Module-6
Defining Features of Behavioral Assessment
Behavioral assessment emphasizes the empirically based measurement of Precisely
specified observable behavior, using a variety of methods, modalities of client functioning, and
settings in which the problem behaviors can arise. Assessing the specific environmental stimuli
that can control behavior is of fundamental importance. The paradigm “emphasizes the use of
minimally inferential assessment methods. Consequently, direct measurement of a client’s
behavior is preferred to retrospective Reports”
Behavioral therapists carefully examine the nature of their client’s problems and the
Critical factors that influence them. In concert with factors that exist “within” a person, such. As
patterns of psychophysiological, cognitive, or affective responding, contextual factors in The
environment are seen as major determinants of behavior. Thus, in contrast with more Traditional
views of personality and psychopathology, individual behavior is not viewed as Inherently stable
across different life situations. Furthermore, a client’s overt responses to Assessment instruments
are of interest in their own right, and must be sampled as extensively and accurately as possible.
In contrast with traditional approaches, a primary function of behavioral assessment includes
selection of appropriate treatment techniques and evaluation of treatment progress and outcome.
Assessment itself can be viewed as the first stage of behavior therapy.
Functional Analysis
The overarching goal of behavioural assessment as an essential component of behavior
therapy is to integrate assessment information into a clinical formulation to guide treatment
interventions (Haynes, 1998). The clinical formulation that results from a behavioural assessment
is most often referred to as the functional analysis, a phrase that signals behavior therapists’
interest in identifying the potentially controllable discriminative stimuli, behavioural
contingencies, and reinforcers influencing the client’s problem behavior. “
Identifying the antecedent conditions and consequences of a particular behavior could
Show that it occurs more frequently at some times of day, when particular people are present, or
when certain consequences occur. For example, Kazdin (2001) cited the example of an 8-year-
old child, Kathy, who often fought physically with her younger sister. The mother was asked to
chart occurrences of unacceptable behavior (fighting) and acceptable behavior (playing
cooperatively). The charts revealed, among other things, that when Kathy fought With her sister,
her mother would take Kathy to her room and remain with her until she Calmed down,
sometimes reading to her. When Kathy played appropriately, the parents would “leave well
enough alone” (Kazdin, 2001, p. 108). One of the hypotheses that emerged From this assessment
was that Kathy’s fighting was reinforced by having private time with Her mother. Appropriate
interventions based on that hypothesis included making private Time with her mother contingent
upon Kathy’s playing cooperatively, not fighting.
Repp and Horner (1999) illustrated the use of functional analysis with clients who put
Their hands in their mouths, sometimes biting their hands. Typical behavioral interventions To
address problem behavior of this kind include overcorrection and differential reinforcement of
other behavior. In overcorrection, the client is asked to remedy the damage done By the behavior,
actually going beyond what would be minimally required, contingent upon The occurrence of the
inappropriate behavior. In this example, overcorrection could mean Requiring the clients to clean
their teeth with antiseptic toothpaste and to have their hands treated with antibacterial
medication. Differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) Involves delivering positive
reinforcement contingent upon a client’s having spent at least A certain minimal interval of time
not engaging in hand-biting. Without a functional analysis Of the problem behavior,
overcorrection and DRO could have been implemented as potentially suitable behavioral
interventions. However, a functional analysis might reveal that Another, quite different approach
is more fitting.
For example, the functional analysis might show that the clients put their hands in their
mouths when they could not predict what was required from them in a pending task. Assessment
of the consequences might reveal that the problem behavior served as an escape Response,
effectively taking the client out of the difficult situation. If that were the case, making the task
more predictable, or giving pertinent information to the clients, would be more appropriate
treatment interventions (Repp & Horner, 1999).
In general terms, functional analysis actually facilitates the conduct of Behavior therapy.
There are five main functions:
1. Description of the problem
2. Identification of controlling variables
3. Evaluation of adaptive significance
4. Selection of treatment
5. Evaluation of outcome
Problem Description
Problem description is necessary before important comparisons can be made, such as
comparing the behavior before and after treatment and across situations, and comparing the
client with other individuals (Cone, 1998). The most obvious first step in behavioral assessment
is to obtain a clear description of specific problems that the client would like to change. Often,
when clients seek psychotherapy they present vague descriptions of their problems.
