Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T15:38:15.309Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pathological Worry in Portugal: The Portuguese Version of the Penn State Worry Questionnaire (PSWQ)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 December 2019

Antonia María Jiménez-Ros Open the ORCID record for Antonia María Jiménez-Ros [Opens in a new window] ,
José Carmona-Márquez  and
Luís Miguel Pascual
Antonia María Jiménez-Ros*
Affiliation:
Universidade do Algarve (Portugal)
José Carmona-Márquez
Affiliation:
Universidad de Huelva (Spain)
Luís Miguel Pascual
Affiliation:
Universidad de Zaragoza (Spain)
*
*Corresponding concerning this article should be addressed to Antonia María Jiménez-Ros. Psychology Research Centre (CIP/UAL), Universidade do Algarve (Portugal). Faro (Portugal) E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Worry is a common phenomenon with people who anticipate and want to be prepared for future events. Pathological worry, however, is not limited to anticipating potentially dangerous events, but it is applied to small daily events, too. This kind of worry is perceived as uncontrollable, and it is strongly associated with catastrophism. The Penn State Worry Questionnaire (PSWQ) was developed to assess pathological worry. Despite its excellent psychometric characteristics, its internal structure is still controversial. The combination of regular and reversed items and certain methodological considerations may account for the discrepancies in the results of previous investigations. With the aim to analyze worry in Portugal and the psychometric properties of the PSWQ, for the present study, methodological options were considered in order to minimize previous problems. A sample of 558 Portuguese community participants took part in this study. Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis were performed with two independent random subsamples. The results showed the unidimensionality of PSWQ and the psychometric adequacy of both the full, 16-item version and a reduced, 11-item version (without reversed scored items). Normative data are presented, the suitability of both versions is discussed, and the authors conclude by encouraging the use of the reduced, 11-item version of the PSWQ in applied settings.

Keywords

normative datapathological worryPortugalPSWQpsychometrics
Type
Research Article
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 22 , 2019 , E63
Copyright
Copyright © Universidad Complutense de Madrid and Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This work was supported by the Portuguese National Funding Agency for Science, Research and Technology (SFRH/BSAB/135551/2018).

How to cite this article:

Jiménez-Ros, A. M., Carmona-Márquez, J., & Pascual, L. M. (2019). Pathological worry in Portugal: The Portuguese version of the Penn State Worry Questionnaire (PSWQ). The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 22. e63. Doi:10.1017/sjp.2019.61

