Abnormal Psychology Misconceptions Questionnaire (APMQ)

1. Abstract

The Abnormal Psychology Misconceptions Questionnaire (APMQ), introduced by Candice Basterfield, Scott O. Lilienfeld, Robin L. Cautin, and Dylan Jordan in 2023, is an extensive psychometric instrument engineered to quantify and evaluate prevalent erroneous beliefs, folk myths, and scientifically unsubstantiated assertions concerning abnormal psychology, psychiatric nosology, psychopathology etiology, and psychiatric interventions. Designed primarily to survey contemporary populations, such as undergraduate students enrolled in introductory psychology curricula, the APMQ represents an updated, methodologically rigorous advancement over historical misconception inventories. The questionnaire exists in two structurally counterbalanced forms (Version A and Version B) to control for acquiescence and directional phrasing effects. Each version consists of 105 target scored items framed in a dichotomous True/False response format, alongside 8 embedded validity items designed to detect non-purposeful responding, random endorsement, or inattention.

Psychometrically, the APMQ exhibits strong internal consistency despite its broad thematic breadth, yielding Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of .83 for Version A (mean inter-item correlation r = .04) and .84 for Version B (mean inter-item correlation r = .05). Construct and convergent validity analyses demonstrate that elevated endorsement of mental illness myths correlates robustly with deficits in critical thinking abilities, higher receptivity to paranormal phenomena, and a diminished adherence to rigorous scientific, biological, and behavioral epistemologies within psychology. This comprehensive article delineates the psychometric architecture, theoretical lineage, pedagogical utility, and measurement characteristics of the APMQ, offering instructional researchers and clinical educators an indispensable framework for diagnostic assessment and pedagogical debiasing.

2. Keywords

Abnormal Psychology Misconceptions Questionnaire, APMQ, psychological misconceptions, mental illness myths, critical thinking, psychiatric stigma, psychopathology education, science literacy, pseudoscience in psychology, conceptual change

3. Authors

The Abnormal Psychology Misconceptions Questionnaire was conceptualized, developed, and validated through an academic collaboration between clinical psychologists, historians of psychology, and measurement researchers:

• Candice Basterfield, Ph.D. (ORCID: 0000-0002-2736-5216) — Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, 1441 Clifton Road, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA. Email: [email protected] (Corresponding Author).
• Scott O. Lilienfeld, Ph.D. (Late Professor of Psychology) — Department of Psychology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA. A preeminent scholar in clinical psychology, scientific thinking, the taxonomy of psychiatric disorders, and the identification of pseudoscientific practices.
• Robin L. Cautin, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology, Sacred Heart University, Fairfield, CT, USA. Renowned historian of clinical psychology and expert in scientific training standards and evidence-based practice.
• Dylan Jordan, M.S. — Quantitative Researcher and Data Scientist, Zillow Group, Seattle, WA, USA. Contributed to the psychometric design, data management, and statistical analytics of the survey.

4. Purpose

The central aim of the Abnormal Psychology Misconceptions Questionnaire is to furnish an empirical, comprehensive, and psychometrically standardized inventory for auditing the prevalence, structural correlates, and educational responsiveness of false beliefs regarding psychological disorders. Despite decades of research into science literacy and public mental health communication, misconceptions concerning psychopathology remain deeply entrenched across societal strata, exerting particularly strong influences on undergraduate students entering tertiary education. Misconceptions in this domain are not merely instances of absent information; rather, they represent active, intuitively compelling, and often stigmatizing pseudo-knowledge structures derived from media sensationalism, personal anecdotal interpretations, commercial marketing, and historical folk theories.

In undergraduate pedagogy and clinical psychology training, identifying these intuitive falsehoods prior to coursework is essential for effective pedagogy. Traditional expository lectures frequently fail to supplant intuitive misconceptions; when students encounter scientific evidence that conflicts with an unrecognized prior misconception, they often assimilate the new knowledge into their erroneous conceptual schemas rather than accommodating and revising their assumptions. The APMQ serves as a baseline diagnostic instrument that allows educators to identify specific areas of misunderstanding—such as confusion between schizophrenia and dissociative identity disorder, or biological reductionism regarding depression—and introduce structured refutational pedagogy designed to foster long-term cognitive change.