The therapist’s task is to encourage the client to “translate” these complaints into specific
problems amenable to change. For example, the person who complains of relationship problems
may be referring to verbal arguments that tend to recur and are organized around specific conflict
issues. The characteristic frequency, duration, and intensity of the problem are then delineated in
order to determine the severity of the problem. One client may describe mild arguments with a
spouse that last for a few minutes and occur once or twice a month; another may describe daily
fights involving shouting and physical violence.
Identifying Controlling Variables
Once a specific problem (or set of problems) is identified, the next step is to examine the
Types of antecedent and consequent stimuli that could be maintaining it. This is the essence of
functional analysis—identifying important relationships between the environment and The
behavior that are potentially controllable (Tryon, 1998). It would be difficult to exaggerate the
importance of functional analysis: “The well-documented large effect sizes associated with
reinforcement contingencies [indicate] that they must be evaluated as part of any Comprehensive
behavioral assessment and that they must be considered as part of any comprehensive behavioral
intervention” (Tryon, 1998, p. 96).
Kanfer and Saslow (1969) proposed a conceptual model, the S-O-R-C-K model, which
Helps guide clinicians through the stages of behavioral assessment. S refers to stimuli,
Antecedent events or discriminative stimuli that function to cue the problem behavior. O Refers
to the organism, or characteristics of the individual that cannot be directly observed But may
play a role in perpetuation of the problem . R refers to responses or behaviours identified by the
client as problematic. C refers to the immediate consequences of the behavior, and K to
contingencies or current schedules of reinforcement. Thus, a comprehensive analysis of
controlling variables must include analysis of precipitating events (which may be characteristics
of specific situational contexts), individual predispositions that the client brings to the situation,
current environmental variables, and the types of positive and negative consequences which help
maintain the problem.
Adaptive Significance of the Problem Behavior
The problem behavior affect the person’s ability to function effectively in different Life
contexts . In order to evaluate this important issue, the clinician might use criteria such As
comparison of the problem with some “normal” standard; danger to self or others; and
Impairment of social, occupational, or personal functioning.
Selection of Treatment
If a client identifies more than one problem, it is necessary to decide which specific
problem behaviours should be changed first, and available research has not yet provided all the
Answers. Although there are no absolute rules for selecting among alternative treatment goals,
useful guidelines have been offered by several clinicians.
For example, Nelson and Hayes (1979) have suggested the following criteria for selecting
among various treatment targets
• Dangerousness to self or others
• Behaviours that are highly irritating to others
• Behaviours that are easiest to change (in order to increase the client’s
feelings of hopefulness and sense of personal efficacy)
• Behaviours at the beginning of a chain of linked behaviours
Once priorities have been assigned for alternative problems, assessment data can be used
to develop an intervention with a high probability of success. In guiding the choice of treatment,
primary considerations are the nature of the client’s problem and the nature of the controlling
variables.
Evaluation of Treatment Progress and Outcome
The final assessment function involves evaluation of treatment progress and outcome.
According to Barlow, Hayes, and Nelson (1984), evaluation of treatment effects can be
addressed by three different questions:
1. Is the treatment being implemented successfully?
2. Is the treatment effective in alleviating the client’s presenting problems?
3. What are the implications of the treatment effects for clinical science?
Behavioral Assessment Methods
Behavior therapists tend to use multiple assessment techniques and methods, the exact
nature And number being determined by the unique features of each case
Behavioral interview
The behavioral interview is almost universally employed to gather information
concerning problem behavior (Guevremont & Spiegler, 1990). The therapist’s general goals are
to establish a warm, supportive, and trusting relationship with the client, and to achieve detailed
information about the nature, development, and current context of the client’s stated problems.
The first of these goals has priority, because even the most perfectly executed information-
gathering interview will be pointless if the client fails to return for a second meeting due to poor
rapport with the clinician (Sarwer & Sayers, 1998). Detailed information from interviewing
allows the clinician to develop a preliminary model of controlling factors related to target
behavior, and to select settings and methods for assessment and variables for treatment
evaluation and design (Haynes, 1991).
Guidelines for the characteristics of helpful behavioral interviewing can be suggested,
but controlled research is lacking (Sarwer & Sayers, 1998).
Establishing a good relationship. Although behavior therapy is generally time-limited
and problem-focused, this does not preclude the necessity of establishing good rapport with
clients. . Good relationship-building skills involve the ability to show respect and caring to
the client, the ability to listen carefully and to be empathically responsive to the client’s
distress, and the ability to present oneself as genuine. These therapist skills are probably
necessary to the success of all forms of psychotherapy. In addition, successful behavior
therapists must possess good structuring skills and strike a balance between allowing clients
to ventilate painful feelings and obtaining essential information about the problem behavior.
