Irrational Belief

Abstract

The assessment of irrational beliefs stands as a foundational pillar in clinical psychology, cognitive-behavioral science, and psychopathology research. Rooted primarily in Albert Ellis’s Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT) framework and complemented by Aaron T. Beck’s Cognitive Therapy (CT) paradigm, irrational beliefs are conceptualized as rigid, dogmatic, absolutistic, and maladaptive cognitive schemas that predispose individuals to emotional disturbance and behavioral dysfunction. Over six decades of psychometric innovation, numerous measurement tools have been engineered to quantify these cognitive structures. Chief among the unidimensional and multidimensional operationalizations are the Belief Scale (BS) developed by Malouff and Schutte (1986), the General Attitude and Belief Scale (GABS) by DiGiuseppe and colleagues (1988), the historic Irrational Beliefs Test (IBT) by Jones (1968), and Beck’s related construct operationalization, the Dysfunctional Attitude Scale (DAS) by Weissman and Beck (1978). This comprehensive treatise provides an exhaustive psychometric review of irrational belief scales, detailing their historical emergence, underlying latent constructs—including Demandingness, Awfulizing, Low Frustration Tolerance, and Global Evaluation of Human Worth—and evaluating their psychometric properties across exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, convergent and discriminant validity, internal consistency reliability, and clinical utility. With critical attention to structural debates, measurement confounding with affective distress, and cross-cultural standardization, this article synthesizes psychometric evidence across clinical and non-clinical populations, offering an evidence-based roadmap for researchers and mental health clinicians utilizing cognitive assessment inventories.

Keywords

irrational beliefs, Belief Scale, Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy, Albert Ellis, cognitive assessment, psychometrics, dysfunctional attitudes, demandingness, awfulizing, frustration tolerance, factor structure, construct validity

Authors

The systematic operationalization and psychometric evaluation of irrational belief instruments reflect collaborative contributions across multiple generations of cognitive-behavioral pioneers and quantitative psychometricians:

• John M. Malouff, Ph.D., J.D. — Professor of Psychology at the University of New England, Australia. Dr. Malouff is an internationally recognized expert in clinical psychology, cognitive-behavioral interventions, emotional intelligence, and scale development. Co-author of the widely cited Belief Scale (BS) (Malouff & Schutte, 1986).
• Nicola S. Schutte, Ph.D. — Professor of Psychology at the University of New England, Australia. Dr. Schutte has published extensively on behavioral medicine, self-efficacy, emotional intelligence, and psychometric validation of cognitive self-report instruments. Co-developer of the Belief Scale.
• Albert Ellis, Ph.D. (1913–2007) — Founder of Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT) and author of early irrational belief assessment frameworks, including the Ellis Emotional Efficiency Inventory (EEEI). His clinical formulations laid the theoretical bedrock for operationalizing cognitive irrationality.
• Raymond A. DiGiuseppe, Ph.D. — Professor of Psychology at St. John’s University and Director of Professional Education at the Albert Ellis Institute. Leading psychometrician responsible for developing the General Attitude and Belief Scale (GABS), addressing core factorial and discriminant validity limitations in earlier instruments.
• K. Robert Bridges, Ph.D. & Richard J. Harnish, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology, The Pennsylvania State University. Authors of seminal meta-analytic and systematic psychometric reviews examining the structural, construct, and clinical validity of irrational belief scales across depression and anxiety disorders (Bridges & Harnish, 2010).

Purpose

The primary clinical and empirical objective of irrational belief measurement tools is to systematically evaluate, quantify, and track the endorsement of maladaptive, absolutistic, and dysfunctional cognitive schemas that mediate the relationship between negative life events and psychological distress. Originating within the clinical necessity to evaluate the cognitive vulnerability hypotheses of emotional disturbance, these scales were engineered to meet several rigorous diagnostic, therapeutic, and empirical purposes:

First, from a diagnostic and clinical formulation perspective, instruments such as the Belief Scale (BS), the General Attitude and Belief Scale (GABS), and the Irrational Beliefs Inventory (IBI) were designed to identify specific cognitive targets for cognitive-behavioral restructuring. Clinicians utilize these inventories during intake and diagnostic profiling to determine whether a client’s presentation of unipolar major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, social phobia, obsessive-compulsive symptomatology, or anger dysregulation is maintained by core evaluative irrationalities, such as perfectionistic demandingness or low frustration tolerance.

