The Cognitive Failures Questionnaire

Abstract

The Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (CFQ) is one of the most widely utilized and influential self-report instruments in cognitive psychology, neuropsychology, and human factors research. Developed by Donald E. Broadbent, Peter F. Cooper, Peter FitzGerald, and Katherine R. Parkes in 1982, the instrument was designed to assess the frequency with which individuals experience everyday cognitive slips, lapses, and blunders in the domains of perception, memory, and motor execution. Comprising 25 items evaluated on a five-point Likert-type frequency scale ranging from 0 (“Never”) to 4 (“Very often”), the CFQ yields a total score between 0 and 100, where higher scores reflect a greater propensity toward daily cognitive failures. Psychometric evaluations across multiple decades and international populations demonstrate robust internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha typically ranging between .85 and .92, alongside strong test-retest reliability across intervals spanning several weeks to several years. Although Broadbent and colleagues originally conceptualized the scale as a unidimensional marker of a general, trait-like vulnerability to cognitive failure, subsequent exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses have revealed multidimensional structures—including models identifying memory lapses, distractibility/attentional slips, blunders/action execution errors, and spatial or motor slips—as well as hierarchical bifactor frameworks. The scale exhibits distinct construct validity: it correlates modestly with laboratory-based sustained attention and executive control tasks, moderately to strongly with measures of subjective stress, neuroticism, and burnout, and predicts consequential real-world outcomes, such as occupational accidents, automotive crashes, and somatic symptoms, while remaining largely orthogonal to standardized general intelligence (IQ). This article provides a comprehensive psychometric and theoretical review of the CFQ, elucidating its structural properties, clinical and occupational utility, empirical validation history, and contemporary standing in psychological measurement.

Keywords

Cognitive Failures Questionnaire, CFQ, cognitive slips, everyday memory, absentmindedness, human error, sustained attention, Donald Broadbent, action slips, ecological validity, occupational safety, psychometrics

Authors

The Cognitive Failures Questionnaire was formulated and validated by a prominent research team at the University of Oxford:

• Donald E. Broadbent, C.B.E., F.R.S. (1926–1993): A seminal figure in 20th-century cognitive psychology and experimental psychonomics. Broadbent served as the Director of the Medical Research Council (MRC) Applied Psychology Unit in Cambridge from 1958 to 1974, before continuing his pioneering research at the Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford. Broadbent revolutionized the study of human attention, selective filtering, working memory, and human-machine interaction.
• Peter F. Cooper: Research Officer and collaborative methodologist associated with the Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, who contributed extensively to the psychometric development and field-testing of the instrument.
• Peter FitzGerald: Research Psychologist associated with the Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, specializing in survey design, human factors, and behavioral error tracking.
• Katherine R. Parkes: Renowned occupational health psychologist at the Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford. Dr. Parkes has published extensively on occupational stress, coping mechanisms, individual differences in shift-work adaptation, and the structural interaction between human personality traits and workplace safety environments.

Inquiries regarding contemporary psychometric archives, historical normative distributions, and educational adaptations have also frequently been facilitated through academic psychometricians including Dr. Ronald Okada (Department of Psychology, Faculty of Health, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Email: [email protected]).

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Cognitive Failures Questionnaire is to provide an ecologically valid, self-report assessment of the frequency of minor, everyday cognitive errors that individuals commit in routine, highly familiar environments. While traditional cognitive neuroscience and experimental psychology have historically relied on laboratory paradigms—such as reaction-time tasks, digit-span assessments, continuous performance tests, and the Stroop paradigm—these maximal-performance laboratory measures often fail to capture the typical, everyday cognitive performance of individuals functioning in unconstrained real-world settings. A person may exhibit intact sustained attention during a brief, high-stakes computerized assessment in a quiet laboratory, yet simultaneously experience pervasive absentmindedness, missed steps in domestic routines, or severe attentional lapses while navigating everyday life.