All of these qualities require excellent judgment and interpersonal skill, typically
achieved through advanced [Link] adequate information. The information-
gathering procedure has been likened to a funnel (Hawkins, 1979) in that, initially, a wide
range of life events are discussed,narrowing to more specific information as the interview
progresses. The therapist attempts to obtain a picture of the entire person in his or her social
milieu. The following areas are usually assessed:
• Psychosocial adjustment, reflecting the number, type, and severity of
emotional or behavioral problems, at the present time and in the past, and the quality of
the client’s social relationships. Past history is usually explored, although not in the detail
achieved by psychodynamic practitioners. Information about the client’s overall history
of social
Adjustment is obtained, subdivided into areas such as relationships with
family, friends,Intimate partners, teachers/employers, and co-workers.
• Academic and vocational adjustment. General information about the client’s history Of
academic and vocational achievement is also obtained, including present level of
Vocational success and satisfaction and relevant information about school achievement.
• Medical history and status. Pertinent medical information is obtained, such as the Client’s
history of serious illnesses and past inpatient or outpatient treatments. Frequently,
clinicians also inquire whether close relatives have had histories of severe Psychological
and physical disorders.
• Assets. The client’s personal strengths or assets are carefully assessed. These might
include quality of the client’s social support system and special areas of competence Such
as high intelligence or good social skills.
• Motivation. Clinicians ask how the client has tried to handle the problem in the past, And
how well these efforts have succeeded. It is important to ascertain the strength of The
client’s motivation to change and whether the client has positive expectancies that
Change can occur since these cognitive factors affect how hard people will try
Through skilled questioning and possibly the use of other assessment techniques, the
Therapist and client narrow the focus to one or more well-defined problems. The therapist Probes
to achieve clear descriptions and examples. Once specific problems have been identified as
appropriate for treatment, the therapist moves to an explanation of potential controlling variables.
Behavioral interviews provide a wealth of information that is used in treatment planning,
implementation, and evaluation. However, despite the widespread use of this assessment tool,
there is a dearth of information about the reliability and validity of behavioral Interviews
Structured Interviews
Structured interviews and rating scales were originally designed to provide differential
diagnoses of clients’ presenting problems, and to assess the severity of symptoms associated
With diagnostic categories (Morrison, 1988). Contemporary structured interview protocols Are
specific to particular problem areas and go beyond straightforward diagnostic classification; they
also provide additional data relevant to research and treatment. Questions refer To the duration,
content, course, and severity of specific symptoms. Examples of better known Instruments
include the Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia (SADS; Endicott & Spitzer,
1978); Diagnostic Interview Schedule (DIS; Robins, Heltzer, Croughan, &Ratcliff, 1981); and
the Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM (SCID; Spitzer & Williams, 1985).
For anxiety disorders, the Anxiety Disorders Interview Schedule—IV (ADIS-IV;Brown,
DiNardo, & Barlow, 1994) is routinely used by cognitive-behavioral researchers And clinicians,
and because of its impressive interrater reliabilities and construct validity it is regarded as the
state-of-the-art behavioral assessment tool for these disorders (McGlynn & Rose, 1998). In
addition to obtaining information pertinent to arriving at a diagnosis, the ADIS-IV elicits
material on the history of the client’s problems and the situational and cognitive factors
influencing anxiety.
Structured interviews have several advantages. They are reliable, inexpensive, fairly easy
to administer, and they allow modest flexibility in interview content. However, they have
important disadvantages as well, particularly for behaviorally oriented clinicians. Structured
interviews require lengthy administration times (e.g., the SADS takes between 1.5 and 2 hours to
administer). Moreover, some instruments do not provide information about contextual factors
related to problem behavior: Diagnosis alone is insufficient for treatment formulation (Persons,
1991). Finally, the validity of many structured interview formats has not been adequately
established. Use of structured interviews is typically confined to clinical situations where a
precise diagnostic label is required, such as treatment studies of individuals who suffer from the
same type of disorder.
