Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire

Abstract

The Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (BIPQ)—also adapted into Dutch as the Illness Perception Questionnaire-Kort (IPQ-K) or Ziekteperceptievragenlijst—is a widely utilized, ultra-brief psychometric instrument designed to rapidly assess cognitive and emotional representations of illness. Developed by Elizabeth Broadbent, Keith J. Petrie, Jennifer Main, and John Weinman in 2006, the BIPQ operationalizes the core theoretical constructs of Howard Leventhal’s Common-Sense Model of Self-Regulation (CSM-SR). The instrument condenses the comprehensive, multi-item Illness Perception Questionnaire-Revised (IPQ-R) into nine concise items. Eight of these items evaluate distinct conceptual dimensions using an 11-point continuous numerical rating scale (0 to 10): Consequences (Item 1), Timeline (Item 2), Personal Control (Item 3), Treatment Control (Item 4), Identity/Symptoms (Item 5), Illness Concern (Item 6), Illness Coherence/Understanding (Item 7), and Emotional Representation (Item 8). The ninth item is an open-ended causal attribution inquiry prompting respondents to rank-order the three most salient factors perceived as causing their condition.

Extensive psychometric investigations across diverse clinical populations—ranging from acute myocardial infarction, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease to musculoskeletal disorders, systemic lupus erythematosus, and oncological diagnoses—have established the BIPQ’s robust reliability and validity. Test-retest reliability intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) consistently range between .48 and .99 across various reassessment intervals. Convergent validity is evidenced through moderate-to-strong correlations with the IPQ-R subscales, disease-specific distress measures, and health status indicators. Predictive validity has been repeatedly demonstrated regarding functional recovery, treatment adherence, health-related quality of life, and mortality. An overall summary score can be derived by reverse-scoring items reflecting positive management or comprehension (Items 3, 4, and 7) and aggregating all numerical items, where higher composite scores index an increasingly threatening cognitive and emotional illness representation.

Keywords

Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire, BIPQ, Illness Perception Questionnaire-Kort, IPQ-K, Common-Sense Model of Self-Regulation, illness representations, cognitive representations, emotional representation, psychometrics, health psychology

Authors

The original English version of the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (BIPQ) was developed by a team of leading health psychologists:

• Elizabeth Broadbent, Ph.D. – Professor of Health Psychology, Department of Psychological Medicine, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
• Keith J. Petrie, Ph.D. – Professor Emeritus of Health Psychology, Department of Psychological Medicine, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
• Jennifer Main, M.Sc. – Department of Psychological Medicine, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
• John Weinman, Ph.D., FRCPE, FMedSci – Professor of Psychology as Applied to Medicine, Institute of Pharmaceutical Science and School of Cancer & Pharmaceutical Sciences, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom.

The cross-culturally validated Dutch version (Illness Perception Questionnaire-Kort [IPQ-K] / BIPQ-Dutch Language Version [BIPQ-DLV]) was translated, adapted, and psychometrically validated by:

• E. J. de Raaij, PT, M.Sc., Ph.D., alongside clinical researchers and epidemiologists at the Department of Physiotherapy and Physical Therapy Sciences, Utrecht University / University Medical Center Utrecht, The Netherlands, between 2007 and 2012.

Purpose

The fundamental purpose of the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (BIPQ) is to provide clinicians, behavioral scientists, and medical researchers with a brief, valid, and reliable measure to gauge how patients cognitively interpret, emotionally experience, and causally conceptualize their medical diagnoses or somatic complaints. Prior to the creation of the BIPQ, the primary psychometric tools available for assessing illness cognitions were the original 38-item Illness Perception Questionnaire (IPQ; Weinman et al., 1996) and the expanded 84-item Illness Perception Questionnaire-Revised (IPQ-R; Moss-Morris et al., 2002). Although the IPQ-R provides an exhaustive mapping of cognitive dimensions, its substantial length imposes a heavy cognitive burden on respondents, limiting its clinical feasibility among severely ill, frail, acutely distressed, or cognitively fatigued individuals, as well as in high-throughput outpatient clinics and large epidemiological cohorts.

