., & Kleist, D. M. (2023). Counseling research: A practitioner-scholar approach (2nd ed.) American Counseling Association.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Balkin, R. S., Mendoza, S. M., Hendricks, L., Harris, N. A., Flores, S., Casillas, C., & Wood, A. (2021). Evaluation of trauma, forgiveness, and well-being among African Americans. Journal of Counseling & Development, 99 (3), 315 – 325. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcad.12377</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Blumenthal, D. R. (1998). Repentance and forgiveness. CrossCurrents, 48 (1), 75 – 82.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Boomsma, A. (1982). Robustness of LISREL against small sample sizes in factor analysis models. In K. Joreskog & H. Wold (Eds.), Systems under indirection observation: Causality, structure, prediction (Part I) (pp. 149 – 173). North Holland.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brosseau-Liard, P. E., & Savalei, V. (2014). Adjusting incremental fit indices for nonnormality. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 49 (5), 460 – 470. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2014.933697</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brosseau-Liard, P. E., Savalei, V., & Li, L. (2012). An investigation of the sample performance of two nonnormality corrections for RMSEA. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47 (6), 904 – 930. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2012.715252</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cabrera, N., Alonso, A., Chen, Y., & Ghosh, R. (2022). Latinx families' strengths and resilience contribute to their well-being. National Research Center on Hispanic Children and Families, 1–35. https://doi.org/10.59377/464f3851y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Campesino, M., & Schwartz, G. E. (2006). Spirituality among Latinas/os implications of culture in conceptualization and measurement. ANS. Advances in Nursing Science, 29 (1), 69 – 81. https://doi.org/10.1097/00012272-200601000-00007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cha, E. S., Kim, K. H., & Erlen, J. A. (2007). Translation of scales in cross-cultural research: Issues and techniques. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 58 (4), 386 – 395. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04242.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14 (3), 464 – 504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cook, K. V., LePine, S. E., Chang, C., DeSouza, A., Crossett, C., & Chiou, G. (2021). Everyday theology in cultural context: Forgiveness and grace. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 49 (2), 142 – 160. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091647120956959</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> D'Urso, E. D., De Roover, K., Vermunt, J. K., & Tijmstra, J. (2022). Scale length does matter: Recommendations for measurement invariance testing with categorical factor analysis and item response theory approaches. Behavior Research Methods, 54 (5), 2114 – 2145. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-021-01690-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dimitrov, D. M. (2012). Statistical methods for validation of assessment scale data in counseling and related fields. American Counseling Association.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Psychology Press. [Database].</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Enright, R. D, The Human Development Study Group (1991). The moral development of forgiveness. In W. Kurtines & J. Gewirtz (Eds.), Handbook of moral behavior and development (pp. 123 – 152). Erlbaum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Enright, R. D., & Zell, R. L. (1989). Problems encountered when we forgive one another. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 8, 52 – 60.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ervin, J., & Smith, Z. A. (2008). Globalization: A reference handbook. ABC-CLIO.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fernández-Capo, M., Fernández, S. R., Sanfeliu, M. G., Benito, J. G., & Worthington, E. L. Jr. (2017a). Measuring forgiveness: A systematic review. European Psychologist, 22 (4), 247 – 262. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000303</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fernández-Capo, M., Recoder, S., Gómez-Benito, J., Gámiz, M., Gual, P., Díez, P., & Worthington, E. (2017b). Exploring the dimensionality of the TRIM-18 in the Spanish context. Anales de Psicología, 33 (3), 548 – 555. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.33.2.264461</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fischer, R., & Karl, J. A. (2019). A primer to (cross-cultural) multi-group invariance testing possibilities in R. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1507. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01507</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Flora, D. B. (2020). Your coefficient alpha is probably wrong, but which coefficient omega is right? A tutorial on using R to obtain better reliability estimates. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 3 (4), 484 – 501. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245920951747</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fontes, L. A. (2007). Sin Vergüenza: Addressing shame with Latino victims of child sexual abuse and their families. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 16 (1), 61 – 83. https://doi.org/10.1300/J070v16n01_04</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gallo-Giunzioni, K., Prieto-Ursúa, M., Fernández-Belinchón, C., & Luque-Reca, O. (2020). Measuring forgiveness: Psychometric properties of the heartland forgiveness scale in the Spanish population. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18 (1), 45. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18010045</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Griffin, B. J., Worthington, E. L., Jr., Davis, D. E., Hook, J. N., & Maguen, S. (2018). Development of the self-forgiveness dual-process scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 65 (6), 715 – 726. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000293</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Groskurth, K., Bluemke, M., & Lechner, C. M. (2024). Why we need to abandon fixed cutoffs for goodness-of-fit indices: An extensive simulation and possible solutions. Behavior Research Methods, 56 (4), 3891 – 3914. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-023-02193-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2013). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson Education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hayes, A. F., & Coutts, J. J. (2020). Use omega rather than Cronbach's alpha for estimating reliability. But.... Communication Methods and Measures, 14 (1), 1 – 24. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2020.1718629</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heene, M., Hilbert, S., Draxler, C., Ziegler, M., & Bühner, M. (2011). Masking misfit in confirmatory factor analysis by increasing unique variances: A cautionary note on the usefulness of cutoff values of fit indices. Psychological Methods, 16 (3), 319 – 336. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024917</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hirschfeld, G., & von Brachel, R. (2014). Improving Multiple-Group confirmatory factor analysis in R – A tutorial in measurement invariance with continuous and ordinal indicators. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 19 (1), 1 – 12. https://doi.org/10.7275/qazy-2946</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6 (1), 1 – 55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jackson, D. L., Voth, J., & Frey, M. P. (2013). A note on sample size and solution propriety for confirmatory factor analytic models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 20 (1), 86 – 97. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2013.742388</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jager, J., Putnick, D. L., & Bornstein, M. H. (2017). More than just convenient: The scientific merits of homogeneous convenience samples. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 82 (2), 13 – 30. https://doi.org/10.1111/mono.12296</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jorgensen, T. D., Pornprasertmanit, S., Schoemann, A. M., Rosseel, Y. (2022). semTools: Useful tools for structural equation modeling. The Comprehensive R Archive Network. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=semTools</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Karl, J. (2022). ccpsyc: Methods for cross-cultural psychology. The Comprehensive R Archive Network. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ccpsyc</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kass, J. D. (1991). Contributions of religious experience to psychological and physical well-being: Research evidence and an explanatory model. The Caregiver Journal, 8 (4), 4 – 10. https://doi.org/10.1080/1077842X.1991.10781636</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaufman, M. E. (1984). The courage to forgive. The Israel Journal of Psychiatry and Related Sciences, 21 (3), 177 – 187.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kent, B. V., Upenieks, L., Kanaya, A. M., Warner, E. T., Cozier, Y. C., Daviglus, M. L., Eliassen, H., Jang, D. Y., & Shields, A. E. (2023). Religion/Spirituality and prevalent hypertension among ethnic cohorts in the study on stress, spirituality, and health. Annals of Behavioral Medicine: A Publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine, 57 (8), 649 – 661. https://doi.org/10.1093/abm/kaad007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> King, J. J., Segrin, C., Badger, T. A., & Thomson, C. A. (2022). Exploring the relationship between loneliness, spirituality, and health-related quality of life in Hispanic cancer caregivers. Supportive Care in Cancer: Official Journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 30 (6), 4781 – 4788. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-022-06800-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Koran, J. (2016). Preliminary proactive sample size determination for confirmatory factor analysis models. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 49 (4), 296 – 308. https://doi.org/10.1177/0748175616664012</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kraal, A. Z., Sharifian, N., Zaheed, A. B., Sol, K., & Zahodne, L. B. (2019). Dimensions of religious involvement represent positive pathways in cognitive aging. Research on Aging, 41 (9), 868 – 890. https://doi.org/10.1177/0164027519862745</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lacko, D., Čeněk, J., Točík, J., Avsec, A., Đorđević, V., Genc, A., Haka, F., Šakotić-Kurbalija, J., Mohorić, T., Neziri, I., & Subotić, S. (2022). The necessity of testing measurement invariance in cross-cultural research: Potential bias in cross-cultural comparisons with individualism–collectivism self-report scales. Cross-Cultural Research, 56 (2–3), 228 – 267. https://doi.org/10.1177/10693971211068971</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lance, C. E., Butts, M. M., & Michels, L. C. (2006). The sources of four commonly reported cutoff criteria: What did they really say? Organizational Research Methods, 9 (2), 202 – 220. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428105284919</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leitgöb, H., Seddig, D., Asparouhov, T., Behr, D., Davidov, E., De Roover, K., Jak, S., Meitinger, K., Menold, N., Muthén, B., Rudnev, M., Schmidt, P., & Van De Schoot, R. (2023). Measurement invariance in the social sciences: Historical development, methodological challenges, state of the art, and future perspectives. Social Science Research, 110, 102805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2022.102805</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lenz, A. S. (2024). Developments in the reporting of score reliability within counseling assessment, research, and evaluation. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 57 (2), 89 – 92. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.2024.2333692</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Li, H. (2024). To know all is to forgive all: The effect of foreign experiences on forgiveness. Psychological Reports, 127 (2), 851 – 867. https://doi.org/10.1177/00332941221109111</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lin, J. (2021). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in R with Lavaan. UCLA Statistical Consulting Group. https://stats.oarc.ucla.edu/r/seminars/rcfa/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler's (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 11 (3), 320 – 341. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Matovina, T. (2012). Latino Catholicism: Transformation in America's largest. Princeton University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morales, A., & Rojas-Pérez, O. F. (2020). Marianismo. In Carducci, B.J., Nave, C.S., Mio, J.S., & Riggio, R.E. (Eds.) The Wiley encyclopedia of personality and individual differences. Wiley.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morgan Consoli, M. L., Unzueta, E. G., Delucio, K., & Llamas, J. (2018). What shade of spirituality? Exploring spirituality, religiosity, meaning making, and thriving among Latina/o undergraduates. Counseling and Values, 63 (2), 232 – 253. https://doi.org/10.1002/cvj.12090</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Muschel, A., & Galla, M. (2018). Understanding the teshuva process of the Yamim Noraim. Yeshiva University. https://<ulink href="http://www.yu.edu/sites/default/files/inline-files/Understanding%20the%20Teshuva%20Process%20of%20the%20Yamim%20Noraim.pdf">www.yu.edu/sites/default/files/inline-files/Understanding%20the%20Teshuva%20Process%20of%20the%20Yamim%20Noraim.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Musgrave, C. F., Allen, C. E., & Allen, G. J. (2002). Spirituality and health for women of color. American Journal of Public Health, 92 (4), 557 – 560. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.92.4.557</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nkemjika, S., Escobar, J. I., & Marin, H. (2020). A brief review of global mental health: Challenges, developments, and needs. In J. I. Escobar (Ed.), Global mental health: Latin America and Spanish-speaking populations (pp. 5 – 40). Rutgers University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nye, C. D., & Drasgow, F. (2011). Effect size indices for analyses of measurement equivalence: Understanding the practical importance of differences between groups. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 96 (5), 966 – 980. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022955</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oliver, M., Flamez, B., & McNichols, C. (2011). Postmodern applications within Latino/a cultures. Journal of Professional Counseling: Practice, Theory & Research, 38 (3), 33 – 48. https://doi.org/10.1080/15566382.2011.12033875</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The measurement of meaning. University of Illinois Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Palmer, J. C., & Strickland, J. (2016). A beginner's guide to crowdsourcing: Strengths, limitations and best practices for psychological research. American Psychological Association. https://<ulink href="http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2016/06/changing-minds">www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2016/06/changing-minds</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Passel, J. S., Lopez, M. H., & Cohn, D. (2022). U.S. Hispanic population continued its geographic spread in the 2010s. Pew Research Center. https://<ulink href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/u-s-hispanic-population-continued-its-geographic-spread-in-the-2010s/">www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/u-s-hispanic-population-continued-its-geographic-spread-in-the-2010s/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Patrón, O. E. (2021). Precarious familismo among Latinas/os/xs: Toward a critical theoretical framework centering queer communities. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 38 (3), 1085 – 1102. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407520971049</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Peña, E. D. (2007). Lost in translation: Methodological considerations in cross-cultural research. Child Development, 78 (4), 1255 – 1264. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01064.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pew Research Center. (2014). The shifting religious identity of Latinos in the United States. https://<ulink href="http://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2014/05/07/the-shifting-religious-identity-of-latinos-in-the-united-states/">www.pewresearch.org/religion/2014/05/07/the-shifting-religious-identity-of-latinos-in-the-united-states/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Placeres, V., & Ordaz, A. C. (2021). Religion and spiritual concerns to consider when using mindfulness interventions with Latinx/Hispanic clients. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 40 (2), 143 – 150.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Protzko, J. (2024). Invariance: What does measurement invariance allow us to claim? Educational and Psychological Measurement. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131644241282982</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Putnick, D. L., & Bornstein, M. H. (2016). Measurement invariance conventions and reporting: The state of the art and future directions for psychological research. Developmental Review: DR, 41, 71 – 90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2016.06.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Quintana-Orts, C., Rey, L., Sánchez-Álvarez, N., Neto, F., & Mullet, E. (2023). Measuring dispositional forgiveness among Spanish adolescents and emerging adults: Psychometric properties of the Spanish Forgivingness Questionnaire (FQ). Current Psychology, 42 (17), 14463 – 14473. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-02715-w</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ratts, M. J., Singh, A. A., Nassar-McMillan, S., Butler, S. K., & McCullough, J. R. (2015). Multicultural and social justice counseling competencies. Association for Multicultural Counseling and Development. https://<ulink href="http://www.counseling.org/docs/default-source/competencies/multicultural-and-social-justice-counseling-competencies.pdf?sfvrsn=20">www.counseling.org/docs/default-source/competencies/multicultural-and-social-justice-counseling-competencies.pdf?sfvrsn=20</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Recoder, S., Gámiz, M., Worthington, E. L., Davis, D. E., & Fernández-Capo, M. (2021). Decisional forgiveness across Spanish and American samples: Translation, validation, and measurement invariance of the decision to forgive scale. Current Psychology, 40 (8), 4125 – 4135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00368-w</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rodriguez, S., Pilcher, A., & Garcia-Tellez, N. (2021). The influence of familismo on Latina student STEM identity development. Journal of Latinos and Education, 20 (2), 177 – 189. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348431.2019.1588734</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48 (2). https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rosseel, Y., Jorgensen, T. D., De Wilde, L. (2024). lavaan: Latent variable analysis. The Comprehensive R Archive Network. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lavaan</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> SAMHSA (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration). (2021). 2020 national survey on drug use and health: Hispanics. https://<ulink href="http://www.samhsa.gov/data/report/2020-nsduh-hispanics-latino-or-spanish-origin">www.samhsa.gov/data/report/2020-nsduh-hispanics-latino-or-spanish-origin</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sass, D. A., Schmitt, T. A., & Marsh, H. W. (2014). Evaluating model fit with ordered categorical data within a measurement invariance framework: A comparison of estimators. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21 (2), 167 – 180. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.882658</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (1994). Corrections to test statistics and standard errors in covariance structure analysis. In A. von Eye & C. C. Clogg (Eds.), Latent variable analysis: Applications for developmental research (pp. 399 – 419). Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sharma, V., Marin, D. B., Koenig, H. K., Feder, A., Iacoviello, B. M., Southwick Steven, M., & Pietrzak, R. H. (2017). Religion, spirituality, and mental health of U.S. military veterans: Results from the national health and resilience in veterans study. Journal of Affective Disorders, 217, 197 – 204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2017.03.071</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Singh, A. A., Appling, B., & Trepal, H. (2020). Using the multicultural and social justice counseling competencies to decolonize counseling practice: The important roles of theory, power, and action. Journal of Counseling & Development, 98 (3), 261 – 271. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcad.12321</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith-Morris, C., Morales-Campos, D., Castañeda Alvarez, E. A., & Turner, M. (2013). An anthropology of Familismo : On narratives and description of Mexican/immigrants. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 35 (1), 35 – 60. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739986312459508</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taber, K. S. (2018). The use of Cronbach's alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 48 (6), 1273 – 1296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wenzel, M., Woodyatt, L., & Hedrick, K. (2012). No genuine self-forgiveness without accepting responsibility: Value reaffirmation as a key to maintaining positive self-regard. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42 (5), 617 – 627. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1873</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wolf, E. J., Harrington, K. M., Clark, S. L., & Miller, M. W. (2013). Sample size requirements for structural equation models: An evaluation of power, bias, and solution propriety. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 76 (6), 913 – 934. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164413495237</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yárnoz-Yaben, S., Garmendia, A., & Comino, P. (2016). Looking at the bright side: Forgiveness and subjective well-being in divorced Spanish parents. Journal of Happiness Studies, 17 (5), 1905 – 1919. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-015-9677-x</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Mario D. Sobrino and Richard S. Balkin</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Mario D. Sobrino , Ph.D., NCC, is an Assistant Professor of Counseling at the University of North Texas. As a Latinx clinical mental health counselor, he began his counseling career in 2019 at a community health organization in Orlando, FL providing both mental health counseling and substance abuse counseling services. Serving a diverse, low-SES chronic illness population of English and Spanish speakers, multilingual competencies within the medical and counseling fields were a consistent roadblock when advocating for the mental health and substance abuse treatment needs of his clients. After completing his PhD and graduate minor in applied statistics from the University of Mississippi in 2023, Mario contributes to the development of multilingual resources, multicultural competencies, and access to mental health services through his research and teaching agendas.