Questionnaires
Behavioral self-report questionnaires have focused on observable phenomena such as the
frequency and type of undesirable behaviors. Unlike self-report questionnaires employed in
traditional assessment, behavioral questionnaires are highly problem-focused. For example, the
Wolpe and Lang (1969) Fear Survey Schedule consists of 72 items on which clients rate the
degree of fear corresponding to different situations or objects. More recently, in line with the
“cognitive revolution” in behavioral therapy, questionnaires have been designed to assess the
type and frequency of maladaptive thoughts (Parks & Hollon, 1988; Smith, 1989). For example,
on the widely used Beck Depression Inventory-II, clients assess the frequency of self-critical and
suicidal thoughts.
Self-report questionnaires are advantageous because they cover a wide range of clinical
disorders, and are easily administered, quick, and inexpensive. Because of these practical virtues,
they are frequently used in screening, and in evaluations of treatment progress and outcome. An
example of a specific self-report questionnaire to assess a focused problem area is the Revised
Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale (see Ramsay et al., 2002). Potential limitations of self-report
questionnaires have included the possibility of distortion, bias, or misinterpretation in the client’s
responses; lack of attention to situational specificity; and in many cases, questionable validity
(O’Brien & Haynes, 1993). For these reasons, data derived from self-report questionnaires
should always be supplemented with other sources of information about the client’s problem.
Behavior Rating Scales
Typical behavior rating scales are multifaceted, assessing a wide range of behaviors on
several different dimensions. The most widely used rating scales for children’s behavior are the
Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) and Conners’ Rating Scales-Revised (see Ramsay et al.,2002).
Ratings are usually made by teachers and parents, conferring the advantages of assessing
behavior across situations with independent informants. However, these ratings tend to Be
impressionistic, global ratings that may be subject to various forms of bias.
Analogue Techniques
Analog techniques involve asking the client to respond to contrived situations in the
clinic or laboratory that are similar to real-life problem situations. A range of media and
techniques have been used, including paper-and-pencil responses to written scripts, asking the
client to attend to audiotaped or videotaped situations, asking the client to enact problematic
social interactions in the consulting room, or asking the client to assume various roles of persons
involved in troubling social exchanges.
Analogue techniques may be very useful in generating hypotheses about the nature of the
client’s problems. However, since analogue situations are simulated and of necessity different
from the context in which the target behavior typically occurs, the degree of correspondence
between contrived stimuli and real-life problems they represent may not be great and has rarely
been tested by clinicians For this reason, analogue methods should be used cautiously and
supplemented with other sources of information about the problem at hand.
Self-Monitoring
Self-monitoring involves recording aspects of one’s own behavior for use in treatment.
Self-monitoring is especially helpful in the case of low-frequency events, which would be
difficult To observe independently. If the presenting problem involves some sort of “private
event,” Such as cravings or dysfunctional thoughts, self-monitoring is one of the only means
available for assessment.
Traditionally, clients have been asked to compute frequency counts of discrete behaviours
that are short in duration (such as number of drinks taken or cigarettes smoked). A variety of
assessment tools have been used, including written diaries, mechanical counters, timing Devices,
and computers. If a given response occurs very frequently, the client might be asked To record
behavior only during certain time periods each day. In the case of behaviors that Are not discrete,
such as studying, exercising, practicing, or writing, the client may be asked to record the time
spent on the activity each day. Finally, clients may be asked to keep daily Records of negative
thoughts that are keyed to certain life situations. For example, recording immediate cognitive
reactions to upsetting situations can help one assess dysfunctional Thought patterns relevant to
anxiety or depression.
If self-monitoring is to be successful, the target behavior must be carefully defined and
the client must be adequately trained. The advantages of self-monitoring are many:
• It can be can be carried out anywhere.
• It permits sampling of low-frequency private events, such as illicit drug use or sexual
• Promotes insight into how one’s own behavior is related to situational and other Factors.
• It can be reactive, in that self-monitoring may in itself promote positive change (although this is
a disadvantage of the technique as well).
Potential drawbacks of self-monitoring include noncompliance, reactivity, and
inaccuracy. In trying to circumvent noncompliance, it is important that the therapist selects a
Recording method appropriate to the client’s problem, trains the client in self-monitoring
techniques, and then follows up with phone or mail contacts.
The reactivity problem is more difficult to deal with. When individuals self-record Their
own behavior, it tends to change in frequency. Generally, positive target behaviors tend To
increase in frequency under self-monitoring, whereas negative target behaviors tend to Decrease.