The BIPQ resolves this clinical and methodological barrier by operationalizing each core theoretical component of illness perception through a single, targeted, highly informative item. In routine clinical workflows—such as primary care, cardiology, oncology, rheumatology, and physical rehabilitation—the BIPQ functions as an efficient diagnostic screener. By mapping patient perceptions at an early stage of clinical contact, healthcare providers can swiftly identify maladaptive illness cognitions, such as catastrophizing beliefs regarding symptom chronicity, pervasive fatalism concerning treatment utility, ungrounded causal blame, or elevated emotional distress. Because these maladaptive representations directly predict non-adherence to pharmacotherapy, poor lifestyle modification, unnecessary disability, and elevated healthcare utilization, acquiring rapid insight into the patient’s internal cognitive framework enables clinicians to tailor psychoeducational, behavioral, and pharmacological interventions to realign misinformed perceptions.

In medical and behavioral research, the BIPQ serves multiple design roles. It facilitates dynamic longitudinal monitoring of cognitive and emotional shifts throughout clinical trials, evaluating whether therapeutic interventions (e.g., cognitive behavioral therapy, cardiac rehabilitation, structured patient education programs) successfully alter health-related mental models. Furthermore, its brevity makes it suitable for repeated-measures research designs, ecological momentary assessments (EMA), and extensive multi-instrument survey batteries where participant burden must be minimized to avoid high attrition rates.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct captured by the BIPQ is illness perception—defined as the implicit, common-sense cognitive and emotional schemas that patients construct to make sense of, assign meaning to, and respond to somatic health threats. Within contemporary health psychology, illness representations are recognized not merely as passive knowledge of medical facts, but as dynamic, subjective cognitive structures that guide coping procedures and self-regulatory actions. The BIPQ assesses eight specific dimensions of this overarching construct, supplemented by qualitative causal attributions:

• Consequences (Item 1): Reflects the patient’s subjective appraisal of the overall severity and impact of the illness on their daily life, physical functioning, occupational capacity, social roles, and financial stability. High scores represent beliefs that the condition exerts profoundly disruptive and catastrophic ramifications across life domains (e.g., “My heart condition has completely ruined my independence”).
• Timeline (Item 2): Quantifies the patient’s perception of the temporal trajectory and chronicity of their illness. Lower scores indicate expectations of an acute, transient, or self-limiting illness course, whereas elevated scores indicate beliefs that the illness is permanent, lifelong, or cyclical with no finite endpoint.
• Personal Control (Item 3): Captures perceived self-efficacy and agency regarding personal capacity to manage, moderate, or mitigate the effects of the illness. Higher scores reflect an internal locus of control and strong confidence in behavioral self-management (e.g., diet, exercise, stress reduction, symptom self-monitoring), whereas low scores signify perceived helplessness.
• Treatment Control (Item 4): Assesses the patient’s faith and conviction in the curative or palliative efficacy of medical interventions, surgical procedures, or prescribed therapeutic regimens. High scores demonstrate strong confidence that medical interventions can cure or successfully control the illness, whereas low scores indicate therapeutic skepticism or perceived medical futility.
• Identity (Item 5): Measures the extent to which the individual experiences somatic symptoms and attributes those bodily sensations directly to the underlying pathology. This dimension reflects symptom burden and somatic focus; high scores signify an intense experience of multiple, severe symptoms linked directly to the illness identity.
• Illness Concern (Item 6): Probes the cognitive worry, preoccupation, and cognitive threat appraisal evoked by the medical condition. High scores denote persistent distress, hypervigilance, and apprehension about clinical deterioration or complications.
• Illness Coherence / Understanding (Item 7): Reflects the degree to which the patient possesses a coherent, clear, and comprehensive mental model of their medical condition. Patients scoring high on coherence perceive their illness as understandable, logical, and meaningful, whereas low scores indicate confusion, cognitive dissonance, and mystification (e.g., “My symptoms make no sense to me”).
• Emotional Representation (Item 8): Evaluates the direct affective response triggered by the health threat, explicitly gauging emotional states such as fear, anger, anxiety, sorrow, or depressive mood. Elevated scores denote severe psychological distress generated directly by the somatic diagnosis.
• Causal Attributions (Item 9): Elicits the patient’s primary subjective beliefs regarding the etiology or precipitating causes of their illness. Rather than utilizing a standardized Likert scale, this item captures self-generated attributions (e.g., stress, hereditary factors, viral exposure, lifestyle behaviors, or environmental toxins) ranked by personal importance.