</p> <p>Rick Balkin , Ph.D., LPC, NCC is a Professor and Department Chair of Leadership and Counselor Education, and Coordinator of Educational Research and Design in the School of Education at the University of Mississippi. He currently serves as Editor-in-Chief for the International Journal for the Advancement of Counseling. Dr. Balkin was the editor for the Journal of Counseling & Development, the flagship journal for the American Counseling Association; an ACA Fellow; and past-president for the Association for Assessment and Research in Counseling. Rick began practice as a professional counselor in 1993 and has worked in academe since 2003. Rick has over 100 publications, which include textbooks on assessment in counseling, research, and the counseling relationship, published tests and technical manuals, peer-reviewed manuscripts, book chapters, and conference proceedings. His counseling experience with at-risk youth was formative to his research agenda, which includes understanding the role of counseling and relevant goals for adolescents in crisis and counseling outcomes. This led to initiatives in providing counseling services to underserved youth in Mississippi, culminating in a tele-mental health delivery system that provides free counseling services to youth in high-need areas of Mississippi.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib89" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib246" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref109"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref110"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref113"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref114"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref115"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref117"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref120"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib492" firstref="ref125"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref134"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref139"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref140"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl79" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref143"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl80" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref144"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1505756
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: The Inventario de Perdón y Reconciliación: Cross-Cultural Evaluation for a Spanish Translation of the Forgiveness Reconciliation Inventory
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Mario+D%2E+Sobrino%22">Mario D. Sobrino</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9293-3849">0000-0002-9293-3849</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Richard+S%2E+Balkin%22">Richard S. Balkin</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4134-6385">0000-0003-4134-6385</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Measurement+and+Evaluation+in+Counseling+and+Development%22"><i>Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development</i></searchLink>. 2025 58(3):250-268.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 19
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Spanish%22">Spanish</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Translation%22">Translation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Factor+Structure%22">Factor Structure</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Goodness+of+Fit%22">Goodness of Fit</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Semantic+Differential%22">Semantic Differential</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Psychometrics%22">Psychometrics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Scores%22">Scores</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Test+Validity%22">Test Validity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Counseling%22">Counseling</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mexico%22">Mexico</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Spain%22">Spain</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Portugal%22">Portugal</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/07481756.2025.2458888
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0748-1756<br />1947-6302
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Objective: Spanish-speaking counseling professionals developed a Spanish translation for the Forgiveness Reconciliation Inventory (FRI). Method: Spanish-speaking participants (N=199) completed the Inventario del Perdón y Reconciliación (IPR) and a demographics questionnaire through Qualtrics. Results: The IPR reported a four-factor structure and comparable fit indices to the FRI. Multigroup confirmatory factor analysis of FRI and IPR samples demonstrated evidence of partial invariance. Conclusions: While sufficient evidence and interpretations can be made for clinical use, additional evaluation of test items and psychometric construction is recommended to improve the validity and reliability of the FRI and IPR for use as research tools.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1505756
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1505756
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/07481756.2025.2458888
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 19
        StartPage: 250
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Spanish
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Translation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Factor Structure
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Goodness of Fit
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Semantic Differential
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Psychometrics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Scores
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Test Validity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Counseling
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Mexico
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Spain
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Portugal
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: The Inventario de Perdón y Reconciliación: Cross-Cultural Evaluation for a Spanish Translation of the Forgiveness Reconciliation Inventory
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Mario D. Sobrino
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Richard S. Balkin
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0748-1756
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1947-6302
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 58
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development
              Type: main
ResultId 1