Beyond instructional utility, the APMQ fulfills a critical research imperative. Prior instruments measuring psychological myths, such as the historical Test of Common Beliefs or various generalized psychological misconception inventories, frequently suffered from psychometric shortcomings. These included outmoded diagnostic nomenclature, an overrepresentation of general cognitive or developmental myths at the expense of psychopathology, and susceptibility to response bias due to uncounterbalanced positive or negative wording. The APMQ was explicitly engineered to address these gaps by providing an updated pool of items reflecting contemporary diagnostic paradigms (e.g., DSM-5 criteria), counterbalancing phrasing across paired forms, and embedding objective validity screening items to discard careless or unmotivated respondents.

5. Psychological Construct

The construct assessed by the APMQ is defined as the endorsement of inaccurate, empirically disconfirmed, or pseudoscientific assertions regarding the etiology, symptomatology, diagnosis, legal status, and intervention modalities associated with psychiatric conditions. Unlike general psychological misconceptions—which frequently encompass neurobiology, sensation, memory, and developmental milestones—the APMQ focuses selectively on psychopathology and abnormal psychology. This construct operates as a broad, multi-thematic domain comprising several interconnected dimensions:

Nosological and Phenomenological Misattributions

This dimension encompasses factual and diagnostic inaccuracies concerning how clinical disorders present and are classified. Prototypical examples within this domain include the conflation of schizophrenia with “split personality” (dissociative identity disorder), the belief that individuals with Tourette’s syndrome predominantly exhibit involuntary vocal coprolalia (obscene language), or the assumption that autism spectrum conditions are characterized uniformly by exceptional savant capabilities.

Etiological and Causal Reductionism

Beliefs in this category reflect erroneous attributions regarding what causes mental disorders. This includes either extreme biological reductionism (such as the uncritical belief that clinical depression is solely caused by a simple “chemical imbalance” of serotonin) or psychogenic blame-shifting (such as attributing schizophrenia to cold, detached parenting practices, echoing historical myths of the “schizophrenogenic mother”). It also encompasses outmoded environmental myths, such as vaccines causing neurodevelopmental disorders.

Perceived Dangerousness and Behavioral Stereotyping

A prevalent cluster of misconceptions involves exaggerating the threat posed by individuals with psychiatric diagnoses. This construct dimension captures the stereotype that persons diagnosed with severe mental illness, particularly schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, are inherently violent, unpredictable, and prone to homicidal behavior. Empirical evidence establishes that such individuals are vastly more likely to be victims of violent crime than perpetrators, making the measurement of this belief directly relevant to tracking clinical stigma.

Therapeutic and Interventional Fallacies

This facet assesses erroneous assumptions regarding psychiatric and psychotherapeutic treatments. Examples include the belief that electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is a barbaric, obsolete, and brain-damaging procedure, the conviction that psychopharmacological agents act merely as addictive chemical straightjackets without therapeutic efficacy, or conversely, that common-sense coping techniques and willpower are sufficient to cure major psychiatric conditions without professional intervention.

Forensic and Legal Misconceptions

This dimension pertains to legal proceedings surrounding mental health, most prominently the operation and frequency of the insanity defense. Laypersons consistently overestimate how often the plea of not guilty by reason of insanity is invoked in felony trials, as well as the proportion of defendants who are successfully acquitted and immediately released into the community.

6. Theoretical Framework

The conceptual underpinning of the APMQ relies on dual-process cognitive theories, conceptual change paradigms in science education, and the literature on pseudoscience and epistemic vigilance spearheaded by Scott O. Lilienfeld and colleagues. Misconceptions are not viewed simply as random gaps in knowledge; instead, they represent stable, coherent, and highly accessible cognitive schemas that develop through intuitive heuristics, cognitive biases, and culturally pervasive narrative tropes.

Dual-Process Theory and Cognitive Biases

Dual-process models of cognition (e.g., Kahneman’s System 1 intuitive thinking versus System 2 deliberative reasoning) suggest that many psychological misconceptions stem from fast, heuristic appraisals. For instance, the vividness effect and the availability heuristic lead individuals to base their perceptions of mental illness on memorable, sensationalized media depictions—such as cinematic portrayals of violent psychiatric patients—rather than statistical base rates. The APMQ was conceptualized to identify the outcomes of these unreflective System 1 inferences when individuals are asked to make factual judgments about mental disorders.