Finally, when independent checks of self-monitored data have been conducted,
Many investigators have reported poor accuracy. Thus, the assessment function of self-
monitoring is hampered by problems of reactivity and inaccuracy, particularly in situations
Where pre-treatment baseline data must be obtained. For these reasons, self-monitoring should
Be used with caution and supplemented with other forms of assessment data.
Direct Observation
Direct observation of problem behaviors in natural settings (such as homes, schools, or
residential treatment facilities) played an important role in the initial development of behavioral
assessment and continues to be one of its hallmarks (Tryon, 1998). The greatest advantage of in
vivo observation is that problem behavior can be observed in its customary situational context,
leading directly to hypotheses about possible controlling variables.
However, the many potential limitations of in vivo observation preclude its widespread
use in clinical practice. The following drawbacks are most salient:
1. Reactivity. Perhaps the greatest drawback of observational methods is reactivity to the
presence of the observer (Foster, Bell-Dolan, & Burge, 1988). People tend to behave differently
when they know that they are being observed by others. . Reactivity problems can be minimized
by decreasing the intrusiveness of the observers, and by scheduling an adaptation period that
allows the individual(s) to habituate to the presence of the observer.
2. Reliability of observations. Achieving acceptable interrater reliability requires
intensive training. Diverse factors have been found to affect reliability, including the complexity
of social behaviors and interactions under observation, observers’ awareness that a reliability
Assessment is being conducted, observer fatigue, and the tendency for observers to “drift” From
the original coding criteria over time (Taplin & Reid, 1973). Scheduling unannounced Reliability
checks and allowing sufficient rest periods may help attenuate these problems.
3. Validity of observations. Validity is influenced by many factors, including the
comprehensiveness of the coding system, the number of observations conducted, the nature of
The validation criterion (what the results of direct observation are to be correlated with), and The
extent to which different situations relevant to the problem behavior are adequately sampled
(Foster et al., 1988; Tryon, 1998). The problem of the validity of sampling runs parallel To the
problem of generalizability: “Trait theorists assume generalizability across assessment Contexts.
Behavioral clinicians have too often assumed rather than demonstrated generalizability” (Tryon,
1998, p. 83).
4. Cost-efficiency. Direct observation is expensive and time-consuming. This
impracticality has been a critical obstacle to the frequent use of observational methods in general
clinical practice.
Psychophysiological Recording Methods
Psychophysiological recording methods are used to assess patterns of physiological
responses relevant to behavior disorders or health problems. Common assessment targets have
included cardiovascular responses, respiratory activity, gastrointestinal activity, electrodermal
activity, cortical activity, and muscular activity (Sturgis & Gramling, 1988, 1998).
Psychophysiological measures have proven useful in assessments of diverse clinical problems,
particularly fear and anxiety, problems of sexual arousal, and health-related disorders. However,
interpretation is complex, because psychophysiological data are influenced by many different
types of individual, setting, and procedural variables. For example, like observational measures,
these measures can be reactive to situational variables that are irrelevant to the problem behavior
(Farrell, 1993). Moreover, the reliability and validity of many psychophysiological measures
have not been well established. Finally, these measures require specialized equipment and
expertise, which limits their practicality.
Assessment of Dysfunctional Cognitions
Rational emotive behavior therapy (Ellis, 1962, 1995), cognitive therapy (Beck, 1976,
1995), And other interventions aimed at cognitive restructuring call for specific assessment
techniques to evaluate dysfunctional or maladaptive cognitions. Most commonly, these take the
form of structured questionnaires to assess clients’ self-statements, automatic thoughts, cognitive
schemas, and irrational beliefs.
Self-Statements
The assessment of self-statements in specific situations originated in the work of
Meichenbaum and his colleagues. For example, Meichenbaum, Gilmore, and Fedoravicius
(1971) asked speech-anxious volunteers to record what they had “said to themselves” covertly
when participating in an in vivo behavioral test of public-speaking anxiety at the start of the
experiment, and those self-statements became the focus of analogue treatment. Unhelpful self
statements such as “I’m not sure I can do this. What if I faint or make a fool of myself? would
ideally be replaced by potentially helpful, coping self-statements such as “I may not be the
world’s greatest speaker, but I’ll simply go ahead and do as well as I can. What’s the worst that
can happen, anyway?”
