Openness to the Future Scale: The Russian Adaptation and Validization

Introduction. The Openness to the Future Scale (OFS) was developed in 2018 to measure a new phenomenon in the field of positive psychology [5]. Contemporary professionals use it in research on both positive psychological resources and clinical psychological phenomena. Objective. The aim of this study was to adapt the Russian–language version of the Openness to the Future Scale on a population–based sample. Method. There were three groups of respondents: 374 volunteers from the general population, 72 homeless people temporarily living in the «Warm Reception» shelter, and 68 young adult graduates of orphanages and teenagers living in orphanages and dormitories at educational institutions. All participants filled out the Russian version of the Openness to the Future Scale, and participants in the second and third groups additionally filled out measures to assess psychological resources. Results. Confirmatory factor analysis showed a single–factor model identical to the factor structure of the original version of the Openness to the Future Scale, which confirmed the factor validity of the adapted instrument. The Cronbach's α–value was 0,83, which is evidence in favor of the internal reliability of the Russian version of the Openness to the Future Scale. Openness to the future scores were higher for male and younger respondents compared to female and older respondents. Openness to the future was positively correlated with life attitudes in the homeless and with resilience and proactive coping in young adult graduates and adolescents from orphanages. Conclusion. The basic psychometric properties of the adapted instrument allow recommending it as a research tool. This pilot study determines the need for further psychometric examinations of the Russian–language version of the Openness to the Future Scale, including by expanding the study sample, involving experts and respondents from different age and clinical groups, and comparing self–report data with objective psychometric assessments.

1. Belinskaya E.P., Vecherin A.V. Adaptaciya diagnosticheskogo instrumentariya: oprosnik «Proaktivnyj koping» [Adaptation of diagnostic tools: questionnaire «Proactive coping»]. Social'naya psihologiya i obshchestvo = Social psychology and society, 2018, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 137—145. DOI: 10.17759/sps.2018090314. (In Russ.).
2. Vitko Yu.S., Lebedeva A.A. Praktiki raboty s bezdomnymi: perspektiva vozvrashcheniya «nevidimoj» lichnosti [Practices of working with the homeless: the prospect of the return of the «invisible» personality]. Social'naya psihologiya i obshchestvo = Social psychology and society, 2021, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 146—169. DOI: 10.17759/sps.2021120409. (In Russ.).
3. Leont'ev D.A., SHil'manskaya E.I. ZHiznennaya poziciya lichnosti: ot teorii k operacionalizacii [The life position of a person: from theory to operationalization]. Voprosy psihologii = Questions of psychology, 2019, no. 1, pp. 90—100. (In Russ.).
4. Markova V.I., Aleksandrova L.A., Zolotareva A.A. Russkoyazychnaya versiya kratkoj shkaly rezilentnosti: psihometricheskij analiz na primere vyborok studentov, mnogodetnyh roditelej i roditelej detej s invalidnost'yu [The Russian version of the short scale of resistance: psychometric analysis on the example of samples of students, parents with many children and parents of children with disabilities]. Nacional'nyj psihologicheskij zhurnal = National Psychological Journal, 2022, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 65—75. DOI: 10.11621/npj.2022.0106. (In Russ.).
5. Botella C., Molinari G., Fernández–Álvarez J., Guillén V., García–Palacios A., Baños R.M., Tomás J.M. Development and validation of the Openness to the Future Scale: A prospective protective factor. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 2018, vol. 16(1), pp. 1—16. DOI: 10.1186/s12955–018–0889–8
6. Caballero R., Chaves C., Valiente C. Life satisfaction in people affected by a severe psychiatric condition: a comprehensive model. Psychosis, 2021, pp. 1—12. DOI: 10.1080/17522439.2021.1961011
7. Colombo D., Fernández–Álvarez J., Suso–Ribera C., Cipresso P., García–Palacios A., Riva G., Botella C. Biased affective forecasting: A potential mechanism that enhances resilience and well–being. Frontiers in Psychology, 2020, vol. 11, p. 1333. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01333
8. Colombo D., Suso–Ribera C., Fernández–Álvarez J., Cipresso P., Garcia–Palacios A., Riva G., Botella C. Affect recall bias: Being resilient by distorting reality. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 2020, vol. 44 (5), pp. 906—918. DOI: 10.1007/s10608–020–10122–3
9. Díaz–García A., González–Robles A., García–Palacios A., Fernández–Álvarez J., Castilla D., Bretón J.M., Botella C. Negative and positive affect regulation in a transdiagnostic internet–based protocol for emotional disorders: Randomized controlled trial. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 2021, vol. 23(2), e21335. DOI: 10.2196/21335
10. Greenglass E., Schwarzer R., Taubert S. The Proactive Coping Inventory (PCI): A multidimensional research instrument. 20th International Conference of the Stress and Anxiety Research Society (STAR), Cracow, Poland, July 12–14, 1999. DOI: 10.1037/t07292–000
11. Hu L.T., Bentler P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 1999, vol. 6 (1), pp. 1—55. DOI: 10.1080/10705519909540118
12. Lopez S.J., Snyder C.R., Rasmussen H.N. Striking a vital balance: Developing a complementary focus on human weakness and strength through positive psychological assessment. In S.J. Lopez & C.R. Snyder (Eds.), Positive Psychological Assessment: A Handbook of Models and Measures (pp. 3—20). American Psychological Association, 2003. DOI: 10.1037/10612–001
13. 1Palma–Gómez A., Herrero R., Baños R., García–Palacios A., Castañeiras C., Fernandez G.L., Llul D.M., Torres L.C., Barranco L.A., Cárdenas–Gómez L., Botella C. Efficacy of a self–applied online program to promote resilience and coping skills in university students in four Spanish–speaking countries: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. BMC Psychiatry, 2020, vol. 20 (1), p. 148. DOI: 10.1186/s12888–020–02536–w
14. Salovey P., Rothman A.J., Detweiler J.B., Steward W.T. Emotional states and physical health. American Psychologist, 2000, vol. 55(1), pp. 110—121. DOI: 10.1037/0003–066X.55.1.110
15. Su S., Li X., Lin D., Zhu M. Future orientation, social support, and psychological adjustment among left–behind children in rural China: A longitudinal study. Frontiers in Psychology, 2017, vol. 8, p. 1309. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01309
16. Taber K.S. The use of Cronbach's alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 2018, vol. 48, pp. 1273—1296. DOI: 10.1007/s11165–016–9602–2
17. Valiente C., Vázquez C., Contreras A., Peinado V., Trucharte A. A symptom–based definition of resilience in times of pandemics: Patterns of psychological responses over time and their predictors. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 2021, vol. 12(1), article 1871555. DOI: 10.1080/20008198.2020.1871555
18. Vazquez C., Valiente C., García F.E., Contreras A., Peinado V., Trucharte A., Bentall R.P. Post–traumatic growth and stress–related responses during the COVID–19 pandemic in a national representative sample: The role of positive core beliefs about the world and others. Journal of Happiness Studies, 2021, vol. 22 (7), pp. 2915—2935. DOI: 10.1007/s10902–020–00352–3
19. Windle G., Bennett K.M., Noyes J. A methodological review of resilience measurement scales. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 2011, vol. 9, p. 8. DOI: 10/1186/1477–7525–9–