Theoretical Framework

The BIPQ is theoretically anchored in the Common-Sense Model of Self-Regulation (CSM-SR), originally formulated by Howard Leventhal and expanded by colleagues including Nerenz, Steele, Phillips, and Weinman. The CSM-SR is an informational processing and behavioral regulation framework that conceptualizes the individual as an active, self-regulating problem solver confronted with perceived health threats.

According to Leventhal’s model, the encounter with somatic sensations, clinical symptoms, or diagnostic labels triggers a dual-track cognitive and affective self-regulatory system operating in three consecutive, recurring stages:

1. Stage 1: Representation (Perception of the Threat): The individual forms concurrent cognitive representations and emotional representations of the health threat. The cognitive representation is organized around five core structural components: identity (label and associated somatic cues), cause (etiological attributions), timeline (duration and trajectory), consequences (expected somatic, social, and economic impact), and cure/control (perceived amenability to personal and professional management). Concurrently, the perceived threat directly activates emotional pathways, eliciting affective states such as fear, generalized anxiety, depressive withdrawal, or anger.
2. Stage 2: Coping Strategies (Action Planning and Implementation): The dual representations formulated in Stage 1 directly dictate the selection and execution of coping mechanisms. Cognitive representations predominantly prompt problem-focused coping behaviors (e.g., scheduling physician consultations, adhering to complex medication schedules, modifying dietary practices, or seeking medical literature). Emotional representations predominantly mobilize emotion-focused coping strategies (e.g., denial, cognitive reappraisal, psychological avoidance, substance use, or expressive disclosure).
3. Stage 3: Appraisal (Evaluation of Outcomes): The individual evaluates the efficacy of their deployed coping responses against internal subjective criteria and clinical endpoints. If a coping strategy proves ineffective in mitigating the health threat or down-regulating emotional distress, the feedback loop triggers an iterative updating of the underlying cognitive and emotional representations (Stages 1 and 2).

The BIPQ encapsulates this theoretical framework. By mapping each structural component of Stage 1—both cognitive (consequences, timeline, control, identity, coherence, cause) and emotional (concern, emotional affect)—the scale provides an empirical snapshot of the patient’s internal self-regulatory system. Research grounded in the CSM-SR has continually highlighted that these subjective representations frequently diverge from objective clinical severity indices (e.g., biological markers, laboratory staging, imaging findings). Consequently, the BIPQ quantifies the primary cognitive drivers that directly dictate whether a patient adopts self-management regimens or succumbs to passive, non-adherent, or dysfunctional coping cycles.

Validity

The psychometric validity of the BIPQ has been evaluated across international clinical and non-clinical cohorts. In their seminal validation study, Broadbent et al. (2006) investigated four diverse patient samples: individuals with renal disease undergoing hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis, individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus, patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction (MI), and individuals attending asthma outpatient clinics.