References

Bartko, J. J. (1966). The intraclass correlation coefficient as a measure of reliability. Psychological Reports, 19(1), 3–11. http://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1966.19.1.3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Behar, E., Alcaine, O., Zuellig, A. R., & Borkovec, T. D. (2003). Screening for generalized anxiety disorder using the Penn State Worry Questionnaire: A receiver operating characteristic analysis. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 34(1), 25–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7916(03)00004-1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Byrne, B. M. (2006). Structural Equation Modeling with EQS; Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming (2nd Ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Borkovec, T. D., & Inz, J. (1990). The nature of worry in Generalized Anxiety Disorder - A predominance of thought activity. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 28(2), 153–158. http://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(90)90027-GCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Borkovec, T. D., Ray, W. J., & Stöber, J. (1998). Worry: A cognitive phenomenon intimately linked to affective, physiological, and interpersonal behavioral processes. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 22(6), 561–576. http://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018790003416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borkovec, T. D., Robinson, E., Pruzinsky, T., & DePree, J. A. (1983). Preliminary exploration of worry: Some characteristics and processes. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 21(1), 9–16. http://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(83)90121-3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, T. A. (2003). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Penn State Worry Questionnaire: Multiple factors or method effects? Behaviour Research and Therapy, 41(12), 1411–1426. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(03)00059-7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, T. A., Antony, M. M., & Barlow, D. H. (1992). Psychometric properties of the Penn state worry questionnaire in a clinical anxiety disorders sample. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 30(1), 33–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(92)90093-VCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castillo, C., Macrini, L., Cheniaux, E., & Landeira-Fernandez, J. (2010). Psychometric Properties and Latent Structure of the Portuguese Version of the Penn State Worry Questionnaire. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 13(1), 431–443. http://doi.org/10.1017/S113874160000398XCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Craske, M. G., Rapee, R. M., Jackel, L., & Barlow, D. H. (1989). Qualitative dimensions of worry in DSM–III–R generalized anxiety disorder subjects and non-anxious controls. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 27(4), 397–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(89)90010-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crittendon, J., & Hopko, D. R. (2006). Assessing worry in older and younger adults: Psychometric properties of an abbreviated Penn State Worry Questionnaire (PSWQ-A). Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 20(8), 1036–1054. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2005.11.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diedenhofen, B., & Musch, J. (2016). cocron: A Web interface and R Package for the statistical comparison of Cronbach’s alpha coefficients. International Journal of Internet Science, 11(1), 51–60.Google Scholar
Dunn, T. J., Baguley, T., & Brunsden, V. (2014). From alpha to omega: A practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. British Journal of Psychology, 105(3), 399–412. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12046CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fresco, D. M., Heimberg, R. G., Mennin, D. S., & Turk, C. L. (2002). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Penn State Worry Questionnaire. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 40(3), 313–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(00)00113-3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gillis, M. M., Haaga, D. A. F., & Ford, G. T. (1995). Normative values for the Beck Anxiety Inventory, Fear Questionnaire, Penn State Worry Questionnaire, and Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 7(4), 450–455. http://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.7.4.450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gorsuch, R. L. (1997). Exploratory Factor Analysis: Its role in item analysis. Journal of Personality Assessment, 68(3), 532–560. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6803_5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hambleton, R. K. (1996, April). Guidelines for adapting educational and psychological tests. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education. New York, NY.Google Scholar
Hazlett-Stevens, H., Ullman, J. B., & Craske, M. G. (2004). Factor Structure of the Penn State Worry Questionnaire: Examination of a method factor. Assessment, 11(4), 361–370. http://doi.org/10.1177/1073191104269872CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jiménez Ros, A. M., Orgambidez Ramos, A., & Pascual, L. M. (2015). Inventario de supresión del pensamiento del “oso blanco” (WBSI): Propiedades psicométricas de la versión portuguesa (Portugal) [White Bear Suppression Inventory (WBSI). Psychometric properties of the Portugese version] Revista de Psicopatología y Psicología Clínica, 20(2), 125. https://doi.org/10.5944/rppc.vol.20.num.2.2015.15167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiménez-Ros, A. M., & Pascual, L. M. (2016). Thought Control Questionnaire (TCQ): Psychometrics properties of the Portuguese version. Revista Argentina de Clínica Psicológica, XXV(1), 27–38.Google Scholar
Koo, T. K., & Li, M. Y. (2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 15(2), 155–163. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lorenzo-Seva, U., & Ferrando, P. J. (2006). FACTOR: A computer program to fit the exploratory factor analysis model. Behavior Research Methods, 38, 88–91. http://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192753CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meyer, T. J., Miller, M. L., Metzger, R. L., & Borkovec, T. D. (1990). Development and validation of the Penn State Worry Questionnaire. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 28(6), 487–495. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(90)90135-6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric Theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill: New York.Google Scholar
Papageorgiou, C. (2006). Worry and rumination: Styles of persistent negative thinking in anxiety and depression. In Davey, G. & Wells, A. (Eds.), Worry and it´s psychological disorders. Theory, assessment and treatment. London, UK: John Wiley & Sons LtdGoogle Scholar
Purdon, C. L., & Harrington, J. (2006). Worry in psychopathology. In Davey, C. L. & Wells, A. (Eds.), Worry and it´s psychological disorders. Theory, Assessment and Treatment (pp. 41–50). London, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.Google Scholar
Rodríguez-Biglieri, R., & Vetere, G. L. (2011). Psychometric characteristics of the Penn State Worry Questionnaire in an Argentinean sample: A cross-cultural contribution. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 14(1), 452–463. https://doi.org/10.5209/rev_SJOP.2011.v14.n1.41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruscio, A. M., Borkovec, T. D., & Ruscio, J. (2001). A taxometric investigation of the latent structure of worry. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 110, 413–422. http://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.110.3.413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandín, B., Chorot, P., Valiente, R. M., & Lostao, L. (2009). Validación española del cuestionario de preocupación PSWQ: Estructura factorial y propiedades psicométricas [Spanish validation of the PSWQ: Factor structure and psychometric properties]. Revista de Psicopatología y Psicología Clínica, 14(2), 107–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2001). A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66, 507–514. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suárez-Álvarez, J., Pedrosa, I., Lozano, L. M., García-Cueto, E., Cuesta, M., & Muñiz, J. (2018). Using reversed items in Likert scales: A questionable practice. Psicothema, 30(2), 149–158. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2018.33Google ScholarPubMed
Startup, H., & Erickson, M. (2006). The Penn State Worry Questionnaire (PSWQ). In Davey, G. & Wells, A. (Eds.), Worry and it´s psychological disorders. Theory, Assessment and Treatment (pp. 101–120). London, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.Google Scholar
Wegner, D. M., & Zanakos, S. (1994). Chronic thought suppression. Journal of Personality, 62(4), 616–640. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1994.tb00311.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wells, A., & Davies, M. I. (1994). The thought control questionnaire: A measure of individual differences in the control of unwanted thoughts. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 32(8), 871–878. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(94)90168-6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
West, S., Taylor, A., & Wu, W. (2012). Model fit and model selection in structural equation modeling. In Hoyle, R. (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp. 209–231). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, P., & Cooper, C. (2008). Finding the magic number. The Psychologist, 21, 866–867.Google Scholar