Conceptual Change and Refutational Pedagogical Theory

In educational psychology, conceptual change models (e.g., Posner et al.) posit that learners bring deeply organized intuitive theories to the classroom. When new scientific information merely runs parallel to existing misconceptions, cognitive restructuring does not occur. To facilitate conceptual change, learners must first experience cognitive dissonance or dissatisfaction with their existing conceptions. The APMQ was theoretically structured to serve as an assessment baseline within refutational pedagogies, identifying widespread intuitive errors so that instructors can explicitly introduce, critique, and replace erroneous assumptions with empirical evidence.

Epistemic Relativism and Skepticism

The APMQ is also grounded in the epistemic framework developed by Lilienfeld, Lynn, and colleagues, which analyzes how susceptibility to psychological misconceptions relates to broader epistemic belief systems. Individuals with underdeveloped critical thinking dispositions or higher acceptance of the paranormal frequently lack the domain-general scientific skepticism needed to evaluate mental health claims. Consequently, the APMQ was formulated to map into a broader nomological network of scientific literacy, critical reasoning, and epistemological discernment.

7. Validity

The construct, convergent, and criterion validity of the APMQ were established by Basterfield et al. (2023) through administration to an undergraduate cohort at a large research university, revealing clear patterns within its nomological network:

Construct and Convergent Validity

The APMQ exhibits statistically significant, theoretically predicted relationships with independent measures of cognitive style and epistemological beliefs:

• Critical Thinking Dispositions: Scores on the APMQ demonstrated significant inverse correlations with measures of critical thinking ability and analytical cognitive styles. Students who endorsed a higher volume of mental health myths scored lower on standard assessments of formal critical analysis, confirming that belief in psychopathology myths is partly a function of uncritical information processing.
• Paranormal Belief: Endorsement of APMQ misconceptions correlated positively with validated scales assessing paranormal and pseudoscientific beliefs (such as telepathy, precognition, and astrology). This confirms that psychological misconceptions cohere with broader inclinations to accept scientifically unsubstantiated assertions without empirical verification.
• Epistemological Stances toward Psychology: The authors evaluated students’ beliefs regarding the scientific status of psychology. Endorsement of APMQ myths was associated with lower appreciation of psychology as a rigorous, empirical science, and lower acceptance of behavioral and neuroscientific methodologies.

Discriminant Validity

The APMQ is distinct from general intellectual capability or broad scholastic aptitude. While related to critical thinking styles, endorsement of specific mental illness myths is not simply a proxy for general intelligence, as individuals with high general cognitive ability often harbor specific, culturally reinforced misconceptions regarding psychiatric treatment and etiology.

Content and Face Validity

Content validity was established by drawing candidate items directly from established scholarly compendia on scientific misconceptions in psychology, including the works of Lilienfeld et al. (2011), Furnham and colleagues (e.g., Furnham & Hughes, 2014; Furnham, 2018), and Wahl (1995). The item pool was reviewed by content experts in psychopathology and clinical science to confirm that every scored assertion represents a definitively established factual truth or falsehood according to empirical literature and DSM-5 nosology.

8. Reliability

The psychometric evaluation of the APMQ demonstrated strong internal consistency reliability across both counterbalanced versions of the instrument when administered to undergraduate samples:

• Cronbach’s Alpha: Version A of the APMQ demonstrated an internal consistency coefficient of α = .83. Version B exhibited a nearly identical coefficient of α = .84. These indices exceed standard psychometric benchmarks (α ≥ .80) for research instruments.
• Inter-Item Correlations: The mean inter-item correlation was r = .04 for Version A and r = .05 for Version B. While these values indicate low average correlation between any single pair of items, this is expected in broad, heterogeneous knowledge inventories. The APMQ is designed as a broad-bandwidth survey covering dozens of distinct disorders (e.g., depression, bipolar disorder, paraphilic disorders, schizophrenia, anxiety disorders) and domains (e.g., forensic, pharmacological, psychological therapy). Consequently, the overall instrument functions as a reliable composite of abnormal psychology misconceptions without requiring narrow item redundancy.
• Validity Index Performance: The inclusion of 8 dedicated validity items yielded high detection sensitivity for inattentive, careless, or random responding, ensuring that reported reliability statistics were not inflated or distorted by participant non-compliance.