Construct and Convergent Validity

Convergent validity was examined by comparing individual BIPQ items against their corresponding multi-item dimensions on the Illness Perception Questionnaire-Revised (IPQ-R; Moss-Morris et al., 2002). Broadbent et al. (2006) identified robust, statistically significant Pearson correlation coefficients between matching subscales:

• BIPQ Consequences correlated with IPQ-R Consequences at $r = .58$ to $.69$ ($p < .001$).
• BIPQ Timeline correlated with IPQ-R Timeline at $r = .63$ to $.81$ ($p < .001$).
• BIPQ Personal Control correlated with IPQ-R Personal Control at $r = .52$ to $.62$ ($p < .001$).
• BIPQ Treatment Control correlated with IPQ-R Treatment Control at $r = .47$ to $.56$ ($p < .001$).
• BIPQ Identity correlated with IPQ-R Identity symptom score at $r = .51$ to $.62$ ($p < .001$).
• BIPQ Coherence correlated with IPQ-R Coherence at $r = .58$ to $.77$ ($p < .001$).
• BIPQ Emotional Representation correlated with IPQ-R Emotional Representation at $r = .61$ to $.74$ ($p < .001$).

Similarly, the Dutch version validated by de Raaij et al. (2012) among patients with persistent musculoskeletal pain corroborated these findings, demonstrating moderate-to-high correlations between the IPQ-K items and corresponding IPQ-R subscales ($r = .44$ to $.77$). Furthermore, convergent validity has been established relative to generic and disease-specific psychological instruments: BIPQ Emotional Representation and Illness Concern correlate strongly with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS; $r = .45$ to $.68$) and the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI).

Discriminant Validity

The BIPQ differentiates between clinical conditions characterized by distinct pathophysiological courses. Broadbent et al. (2006) demonstrated that patients with acute asthma exacerbations scored significantly lower on timeline (perceiving their illness as more transient and episodic) than individuals suffering from end-stage renal disease or type 2 diabetes, who recognized the permanent, lifelong trajectory of their conditions ($p < .001$). In discriminant analyses against general self-efficacy (General Self-Efficacy Scale) and systemic neuroticism (Eysenck Personality Questionnaire), BIPQ Personal Control correlated only moderately ($r = .25$ to $.35$), confirming that the BIPQ measures illness-specific cognitive mechanisms rather than broad personality traits or generalized locus of control.

Predictive and Criterion Validity

The predictive validity of the BIPQ has been corroborated across an array of longitudinal medical outcomes. In myocardial infarction cohorts, baseline BIPQ scores assessed during acute hospitalization predicted return-to-work milestones within six months; patients who perceived lower personal control, anticipated severe lifestyle consequences, and reported high emotional distress demonstrated delayed occupational resumption independent of left ventricular ejection fraction and objective disease severity indices (Broadbent et al., 2006). In diabetes management, high BIPQ treatment control and personal control scores longitudinally predict better glycemic control (measured via hemoglobin $\text{HbA}_{1c}$ levels, $\beta = -.24$, $p < .01$). In Dutch chronic musculoskeletal pain populations, baseline BIPQ-DLV total threat scores significantly predicted long-term physical disability (Oswestry Disability Index) and elevated healthcare utilization at twelve months follow-up (de Raaij et al., 2012).

Reliability

Because the BIPQ was designed to capture separate, theoretically independent dimensions of illness perceptions using single items, evaluating internal consistency (e.g., through Cronbach’s alpha across all items) is not psychometrically appropriate for the standard individual-item profile interpretation. The eight dimensions are not intended to form an internally redundant, homogeneous, unidimensional tau-equivalent latent scale; a patient may simultaneously perceive high personal control (Item 3) alongside long timeline expectations (Item 2) and minimal consequences (Item 1). Consequently, psychometric investigations of the BIPQ focus primarily on test-retest reliability to establish stability over time, as well as inter-item concordance across stable baseline intervals.

In the original psychometric evaluation by Broadbent et al. (2006), test-retest reliability was investigated across distinct temporal intervals:

• Short-Term Stability (3-Week Interval): In a cohort of outpatients with stable chronic renal disease, Pearson correlation coefficients ($r$) and Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICCs) demonstrated solid stability: Consequences ($r = .70$), Timeline ($r = .70$), Personal Control ($r = .55$), Treatment Control ($r = .69$), Identity ($r = .62$), Concern ($r = .65$), Coherence ($r = .64$), and Emotional Representation ($r = .75$). All correlations were statistically significant at $p < .001$.
• Very Short-Term Stability (1-Day Interval): Tested in a sample of acute asthma patients prior to discharge to establish immediate stability without therapeutic confounding; ICCs for individual items ranged from $.78$ to $.99$.
• Long-Term Stability (6-Week Interval): In stable type 2 diabetes patients without changes in pharmacological regimens, ICCs ranged between $.48$ (Treatment Control) and $.82$ (Timeline).