Second, in psychiatric and psychotherapy outcome research, irrational belief scales serve as gold-standard process and outcome measures. They enable researchers to assess the mechanism of cognitive change during interventions such as REBT and Cognitive Therapy (CT). According to cognitive theory, therapeutic symptom reduction in distress states must be mediated by the cognitive restructuring of irrational beliefs into rational, preferential, and flexible alternatives. Standardized instruments provide quantitative metrics to ascertain whether symptom remission corresponds to structural cognitive modification or merely situational alleviation.

Third, in personality and experimental psychology, these instruments operationalize cognitive vulnerability models (e.g., the Diathesis-Stress framework). Researchers employ irrational belief measures to evaluate how baseline cognitive rigidity interacts with environmental stressors to predict the onset of depressive episodes, interpersonal conflict, academic underachievement, perfectionistic burnout, and chemical dependency.

Psychological Construct

The construct of irrational beliefs within psychometric and clinical literature is conceptualized as an integrated network of rigid, absolutistic, scientifically non-verifiable, and functionally self-defeating evaluations. Within the modern Ellisian taxonomy, rational beliefs are characterized by flexibility, preferences, empirical validity, and pragmatic utility, whereas irrational beliefs violate formal logic, distort empirical reality, and impede long-term goal attainment. Psychometric operationalizations generally bifurcate these beliefs into core cognitive processes and specific content domains.

Core Cognitive Processes

Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy identifies four foundational cognitive processes that compose irrationality across psychometric scales:

• Demandingness (Rigid ‘Musts’, ‘Shoulds’, and ‘Oughts’): Conceptualized as the primary or core irrational belief process. Demandingness involves transforming personal, subjective preferences, desires, and wishes into unconditional, non-negotiable absolute demands upon oneself, other people, and the external universe (e.g., “I must achieve success at all times, and others must treat me fairly”). Psychometrically, scales like the GABS and BS treat demandingness as the theoretical driver from which all secondary irrational processes stem.
• Awfulizing (Catastrophizing): An extreme evaluative cognitive process wherein an individual rates an unfavorable, unpleasant, or frustrating situation as being more than 100% bad, catastrophic, and completely disastrous (e.g., “If I am rejected, it is the worst possible catastrophe that could occur”). Awfulizing amplifies negative affect from appropriate sadness or concern into dysfunctional depression or debilitating panic.
• Low Frustration Tolerance (LFT / “I-Can’t-Stand-It-Itis”): The subjective appraisal that one cannot endure, tolerate, or experience any degree of discomfort, hardship, frustration, or emotional pain (e.g., “I cannot stand having to tolerate unfair circumstances or delays”). LFT is heavily implicated in behavioral avoidance, procrastination, impulsivity, substance abuse, and anger disorders.
• Global Evaluation of Human Worth / Depreciation: The cognitive error of assigning a global, single evaluative rating to a complex, evolving human being based on specific performance failures, flaws, or external circumstances. This process manifests across three distinct directional domains: Self-Downing (e.g., “Failing this task proves I am a complete failure as a person”), Other-Downing (e.g., “Because they acted cruelly, they are completely worthless human beings”), and Life-Downing (e.g., “Life has disappointed me, therefore the entire world is horrible”).

Content Domains

In addition to cognitive processes, irrational belief inventories measure specific content dimensions reflecting key evolutionary and psychosocial domains:

• Need for Approval / Affiliation: The absolute demand to be approved, loved, and validated by every significant person in one’s environment (e.g., “To be happy, I must maintain the approval of all the persons I consider significant”).
• Need for High Achievement / Perfectionism: The uncompromising insistence that one must be completely competent, flawless, and successful in all endeavors (e.g., “I do not believe I am worthwhile unless I am thoroughly competent at everything I do”).
• Need for Comfort / Easy Conditions: The absolutistic conviction that life conditions, physical environments, and daily responsibilities should be effortless, frictionless, and completely pleasant without pain or inconvenience (e.g., “Life should be easier than it is”).
• Need for Fairness / Justice: The dogmatic expectation that interpersonal systems, institutions, and individuals must treat the person with unconditional fairness, reciprocity, and equity at all times.