Broadbent and colleagues (1982) sought to bridge this psychometric gap by operationalizing “cognitive failure” as an individual’s self-observed breakdown in the execution of an action or cognitive sequence that an individual is normally fully capable of completing without error. The CFQ deliberately avoids probing clinical dementia symptoms or catastrophic neurological deficits; instead, it focuses on common, non-pathological blunders, such as forgetting why one walked into a room, dropping objects, misplacing household items, failing to hear people when distracted, or confusing left and right. By cataloging these micro-breakdowns over a standardized six-month retrospective window, the CFQ yields an index of an individual’s baseline cognitive efficiency and distractibility.

In research contexts, the CFQ serves as a critical measure for investigating:

• Vulnerability to Stress and Burnout: Identifying how psychological strain, work overload, sleep deprivation, and environmental stressors deplete cognitive resources and amplify everyday cognitive blunders.
• Occupational Health and Safety Ergonomics: Predicting industrial accidents, equipment damage, medical provider errors, and transportation crashes by determining an individual’s behavioral susceptibility to action slips under varying workload conditions.
• Personality and Individual Differences: Delineating the relationships between cognitive organization and broad personality dimensions, most notably neuroticism, trait anxiety, conscientiousness, and schizotypy.
• Clinical and Neuropsychological Diagnostics: Serving as a supplementary baseline screening and ecological outcome metric in cohorts presenting with traumatic brain injury (TBI), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), major depressive disorder, multiple sclerosis, post-viral cognitive fatigue, and early-stage neurodegenerative decline.

Psychological Construct

The core psychological construct measured by the CFQ is everyday cognitive failure, defined by Broadbent et al. (1982) as an error in the execution of an action, a perceptual identification, or an internal memory retrieval on a task that the person is normally capable of performing successfully. Unlike structural cognitive deficits or intellectual impairments, cognitive failures represent transient, functional disconnections between intended goals and realized behavioral outcomes. The construct encompasses several interrelated operational sub-domains:

1. Attentional Failures and Distractibility

This facet involves the breakdown of selective and sustained attention in the presence of competing internal or external stimuli. Individuals high in this dimension experience rapid shifts in attentional focus away from primary tasks. Manifestations include daydreaming when one ought to be listening to someone (Item 19), failing to hear people speaking while engaged in an alternative activity (Item 9), failing to listen to people’s names upon formal introductions (Item 7), and reading an entire passage only to realize that no semantic content was processed, necessitating re-reading (Item 1).

2. Memory Lapses and Retrieval Failures

This domain captures the failure of prospective memory, working memory, and episodic recall during daily routines. Rather than representing an intrinsic amnesic syndrome, these lapses reflect poor encoding or failed retrieval cueing. Prototypical examples include walking into another room of one’s house and immediately forgetting the intent behind the transition (Item 2), failing to remember appointments (Item 16), forgetting where common objects like keys, newspapers, or books were placed (Item 17), forgetting what one came to the store to purchase (Item 23), and experiencing tip-of-the-tongue phenomena during lexical access (Item 22).

3. Action Execution Slips and Motor Blunders

Drawing heavily on behavioral error theories, this component reflects breakdowns in motor sequencing and manual control. These errors frequently occur during automatic or semi-automated routines where executive supervision is absent or misdirected. Indicators include dropping objects during routine handling (Item 24), physically bumping into other pedestrians or stationary obstacles (Item 5), and committing classic motor transposition errors—such as throwing away an intended item while retaining the trash (e.g., throwing away the candy and putting the wrapper in one’s mouth; Item 18).

4. Perceptual and Spatial Disorientation

This sub-domain concerns the misinterpretation or oversight of salient visual and environmental stimuli, as well as spatial navigation lapses. Typical examples include failing to see a desired item on a supermarket shelf despite its physical presence directly within the visual field (Item 13), failing to notice road signposts while driving (Item 3), confusing left and right when delivering directional instructions (Item 4), and losing orientation on familiar roadways that are infrequently traversed (Item 12).