9. Factor Analysis

In the foundational psychometric study conducted by Basterfield, Lilienfeld, Cautin, and Jordan (2023), formal factor analytic extraction (such as Exploratory Factor Analysis [EFA] or Confirmatory Factor Analysis [CFA]) was not reported. The instrument was deliberately constructed as a broad, omnibus survey inventory rather than a narrow latent-trait scale.

Because the 105 target items represent varied topics across abnormal psychology—ranging from pediatric behavioral disorders to geriatric dementia, forensic insanity rules, and the pharmacological actions of antidepressants—the latent structure does not conform to a simple, highly cohesive low-dimensional factor space. In this respect, the APMQ behaves similarly to educational achievement tests and broad knowledge batteries, where items function as formative rather than purely reflective indicators of the overarching construct. The low mean inter-item correlations (r = .04 to .05) further indicate that variance across individual misconceptions is primarily domain-specific rather than driven by a single homogeneous general factor. The authors suggested that future large-scale psychometric studies could examine whether empirical sub-clusters emerge (e.g., forensic myths, diagnostic conflations, biological myths) through multidimensional item response theory (MIRT) or non-linear factor analysis suited for dichotomous survey data.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Test Type: Original psychometric survey and knowledge inventory; objective misconception assessment tool.
• Format: Structured questionnaire administered primarily via paper-and-pencil or secure computer-based survey software.
• Versions: Two parallel, counterbalanced forms (Version A and Version B) designed to mitigate acquiescence response bias. Items phrased positively in Version A are phrased negatively in Version B, and vice versa.
• Total Item Count: 113 items per version (105 target scored misconception items plus 8 embedded validity check items).
• Response Scale: Responses are provided using a True/False format (a “don’t know” option is not provided). Items are coded so that higher scores reflect a greater endorsement of misconceptions. The authors suggested that future studies consider using a Likert-type format to allow researchers to detect false beliefs held with differing levels of conviction. The administration method is paper-based.
• Validity Check Items: 8 deliberately straightforward items embedded within the battery to identify careless reading or non-purposeful endorsement (e.g., assertions regarding uncontroversial, widely known facts). Participants failing these validation filters are excluded from analytic sets.
• Scoring Protocol: Scored items are evaluated against established empirical consensus in clinical psychology and psychiatric science. Items endorsed in the direction of the misconception receive a score of 1; accurate responses receive a score of 0. Summed composite scores range from 0 to 105, with higher overall sums indicating a greater total burden of psychopathology misconceptions.
• Target Population: Adolescents and adults (ages 13–17, 18–29, and older adulthood), specifically validated in undergraduate college students enrolled in introductory psychology.
• Language: English.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

• Year of Development: 2023.
• Original Publication: Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology (American Psychological Association).
• Copyright & Permissions: The instrument is protected under standard academic copyright laws (APA and the original authors). Qualified academic researchers, instructors, and clinical educators may obtain permission and the complete, unabridged versions (Version A and Version B) by contacting the corresponding author, Dr. Candice Basterfield, at Emory University School of Medicine ([email protected]).
• Fee: There is no commercial licensing fee for non-commercial educational, scientific, or research applications, subject to formal authorization from the authors.

12. References

• Basterfield, C., Lilienfeld, S. O., Cautin, R. L., & Jordan, D. (2023). Mental illness misconceptions among undergraduates: Prevalence, correlates, and instructional implications. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 9(2), 115–132. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000221
• Furnham, A. (2018). Myths and misconceptions in popular psychology. The Psychologist, 31, 48–53.
• Furnham, A., & Hughes, D. J. (2014). Myth conception: Popular ideas about psychology. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article 1164. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01164
• Lilienfeld, S. O., Lynn, S. J., Ruscio, J., & Beyerstein, B. L. (2011). 50 Great myths of popular psychology: Shattering widespread misconceptions about human behavior. Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444323498
• Wahl, O. F. (1995). Media madness: Public images of mental illness. Rutgers University Press.

13. Items of the Scale