Theoretical Framework

The psychometric operationalization of irrational beliefs rests upon profound philosophical foundations and rigorous cognitive psychological theories. Philosophically, the construct traces back to the ancient Stoic philosophy of Epictetus, whose primary maxim in The Enchiridion states: “Men are disturbed not by things, but by the view which they take of them.” In the mid-1950s, Albert Ellis operationalized this ancient insight into the clinical architecture of Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (originally Rational Therapy, later Rational-Emotive Therapy; RET).

The Ellisian ABCDE Model

The core structural model underpinning instruments such as the Belief Scale (Malouff & Schutte, 1986), the General Attitude and Belief Scale (DiGiuseppe et al., 1988), and the Survey of Personal Beliefs (Demaria et al., 1989) is Ellis’s seminal ABCDE framework:

• A (Activating Event): The objective external stimulus, situation, antecedent event, or internal cognitive occurrence (e.g., failing an academic examination, experiencing a relational breakup).
• B (Beliefs): The cognitive schemas and evaluations applied to the Activating Event. These beliefs exist along a continuum from Rational Beliefs (rBs; flexible, preferential, non-extreme evaluations) to Irrational Beliefs (iBs; rigid, dogmatic, absolutistic demands and derived extreme evaluations).
• C (Consequences): The emotional, behavioral, and neurovegetative outcomes resulting from the cognitive appraisal at point B. Rational beliefs yield functional, adaptive negative emotions (e.g., healthy sadness, remorse, constructive concern), whereas irrational beliefs generate dysfunctional, psychopathological consequences (e.g., major depressive episodes, debilitating anxiety, self-destructive behavioral avoidance, rage).
• D (Disputation): The active cognitive, scientific, and behavioral challenging of irrational beliefs, examining their logical consistency, empirical correspondence, and pragmatic utility.
• E (Effective New Philosophy): The development, consolidation, and internalization of rational, compassionate, and flexible alternative belief structures that foster psychological resilience.

Integration with Beck’s Cognitive Schema Architecture

Concurrently, Aaron T. Beck developed the Cognitive Therapy paradigm, postulating that clinical depression and anxiety disorders stem from hyperactive, idiosyncratic negative cognitive schemas and systematic information processing errors. While Beckian instruments—such as the Dysfunctional Attitude Scale (DAS) (Weissman & Beck, 1978) and the Automatic Thoughts Questionnaire (ATQ) (Hollon & Kendall, 1980)—frequently operationalize cognitive vulnerability via conditional assumptions (e.g., “If I fail, then I am inadequate”) and cognitive errors (e.g., overgeneralization, selective abstraction, mind-reading), REBT psychometrics emphasizes unconditional demands (“I must succeed”). Despite slight terminological nuances, contemporary cognitive psychometrics integrates both models under an overarching hierarchical schema theory: core beliefs/schemas (unconditional demands and global self-evaluations) sit at the highest level of structural abstraction, intermediate beliefs (conditional rules and assumptions) occupy the middle tier, and surface automatic thoughts emerge in situational contexts.

Validity

The validity of irrational belief measurement tools has been subjected to rigorous empirical examination over four decades, encompassing construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive paradigms.

Construct and Convergent Validity

Substantial empirical evidence validates that scores on standardized irrational belief instruments correlate strongly and positively with validated measures of psychopathology and negative affectivity. In Malouff and Schutte’s (1986) seminal validation of the 20-item Belief Scale (BS), total irrationality scores demonstrated statistically significant positive correlations with clinical depression as measured by the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) (r = .55 to .68) and neuroticism as indexed by the Eysenck Personality Inventory (r = .58, p < .001). Similarly, DiGiuseppe et al. (1988) and subsequent validation studies of the General Attitude and Belief Scale (GABS) demonstrated robust convergent associations with trait anxiety on the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) (r > .60) and clinical general symptom severity on the Symptom Checklist-90-Revised (SCL-90-R).