Theoretical Framework

The Cognitive Failures Questionnaire is grounded in classic human information-processing theory, cognitive ergonomics, and the neuropsychological architecture of executive control. The theoretical foundations rest upon three major conceptual pillars:

Broadbent’s Filter and Resource Theories of Attention

Donald Broadbent’s early work, crystallized in his landmark volume Perception and Communication (1958) and expanded in Decision and Stress (1971), conceptualized the human brain as a limited-capacity information-processing channel. Because sensory input vastly exceeds processing capacity, selective filters and central executive mechanisms must allocate resources dynamically. Broadbent posited that cognitive failures do not reflect random noise, but rather systemic vulnerabilities in the human cognitive architecture when attentional capacity is overdrawn or inefficiently regulated. Under conditions of environmental stress, internal psychological conflict, fatigue, or high cognitive load, the central executive fails to maintain the necessary selective filter, allowing intrusive thoughts or competing sensory streams to disrupt routine task execution.

Norman and Shallice’s Supervisory Attentional System (SAS)

The CFQ’s operationalization of action slips aligns directly with the cognitive control model formulated by Donald Norman and Tim Shallice (1986). Their model posits two distinct operational levels of behavioral control:

• Contention Scheduling: An automated, bottom-up mechanism that governs routine, overlearned behaviors through automated cognitive “schemas.” These schemas execute smoothly without conscious awareness once triggered by environmental cues.
• The Supervisory Attentional System (SAS): A top-down executive mechanism, mediated largely by the prefrontal cortex, that intervenes when novel tasks, danger, decision-making, or schema suppression are required.

Within this framework, CFQ items describe instances where the SAS fails to exert timely monitoring over contention scheduling. For instance, when a person throws a matchbox away and pockets the used match (Item 18), an automated motor schema was triggered without supervisory monitoring. Similarly, getting distracted into an unintended task when beginning chores at home (Item 21) exemplifies schema capture due to absent top-down supervisory inhibition.

Reason’s Taxonomy of Human Error

James Reason’s work on human error (Reason, 1984, 1990) provides another foundational anchor. Reason divided cognitive errors into mistakes (failures in planning or judgment where the intended plan itself is wrong) and slips and lapses (execution failures where the plan was adequate, but execution fails during storage or physical delivery). The CFQ predominantly measures slips (observable physical actions gone awry) and lapses (internal, unobservable memory or attentional omissions). Reason argued that individuals possess stable baseline propensities toward absentmindedness, influenced by cognitive style, baseline arousal, and executive capacity, affirming Broadbent’s view of cognitive failure as a measurable, trait-like individual difference.

Validity

The construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity of the CFQ have been extensively investigated in psychometric literature over four decades.

Construct and Factorial Validity

Initial construct validation by Broadbent et al. (1982) demonstrated that CFQ scores were meaningfully related across varied ecological domains (workplace, home, social interactions), demonstrating coherent internal cohesion. Factor-analytic studies across diverse global populations (e.g., British, American, Dutch, German, and Chinese samples) have substantiated the scale’s construct validity, demonstrating that while the items tap into distinct sensory and cognitive channels, they are unified by an overarching dimension of general executive vulnerability.

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity is evidenced through significant correlations with external measures of psychological vulnerability, sustained attention, and emotional distress:

• Neuroticism and Trait Anxiety: Scores on the CFQ correlate moderately and consistently with neuroticism on the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ) and the NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R), with correlations typically ranging between $r = .30$ and $r = .48$ ($p < .001$). Individuals with higher emotional instability report greater frequencies of cognitive slips.
• Subjective Stress and Burnout: Research in occupational settings indicates strong positive correlations between CFQ scores and perceived stress scales ($r = .40$ to $.55$), workplace exhaustion, and somatic symptom inventories.
• Laboratory Performance Metrics: While correlations with brief laboratory tests are typically modest ($r = .15$ to $.30$)—as anticipated when comparing typical-performance self-reports with maximal-performance structured tests—significant associations emerge when assessing prolonged, low-arousal sustained attention tasks, such as the Sustained Attention to Response Task (SART), vigilance paradigms, and dual-task interference paradigms (Manly et al., 2001; Robertson et al., 1997).

