+1 Recommend
0 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The development and psychometric properties of a self-report Catastrophizing Questionnaire


      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.


          Catastrophizing is a cognitive process that can be defined as predicting the worst possible outcome. It has been shown to be related to psychiatric diagnoses such as depression and anxiety, yet there are no self-report questionnaires specifically measuring it outside the context of pain research. Here, we therefore develop a novel, comprehensive self-report measure of general catastrophizing. We performed five online studies (total n = 734), in which we created and refined a Catastrophizing Questionnaire, and used a factor analytic approach to understand its underlying structure. We also assessed convergent and discriminant validity, and analysed test–retest reliability. Furthermore, we tested the ability of Catastrophizing Questionnaire scores to predict relevant clinical variables over and above other questionnaires. Finally, we also developed a four-item short version of this questionnaire. We found that our questionnaire is best fit by a single underlying factor, and shows convergent and discriminant validity. Exploratory factor analyses indicated that catastrophizing is independent from other related constructs, including anxiety and worry. Moreover, we demonstrate incremental validity for this questionnaire in predicting diagnostic and medication status. Finally, we demonstrate that our Catastrophizing Questionnaire has good test–retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.77, p < 0.001). Critically, we can now, for the first time, obtain detailed self-report data on catastrophizing.

          Related collections

          Most cited references38

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: the GAD-7.

          Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is one of the most common mental disorders; however, there is no brief clinical measure for assessing GAD. The objective of this study was to develop a brief self-report scale to identify probable cases of GAD and evaluate its reliability and validity. A criterion-standard study was performed in 15 primary care clinics in the United States from November 2004 through June 2005. Of a total of 2740 adult patients completing a study questionnaire, 965 patients had a telephone interview with a mental health professional within 1 week. For criterion and construct validity, GAD self-report scale diagnoses were compared with independent diagnoses made by mental health professionals; functional status measures; disability days; and health care use. A 7-item anxiety scale (GAD-7) had good reliability, as well as criterion, construct, factorial, and procedural validity. A cut point was identified that optimized sensitivity (89%) and specificity (82%). Increasing scores on the scale were strongly associated with multiple domains of functional impairment (all 6 Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form General Health Survey scales and disability days). Although GAD and depression symptoms frequently co-occurred, factor analysis confirmed them as distinct dimensions. Moreover, GAD and depression symptoms had differing but independent effects on functional impairment and disability. There was good agreement between self-report and interviewer-administered versions of the scale. The GAD-7 is a valid and efficient tool for screening for GAD and assessing its severity in clinical practice and research.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure.

            While considerable attention has focused on improving the detection of depression, assessment of severity is also important in guiding treatment decisions. Therefore, we examined the validity of a brief, new measure of depression severity. The Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ) is a self-administered version of the PRIME-MD diagnostic instrument for common mental disorders. The PHQ-9 is the depression module, which scores each of the 9 DSM-IV criteria as "0" (not at all) to "3" (nearly every day). The PHQ-9 was completed by 6,000 patients in 8 primary care clinics and 7 obstetrics-gynecology clinics. Construct validity was assessed using the 20-item Short-Form General Health Survey, self-reported sick days and clinic visits, and symptom-related difficulty. Criterion validity was assessed against an independent structured mental health professional (MHP) interview in a sample of 580 patients. As PHQ-9 depression severity increased, there was a substantial decrease in functional status on all 6 SF-20 subscales. Also, symptom-related difficulty, sick days, and health care utilization increased. Using the MHP reinterview as the criterion standard, a PHQ-9 score > or =10 had a sensitivity of 88% and a specificity of 88% for major depression. PHQ-9 scores of 5, 10, 15, and 20 represented mild, moderate, moderately severe, and severe depression, respectively. Results were similar in the primary care and obstetrics-gynecology samples. In addition to making criteria-based diagnoses of depressive disorders, the PHQ-9 is also a reliable and valid measure of depression severity. These characteristics plus its brevity make the PHQ-9 a useful clinical and research tool.
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling


                Author and article information

                R Soc Open Sci
                R Soc Open Sci
                Royal Society Open Science
                The Royal Society
                January 2021
                13 January 2021
                13 January 2021
                : 8
                : 1
                : 201362
                Anxiety Lab, Neuroscience and Mental Health Group, Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience , Alexandra House, 17–19 Queen Square, London WC1N 3AR, UK
                Author notes
                Author for correspondence: Alexandra C. Pike e-mail: alex.pike@ 123456ucl.ac.uk

                Joint first authors.

                Electronic supplementary material is available online at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.5249599.

                Author information
                © 2021 The Authors.

                Published by the Royal Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, which permits unrestricted use, provided the original author and source are credited.

                : 31 July 2020
                : 11 December 2020
                Funded by: Medical Research Council, http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000265;
                Award ID: MR/R020817/1
                Funded by: Wellcome Trust, http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100004440;
                Award ID: 218411_Z_19_Z_UCL
                Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                January, 2021

                psychiatry,anxiety disorders,mood disorders,cognitive distortions,self-report questionnaire,catastrophizing


                Comment on this article