Discriminant Validity and the “Confounding” Controversy

The most intensive psychometric debate surrounding early irrational belief scales—most notably Jones’s (1968) 100-item Irrational Beliefs Test (IBT) and Shorkey & Whiteman’s (1977) Rational Behavior Inventory (RBI)—centered on discriminant validity. Methodologists (e.g., Smith, 1982; Bridges & Harnish, 2010) demonstrated that early instruments suffered from significant item content overlap with the criteria they sought to predict. Specifically, items frequently contained explicit affective distress descriptors (e.g., “I get upset and angry when my plans go wrong” or “I worry about little things”), inadvertently measuring dysphoria, anxiety, or emotional reactivity rather than the pure cognitive evaluation itself. Consequently, the high correlations observed between the IBT and depression/anxiety scales represented tautological measurement artifact.

To establish true discriminant validity, second-generation instruments were developed. The Belief Scale (BS), the Irrational Beliefs Inventory (IBI) (Koopmans et al., 1994), and the Evaluative Beliefs Scale (EBS) (Chadwick et al., 1999) meticulously excised affective symptom descriptors from item stems. For example, Koopmans et al. (1994) demonstrated that when emotion-laden items are removed, the IBI continues to demonstrate healthy discriminant divergence from measures of positive affect, conscientiousness, and extraversion, while retaining clean, non-confounded structural associations with depressive vulnerability and cognitive distortion.

Predictive and Incremental Validity

Longitudinal studies and randomized controlled psychotherapy trials demonstrate the predictive and incremental validity of irrational belief scales. Reductions in GABS and BS scores during cognitive-behavioral treatment reliably predict post-treatment symptom remission and lower relapse rates at 6- and 12-month follow-ups, even after controlling for baseline severity and demographic covariates. Furthermore, irrational belief indices account for unique variance in predicting pathological worry, perfectionistic procrastination, and clinical anger above and beyond generic Big Five personality traits.

Reliability

The reliability of irrational belief scales has been extensively documented, demonstrating robust internal consistency and temporal stability across diverse research and clinical contexts.

Internal Consistency Reliability

Internal consistency metrics, typically evaluated via Cronbach’s coefficient alpha (α) and McDonald’s omega (ω), consistently fall within acceptable-to-excellent ranges across psychometrically validated instruments:

• Belief Scale (BS; Malouff & Schutte, 1986): The 20-item unidimensional scale demonstrates high internal consistency across clinical and college student samples, with Cronbach’s α coefficients consistently observed between .82 and .89. Item-total correlations across the 20 items range from .35 to .64, indicating homogeneous construct measurement without excessive item redundancy.
• General Attitude and Belief Scale (GABS; DiGiuseppe et al., 1988): The total irrationality index exhibits excellent internal consistency (α = .90 to .94). Individual subscales (Need for Achievement, Need for Approval, Need for Comfort, Demand for Fairness, Self-Downing, Other-Downing) yield alpha coefficients ranging from .73 to .88 across diverse international validation studies.
• Irrational Beliefs Inventory (IBI; Koopmans et al., 1994): Across its five subscales, alpha coefficients span from .70 (Emotional Irresponsibility) to .85 (Worrying), with full-scale reliability typically exceeding .88 in both psychiatric outpatient and normative adult cohorts.
• Dysfunctional Attitude Scale (DAS-A / DAS-B; Weissman & Beck, 1978): The 40-item parallel forms consistently yield internal consistency coefficients between .89 and .93 in non-clinical populations and up to .95 in clinical major depressive cohorts.

Temporal Stability (Test-Retest Reliability)

Because irrational beliefs are conceptualized as enduring, trait-like cognitive structures rather than transient emotional states, test-retest reliability across unmanipulated baseline periods is a critical psychometric requirement:

• The Belief Scale (BS) demonstrates strong temporal stability over a 2-week interval, with a test-retest correlation coefficient of r = .84 (p < .001), indicating that individual differences in cognitive irrationality remain stable in the absence of therapeutic intervention.
• The GABS demonstrates 6-week test-retest coefficients ranging from r = .78 to .85 across subscales.
• The IBI yields an overall test-retest reliability coefficient of r = .82 over a 4-week re-administration interval.