Discriminant Validity

Crucially, the CFQ exhibits robust discriminant validity against general intellectual capability:

• Independence from General Intelligence (IQ): Broadbent et al. (1982) and subsequent researchers (e.g., Larson et al., 1997; Wilhelm et al., 2010) reported negligible, statistically non-significant correlations between CFQ total scores and standardized intelligence measures, such as the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) and Raven’s Progressive Matrices ($r = -.05$ to $.08$). This confirms that the CFQ does not measure intellectual ability, cognitive competence, or general knowledge, but rather the fidelity of everyday attentional and executive monitoring.
• Distinction from Clinical Amnesia: The CFQ scores of healthy highly-stressed individuals often match or exceed those of clinical memory patients, highlighting that the scale reflects everyday cognitive absentmindedness rather than structural neuropsychological lesions.

Predictive and Criterion Validity

The CFQ possesses exceptional predictive validity in applied and human factors psychology:

• Occupational Accidents: High CFQ scores prospectively predict workplace injuries, equipment handling mishaps, and minor accidents among factory workers, construction personnel, and healthcare practitioners (Larson et al., 1997; Wallace & Vodanovich, 2003).
• Automotive Collisions: Transportation researchers have found significant associations between driver CFQ scores and motor vehicle accidents, moving violations, and simulated driving lane-deviation errors ($r = .25$ to $.38$).
• Informant Ratings: Broadbent et al. (1982) demonstrated that self-reported CFQ scores correlated significantly with spouse and peer ratings of the subject’s everyday cognitive failures ($r = .40$ to $.55$), disproving the hypothesis that the instrument merely reflects self-deprecating response styles or depressive bias.

Reliability

The reliability of the CFQ has been demonstrated across diverse demographic cohorts, healthy samples, and clinical populations.

Internal Consistency

In the original validation study by Broadbent et al. (1982), the CFQ demonstrated high internal consistency across multiple independent cohorts:

• In an initial sample of 124 university students and research participants, the scale yielded a Cronbach’s alpha of $.89$.
• In an industrial sample of 189 coal miners and factory technicians, Cronbach’s alpha was $.85$.
• Subsequent independent replications spanning larger non-clinical adult samples have routinely established alpha coefficients ranging from $\alpha = .87$ to $\alpha = .92$ (e.g., Wallace et al., 2002; Bridger et al., 2013).
• Split-half reliability coefficients, calculated via the Spearman-Brown prophecy formula, consistently range between $.82$ and $.88$.

Test-Retest Reliability

Because Broadbent conceptualized cognitive failure as a stable behavioral trait, longitudinal temporal stability was a critical validation parameter:

• Short-to-Medium Intervals: Broadbent et al. (1982) reported a test-retest reliability coefficient of $r = .824$ over a 21-week interval in an occupational sample ($N = 65$), indicating that individual differences in self-reported cognitive failures remain remarkably stable over several months.
• Long-Term Stability: Longitudinal evaluations by Katherine Parkes and colleagues, as well as subsequent cohorts tracked over multi-year periods (e.g., 1 to 2 years), have demonstrated test-retest correlations between $r = .65$ and $r = .74$. This confirms that while acute stressors, clinical states, and life events can cause transient fluctuations, the underlying baseline tendency toward absentmindedness behaves as an enduring, trait-like individual difference.

Factor Analysis

The internal structural organization of the CFQ has been the subject of extensive psychometric debate. While Broadbent et al. (1982) initially recommended treating the CFQ as a single, general unidimensional factor, subsequent empirical investigations utilizing Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) have uncovered nuanced multidimensional and hierarchical structures.

Early Exploratory Models

Early EFA studies yielded conflicting results, with factor solutions ranging from two to nine dimensions depending on the extraction method and sample size. For instance, Pollina et al. (1992) identified a five-factor structure representing distractibility, misdirected action, spatial organization, interpersonal blunders, and memory lapses. However, many early solutions suffered from over-extraction and cross-loading items.

