Gilbert and Allan [
1] proposed two central constructs that they assumed to be involved in the development of depressive disorders: defeat and entrapment. Experiences of
defeat have been described as the perception of a failed struggle, feelings of powerlessness and a sense of losing social status or missing personal goals [
2]. According to Gilbert and Allan [
1], feelings of
entrapment occur when people are motivated to escape threat or a stressful, unpleasant state or situation but the flight is blocked because of internal (e.g., insufficient coping agency, severe health problems or feelings of guilt) or external circumstances (e.g. no help by others, problems at work, school or in personal relations) [
1,
3,
4].
In recent years, research showed the transdiagnostic relevance of these constructs in the development of depressive, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorders (PTSD), as well as suicidality [
5,
6]. Moreover, Griffiths et al. [
7] presented evidence in line with the assumption that defeat and entrapment precede the development of depression and anxiety in a longitudinal research design [
8]. Furthermore, defeat and entrapment play a crucial role in theories on the development of suicidal ideation and behavior [
9‐
11]. Recently, the Integrative Motivational-Volitional Model of Suicidal Behavior (IMV, [
12,
13]) was introduced that assumes that suicidal ideation and behavior develop, if people encounter defeating experiences or situations and then cannot escape from these situations and experiences, thus feeling entrapped. A burgeoning literature reports results that are in line with the central assumptions of the IMV-model (e.g. [
14‐
16]).
Assessment of defeat and entrapment
Defeat and entrapment are usually assessed with the Defeat Scale (DS) and the Entrapment Scale (ES), both developed by Gilbert and Allan [
1]. The two scales consist of 16 items each using a five-point Likert scale. The DS showed good internal consistency and good convergent and criterion validity in terms of positive relations with depression, hopelessness and suicidality in students, patients, and male prison inmate samples [
1,
6,
17‐
22]. The ES showed comparable psychometric characteristics in terms of internal consistency and convergent and criterion validity [
1,
23]. The ES was originally designed as a two-dimensional instrument, distinguishing between internal and external entrapment [
1]. Internal entrapment is measured with six items (e.g., “I would like to escape from my thoughts and feelings” or “I feel trapped inside myself”) and external entrapment with ten items (e.g. “I have a strong desire to escape from things in my life” or “I can see no way out of my current situation”). Gilbert and Allan [
1] reported a correlation between both scales of
r = .75 but nonetheless argue that they are differentiable facets of the construct. However, subsequent research confirmed the close relation between internal and external entrapment and suggested that entrapment should be best conceptualized as a unidimensional construct [
24].
Moreover, a vivid debate is ongoing about the factorial validity of the defeat and entrapment scale. While the two instruments were originally designed and applied as being two separate scales, recent research suggests that they appear to represent the same construct [
7,
24,
25]. This implies that the constructs themselves might not be distinct but rather two sides of the same story [
24]. Consequently, Griffiths et al. [
26] developed the short defeat and entrapment scale (SDES). The SDES consists of eight items, four indicating defeat and four entrapment. The eight items of the SDES were chosen from the 32 items of the original DS and ES by means of a principal-axis exploratory factor analysis (EFA): Griffiths et al. [
26] picked the four highest loading items of the DS and the four highest loading items of the ES from the EFA based on data of
N = 262 participants from the community. The authors presented then a series of analyses supporting unidimensionality, internal consistency, and validity of this set of eight items building the SDES.
However, within the field of psychometrics, it is known that well established analytic techniques such as exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) might underestimate the number of factors when factors are highly correlated [
27]. When Griffith et al. [
26] tested a two-factor model of defeat and entrapment, they found that it actually fitted the data better than a one factor model. Yet, because the two factors were highly correlated (
r = 0.91), they decided to stay with the one factor model. Within this article, we applied a novel technique based on network modelling that has been found to outperform traditional techniques when data are highly correlated. We will compare the number of identified clusters with the results from standard factor techniques based on data from an online and a clinical sample, and discuss its scientific and clinical relevance.
Network analysis
In the past years, there has been a specific interest in the estimation of network models using psychological data [
28]. Network analysis allows to visualize and estimate the association between variables, without assuming any underlying dimensional structure a priori [
29]. A network consists of nodes (the items) and the pairwise relation between the items (edges). When two items have a pairwise interaction after conditioning for all other items in the dataset (so-called partial correlation), they are connected via a line (edge). Importantly, the interpretability of a network is highly increased by applying a penalized maximum likelihood estimation called LASSO. After applying LASSO estimation on the partial correlation matrix, non-relevant spurious partial correlations are set to zero, resulting in a network of direct non-spurious relations between nodes [
30]. Network modelling has successfully been applied within for example the field of depression research (e.g., [
31]), PTSD (e.g., [
32]), and recently, suicidology (e.g., [
33]).
Identifying dimensions within a network
Although network analysis does not assume any underlying latent structure a priori, researchers and clinicians are still interested in the clustering of nodes. Indeed, Golino and Epskamp [
27] argue that clusters in a network are similar to latent variables. The LASSO estimations result in a sparse matrix that is better attuned to identifying clusters in highly correlated data. Next, an algorithm called walktrap can be used to identify numbers of clusters or latent variables within this sparse matrix [
29]. In simulation studies, the application of a walktrap algorithm on a sparse matrix was found to outperform traditional methods like parallel analysis and eigenvalue decomposition when analyzing data with multiple strongly correlated latent factors [
27]. Confirmatory Factor Analysis can then be applied to test whether the proposed structure fits the data.