Importantly, during active Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy or Cognitive Behavioral Therapy interventions, test-retest stability systematically declines to r < .45, providing psychometric confirmation of the scale’s sensitivity to therapeutic change.

Factor Analysis

The structural dimensionality of irrational belief instruments has represented a vibrant, highly scrutinized area of exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) within quantitative psychology.

The Unidimensional Model: The Belief Scale

Malouff and Schutte (1986) developed the 20-item Belief Scale specifically to address the factorial instability observed in longer, unwieldy inventories. In their initial exploratory factor analysis utilizing principal components analysis (PCA) with scree plot examination, eigenvalues clearly supported a dominant general factor accounting for the primary common variance. All 20 items loaded saliently (factor loadings ≥ .35) onto this single core dimension of irrationality, reflecting global evaluative rigidity and demandingness. This unidimensional model has been replicated across student and community samples, supporting the clinical utility of computing a single composite irrational belief score for broad screening purposes.

Multidimensional and Hierarchical Factor Architectures

In contrast to the unidimensional conceptualization, other theorists posited that irrational beliefs are inherently multidimensional. Factor analyses of instruments like the General Attitude and Belief Scale (GABS) have established higher-order structural configurations:

• DiGiuseppe et al.’s 2 × 4 Matrix Model: Structural equation modeling and CFA conducted by DiGiuseppe and colleagues demonstrated that irrational beliefs can be modeled as a two-dimensional matrix crossing 4 Cognitive Processes (Demandingness, Awfulizing, Low Frustration Tolerance, Global Worth Evaluation) with 3 to 4 Content Domains (Achievement, Affiliation, Comfort, Fairness). CFA comparisons confirm that a hierarchical bi-factor model—comprising a general global irrationality factor alongside orthogonal or oblique group factors for specific domains—provides superior model fit indices: comparative fit index (CFI) > .92, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) > .91, and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) < .055.
• The Five-Factor Structure of the IBI: Koopmans et al. (1994) performed rigorous principal axis factoring with oblimin rotation, isolating five distinct, non-confounded latent factors: (1) Worrying, (2) Rigidity, (3) Need for Approval, (4) Problem Avoidance, and (5) Emotional Irresponsibility. Subsequent multi-group CFA studies have affirmed structural invariance across gender, clinical status, and European nationalities.
• Beckian Schema Dimensionality (DAS): Factor analyses of the 40-item Dysfunctional Attitude Scale (Form A) typically extract two dominant, robust factors: Perfectionism/Performance Evaluation (dependency of self-worth on achievement) and Dependency/Need for Approval (dependency of self-worth on others’ acceptance), reflecting Beck’s autonomous and sociotropic cognitive vulnerability modes.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The characteristics, structural administration parameters, and scoring protocols of irrational belief instruments—exemplified by the Belief Scale (BS) (Malouff & Schutte, 1986) and its contextual taxonomy—are structured as follows:

• Instrument Name: Belief Scale (BS) [Also cited in the literature as the M.S. Belief Scale, MSBS, or Irrational Belief Scale].
• Test Type: Standardized self-report cognitive inventory; individual or group administration.
• Target Population: Adolescents and adults (ages 16 and older); non-clinical, subclinical, and psychiatric populations.
• Administration Time: Approximately 5 to 10 minutes for completion.
• Item Count: 20 items.
• Response Format: 5-point Likert scale (ranging from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree, or standardized 1 to 5 numerical response rating).
• Scoring and Quantification:
  • Items are scored such that higher numbers reflect higher levels of irrational, absolutistic thinking.
  • Positively keyed irrational items are scored directly (e.g., 1 to 5). Any reverse-worded rational items are reverse-coded prior to summation.
  • Total scores range from 20 to 100, where higher aggregate scores denote greater endorsement of maladaptive cognitive schemas and heightened vulnerability to emotional and behavioral disturbance.
• Clinical Cutoff Norms: While primarily used as a continuous dimensional measure in empirical research, clinical samples of patients with major depression typically score significantly above community means (community M ≈ 52.4, SD = 9.8 vs. outpatient depressive M ≈ 68.7, SD = 11.2).