The Wallace, Vodanovich, and Restino (2002) Model

A major advancement occurred when Wallace et al. (2002) conducted rigorous exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses on a large adult sample ($N = 429$). They identified a stable four-factor model that demonstrated robust model fit indices and theoretical coherence:

• Factor 1: Memory Lapses (8 items): Capturing everyday prospective and retrospective retrieval failures (e.g., Items 2, 6, 12, 16, 17, 20, 22, 23). Factor loadings ranged from $.45$ to $.73$.
• Factor 2: Distractibility (9 items): Reflecting failures in selective and sustained visual and auditory attention (e.g., Items 1, 3, 7, 9, 13, 14, 15, 19, 21). Factor loadings ranged from $.41$ to $.68$.
• Factor 3: Physical Blunders / Motor Control (4 items): Pertaining to manual mishaps and spatial collisions (e.g., Items 4, 5, 18, 24). Factor loadings ranged from $.48$ to $.69$.
• Factor 4: Interpersonal / Social Mistakes (4 items): Reflecting verbal slips and social-interactive clumsiness (e.g., Items 8, 10, 11, 25). Factor loadings ranged from $.39$ to $.62$.

Contemporary Bifactor Formulations

Subsequent confirmatory investigations, notably by Rast, Zimprich, Schmitt, and Kliegel (2009) and Bridger, Johnsen, and Brasher (2013), tested whether the CFQ is truly multidimensional or whether a general factor accounts for the shared variance. Utilizing structural equation modeling across extensive cross-sectional and cross-cultural cohorts, these researchers demonstrated that a bifactor model provides superior fit compared to either a strictly unidimensional model or orthogonal multi-factor models.

In the bifactor framework:

• A dominant general factor ($g$-CFQ) accounts for approximately 60% to 75% of the common variance across all 25 items, justifying the continued clinical and empirical practice of computing and interpreting a single omnibus composite score.
• Three to four specific group factors (Memory, Distraction, and Motor Blunders) account for the remaining residual variance, offering granular diagnostic utility when assessing specific neuropsychological impairments.
• Fit indices for the bifactor model typically meet contemporary structural thresholds: Comparative Fit Index ($ ext{CFI}) ge .93$, Tucker-Lewis Index ($ ext{TLI}) ge .91$, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation ($ ext{RMSEA}) le .052$ (90% CI: $[.046, .058]$), and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual ($ ext{SRMR}) le .048$.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Cognitive Failures Questionnaire is a structured, standardized self-report psychometric scale. Its specifications, administration guidelines, and scoring criteria are detailed below:

• Instrument Name: The Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (CFQ)
• Primary Reference: Broadbent, D. E., Cooper, P. F., FitzGerald, P., & Parkes, K. R. (1982)
• Assessment Type: Standardized self-report inventory (peer/spouse informant versions also exist)
• Administration Format: Pen-and-paper or digital/computerized administration; self-administered or interview-assisted for clinical cohorts
• Target Population: Adults and adolescents aged 16 years and older; adaptable for non-clinical, occupational, and clinical neuropsychiatric populations
• Completion Time: Approximately 5 to 10 minutes
• Item Count: 25 items
• Temporal Frame: Retrospective appraisal evaluating frequency over the preceding six months (“in the past 6 months”)
• Response Scale (Authentic 5-Point Format):
  • 4 = Very often
  • 3 = Quite often
  • 2 = Occasionally
  • 1 = Very rarely
  • 0 = Never
• Scoring Rules:
  • The instrument contains zero reverse-scored items; all 25 items are framed such that higher ratings indicate a greater frequency of cognitive slips.
  • The total composite score is obtained by calculating the arithmetic sum of all 25 items: $ ext{Total CFQ Score} = sum_{i=1}^{25} ext{Item}_i$.
  • The theoretical total score ranges from 0 to 100. (Note: Some historical or digital adaptations code responses from 1 to 5, resulting in a score range of 25 to 125. The original Broadbent 0–4 scale is the accepted psychometric standard).
  • Missing Data Handling: If fewer than 10% of items (1 or 2 items) are omitted, mean item substitution can be applied. If three or more items are missing, the overall score should be considered invalid.
• Normative Reference Ranges (General Adult Cohorts):
  • Mean Score: Typically falls between $31.0$ and $38.0$ ($SD pprox 10.0$ to $13.5$) in healthy general adult populations.
  • Low CFQ Propensity (< 25): Indicates low reported incidence of everyday slips; high self-perceived cognitive control.
  • Moderate / Average CFQ Propensity (25–45): Normal range of everyday absentmindedness and minor slips.
  • High CFQ Propensity (> 46): Indicates elevated everyday cognitive failures; associated with high perceived stress, attentional overload, fatigue, or executive vulnerability.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Cognitive Failures Questionnaire was originally published in 1982 in the British Journal of Clinical Psychology, a journal published by John Wiley & Sons on behalf of the British Psychological Society (BPS). Under standard academic conventions and fair use provisions, the full 25-item questionnaire is widely accessible and can be utilized for non-commercial academic, research, and non-profit educational purposes without direct licensing fees, provided that appropriate scholarly attribution is accorded to Broadbent et al. (1982).