Because self-statements of this kind are assumed to be highly situation-specific, it would
be practically impossible to design a validated questionnaire containing the whole range of
maladaptive self-statements found in clients in general across all problem issues and diagnostic
categories. One approach used by researchers has been to present people with vignettes or
hypothetical scenarios describing frustrating events and then ask the participants to rate the
likelihood that they would entertain each of a list of particular, designated self-statements if that
situation actually arose in real life. The Situational Self-Statement and Affective State Inventory
(SSSASI), designed by LaPointe and Harrell (1978) and further studied by Harrell, Chambless,
and Calhoun (1981), presents a series of five vignettes describing irritating events and
disappointing outcomes, such as not receiving an expected raise at work, having an argument
with a dating partner, or having one’s application to join a community committee rejected. After
reading each vignette, respondents indicate to what degree they would experience certain
emotional reactions as well as specific self-statements
Although The self-statements were phrased so as to avoid direct references to emotion,
the thoughts and feelings mapped onto the five affective categories of depression, anxiety, anger,
suspicion, and rational concern. The SASSI possesses satisfactory psychometric properties of
Discriminant validity, test-retest reliability, and internal consistency
Automatic Thoughts and Cognitive Schemas
Treatment focused on altering clients’ unhelpful self-statements has been shown effective
As an intervention for depression (Rush, Beck, Kovacs, & Hollon, 1977). It is also possible To
approach this correlational link between thoughts and feelings the other way around, by Gauging
the effects of different levels of depression on self-statements. This was accomplished in a quasi-
experimental study by Dobson and Shaw (1986), who assessed two types Of cognitions relevant
to depression
Cognitive therapists hypothesize that some self-statements, schema-based cognitions Or
schemas, are always present in people who are prone to depression, whereas other self-
statements, automatic thoughts, are present only during an actual episode of depression. Schemas
are fundamental, pervasive, and enduring, and it is relatively difficult to gain access To them. An
example of a depressive schema could be Whenever things start to go well, There’s bound to be a
huge disappointment coming. By contrast, automatic thoughts are Fleeting, situation-specific,
and fairly readily accessible, such as “Oh, no! The boss wants to see me in the office! I’m going
to lose my job!”
Dobson and Shaw assessed different groups of depressed inpatients and waited two
weeks while they received state-of-the-art treatment. Depressed patients who improved with
Treatment showed significant changes in their automatic thoughts, whereas their schemas Were
unaffected and consistent with prediction. The Automatic Thoughts Questionnaire used in This
study is commonly used in the cognitive-behavioral assessment of depression.
Irrational Beliefs
Surveys of irrational beliefs are important in research and clinical settings for assessing
Constructs relevant to rational emotive behavior therapy (REBT) (Smith, 1989).
The Common Beliefs Survey—III (CBS-III; Bessai, 1976, 1977), a 54-item inventory Of
irrational beliefs, is an example of the earlier questionnaires used in REBT research. Rather Than
comprising a disjointed list of specific, arbitrarily chosen ideas, the 54 items of the CBS-III form
six empirically derived factors that makeup two scales. The evaluation scale Consists of the three
factors: Blame Proneness, Self-Downing, and Perfectionism. The locus Of control scale consists
of three factors: The importance of the Past, the Importance of Approval, And the Control of
Emotions. This original factor structure was confirmed and replicated in a Study of 264 medical
patients by Tosi, Forman, Rudy, and Murphy (1986).
Recent research has shown that the CBS-III has satisfactory psychometric properties.
Three of its factors—Self-Downing, Perfectionism, and Importance of the Past—Correlate
significantly with scores on the self-statements in the SASSI, mentioned Earlier, attesting to the
construct validity of those subscales. Two factors—Self-Downing And Perfectionism—
significantly discriminate patients from nonpatients
Reflecting recent developments in REBT theory (Ellis, 1995), contemporary surveys
Focus on three or four general beliefs in preference to earlier lists of eleven or twelve specific
ideas. Irrational thought processes, such as “demandingness,” are assessed in addition To areas of
thought content, such as “need for achievement” (Bernard, 1998). Factor analysis provided the
empirical basis for distilling higher-order, more general beliefs from the Earlier more specific
ones.
The General Attitude and Belief Scale (GABS; Bernard, 1998) is a contemporary
Irrational belief scale that includes such subscales as Self-Downing, Need for Achievement, and
Rationality. Sample items from the GABS include: “I believe I would be a Worthless person if I
achieved poorly at tasks that are important to me” (Self-Downing subscale), and “I must do well
at important things and I will not accept it if I do not do well”