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Belief Scale (BS) was published by John M. Malouff and Nicola S. Schutte in 1986 in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (American Psychological Association). As an academic instrument published in scholarly literature, the scale items and scoring guidelines are widely accessible in the public scientific domain for non-commercial, empirical, educational, and clinical research purposes.

Researchers and clinicians are permitted to utilize the instrument in empirical studies, provided that full bibliographic attribution is rendered to the original authors and the American Psychological Association. Commercial utilization, computerized software integration, or inclusion in fee-for-service testing batteries generally requires formal written permission and copyright clearance from the scale authors and the original publishing entity. The comprehensive review and taxonomy synthesizing the comparative psychometric properties of these irrational belief scales was published openly by K. Robert Bridges and Richard J. Harnish in 2010 (HEALTH, Scientific Research Publishing).

References

• Beck, A. T., Brown, G., Steer, R. A., Eidelson, J. I., & Riskind, J. H. (1987). Differentiating anxiety and depression: A test of the cognitive content-specificity hypothesis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 96(3), 179–183. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.96.3.179
• Beckham, E. E., Leber, W. R., Watkins, J. T., Boyer, J. L., & Cook, J. B. (1986). Development of an instrument to measure Beck’s cognitive triad: The Cognitive Triad Inventory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54(4), 566–567. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.54.4.566
• Bernard, M. E., & Laws, W. R. (1987). The Child and Adolescent Scale of Irrationality: Development and psychometric properties. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy: An International Quarterly, 1(4), 237–251.
• Bridges, K. R., & Harnish, R. J. (2010). Role of irrational beliefs in depression and anxiety: A review. Health, 2(8), 862–877. https://doi.org/10.4236/health.2010.28130
• Chadwick, P. D., Trower, P., & Dagnan, D. (1999). Measuring core beliefs: Development of the Evaluative Beliefs Scale (EBS). Cognitive Therapy and Research, 23(5), 517–535. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018742918898
• Demaria, T. P., Kassinove, H., & Dill, C. A. (1989). Psychometric properties of the Survey of Personal Beliefs: A rational-emotive measure of irrational thinking. Journal of Personality Assessment, 53(2), 329–341. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa5302_10
• DiGiuseppe, R., Leaf, R., Exner, T., & Robin, M. W. (1988). The development of a measure of irrational thinking: The General Attitude and Belief Scale. Paper presented at the World Congress of Cognitive Therapy, Oxford, England.
• Ellis, A. (1994). Reason and emotion in psychotherapy: Revised and updated. Birch Lane Press.
• Hollon, S. D., & Kendall, P. C. (1980). Cognitive self-statements in depression: Development of an Automatic Thoughts Questionnaire. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 4(4), 383–395. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01173659
• Jones, R. G. (1968). A factored measure of Ellis’ irrational belief system with personality and maladjustment correlates (Doctoral dissertation, Texas Technological College).
• Koopmans, P. C., Sanderman, R., Timmerman, I., & Emmelkamp, P. M. (1994). The Irrational Beliefs Inventory (IBI): Development and psychometric evaluation. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 10(1), 15–27.
• Malouff, J. M., & Schutte, N. S. (1986). Development and validation of a measure of irrational belief. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54(6), 860–862. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.54.6.860
• Shorkey, C. T., & Whiteman, V. L. (1977). Development of the Rational Behavior Inventory: Initial validity and reliability. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 37(2), 527–534. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447703700232
• Smith, T. W. (1982). Irrational beliefs in the cause and treatment of emotional distress: A critical review of the rational-emotive model. Clinical Psychology Review, 2(4), 505–522. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-7358(82)90026-8
• Weissman, A. N., & Beck, A. T. (1978). Development and validation of the Dysfunctional Attitude Scale: A preliminary investigation. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Items of the Scale