Commercial deployment, inclusion within proprietary software platforms, corporate screening batteries, or copyrighted diagnostic compilations may require formal copyright clearance and licensing permissions from John Wiley & Sons / The British Psychological Society. Researchers and clinicians wishing to verify administrative permissions may consult Wiley’s RightsLink permissions gateway or contact the original university research archives via the Department of Experimental Psychology at the University of Oxford.

References

• Bridger, R. S., Johnsen, S. Å. K., & Brasher, K. (2013). Psychometric properties of the Cognitive Failures Questionnaire. Ergonomics, 56(10), 1515–1524. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2013.821172
• Broadbent, D. E. (1958). Perception and communication. Pergamon Press. https://doi.org/10.1037/10037-000
• Broadbent, D. E. (1971). Decision and stress. Academic Press.
• Broadbent, D. E., Cooper, P. F., FitzGerald, P., & Parkes, K. R. (1982). The Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (CFQ) and its correlates. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 21(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8260.1982.tb01421.x
• Larson, G. E., Alderton, D. L., Neideffer, M., & Underhill, E. (1997). Further evidence on dimensionality and correlates of the Cognitive Failures Questionnaire. British Journal of Psychology, 88(1), 29–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1997.tb02619.x
• Manly, T., Robertson, I. H., Galloway, M., & Hawkins, K. (2001). The absent mind: Further investigations of sustained attention to response. Neuropsychologia, 37(6), 661–670. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0028-3932(98)00127-4
• Norman, D. A., & Shallice, T. (1986). Attention to action: Willed and automatic control of behavior. In R. J. Davidson, G. E. Schwartz, & D. Shapiro (Eds.), Consciousness and Self-Regulation: Advances in Research and Theory (Vol. 4, pp. 1–18). Plenum Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-0629-1_1
• Pollina, L. K., Greene, A. L., Tunick, R. H., & Puckett, J. M. (1992). Dimensions of everyday cognitive failure in adults. The British Journal of Psychology, 83(1), 87–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1992.tb02426.x
• Rast, P., Zimprich, D., Schmitt, M., & Kliegel, M. (2009). The Cognitive Failures Questionnaire: Factor structure and measurement invariance across two years in a sample of older adults. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 25(3), 139–145. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.25.3.139
• Reason, J. (1984). Lapses of attention in everyday life. In R. Parasuraman & D. R. Davies (Eds.), Varieties of Attention (pp. 515–549). Academic Press.
• Reason, J. (1990). Human error. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139062367
• Robertson, I. H., Manly, T., Andrade, J., Baddeley, B. T., & Yiend, J. (1997). ‘Oops!’: Performance correlates of everyday attentional failures in traumatic brain injured and normal subjects. Neuropsychologia, 35(6), 747–758. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0028-3932(97)00015-8
• Wallace, J. C., & Vodanovich, S. J. (2003). Workplace safety: A dynamic cognitive approach. Journal of Safety Research, 34(3), 275–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4375(03)00030-9
• Wallace, J. C., Vodanovich, S. J., & Restino, B. M. (2002). Predicting cognitive failures from a higher-order cognitive factors model. Military Psychology, 14(4), 277–292. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327876MP1404_2
• Wilhelm, O., Witthöft, M., & Schipolowski, S. (2010). Self-reported cognitive failures: Competence, performance, or personality? European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 26(4), 274–280. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000037

Items of the Scale