In the Dutch cross-cultural adaptation study (IPQ-K / BIPQ-DLV) conducted by de Raaij et al. (2012) among chronic musculoskeletal pain patients, test-retest reliability evaluated across a 2-week interval yielded ICC agreement values ranging from $.72$ (95% CI: $.61–.81$) for Treatment Control to $.88$ (95% CI: $.82–.92$) for Timeline, with a total composite threat score ICC of $.85$ (95% CI: $.78–.90$). Furthermore, measurement error assessments demonstrated small Minimal Detectable Change (MDC) thresholds, indicating that the scale can identify meaningful clinical shifts beyond random variance.

Factor Analysis

Although the BIPQ was developed to operate as an eight-profile single-item assessment, researchers frequently use the 8 numerical items to compute an aggregated composite score, prompting extensive exploratory factor analyses (EFA) and confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) across diverse cultural and clinical settings.

Factor analytic investigations typically yield either a two-factor or a single higher-order general factor model:

Two-Factor Solution: Cognitive Threat vs. Emotional Threat

Numerous empirical studies (e.g., Broadbent et al., 2015; Tiemens et al., 2020) have identified a robust two-factor structure across chronic condition cohorts:

1. Factor 1: Cognitive Representation / Controllability: Encompasses Item 3 (Personal Control), Item 4 (Treatment Control), and Item 7 (Illness Coherence). These items share moderate to high factor loadings (typically ranging from $lambda = .55$ to $.78$) and capture the perceived manageable nature and intelligibility of the diagnosis.
2. Factor 2: Affective & Symptomatic Threat / Disease Impact: Comprises Item 1 (Consequences), Item 2 (Timeline), Item 5 (Identity), Item 6 (Concern), and Item 8 (Emotional Representation). Factor loadings on this dimension are consistently strong, with values often exceeding $lambda = .65$ to $.84$.

Unidimensional Composite Model

When investigating the structural validity of the single composite “Illness Threat Score” (in which Personal Control, Treatment Control, and Coherence are reversed), CFA analyses have demonstrated acceptable-to-good fit parameters across large medical samples, provided that error covariances between conceptually contiguous items (e.g., Concern [Item 6] and Emotional Representation [Item 8]) are accounted for:

• Chi-Square to Degrees of Freedom: $\chi^2/df < 3.0$
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): Values between $.92$ and $.97$
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): Values between $.90$ and $.95$
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): Estimates ranging from $.045$ to $.072$ (95% CI: $.031–.085$)
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): Values consistently below $.060$

In structural equation modeling (SEM), items measuring consequences, emotional representations, and concerns consistently demonstrate the highest standardized regression weights onto the overarching latent construct of illness threat, establishing their central role in the psychological operationalization of patient disease burden.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Test Type: Patient-Reported Outcome Measure (PROM); psychological self-report questionnaire.
• Format: Paper-and-pencil questionnaire, digital web-based survey, or structured clinical interview.
• Item Count: 9 items total (8 closed-ended quantitative items and 1 qualitative open-ended causal attribution inquiry).
• Response Scale: Items 1–8 are rated on an 11-point continuous visual analog / numerical rating scale from 0 to 10 with endpoint anchors specific to each item; Item 9 is an open-ended response.
• Subscale Breakdown:
  • Item 1: Consequences (0 = “no affect at all”, 10 = “severely affects my life”)
  • Item 2: Timeline (0 = “a very short time”, 10 = “forever”)
  • Item 3: Personal Control (0 = “absolutely no control”, 10 = “an extreme amount of control”)
  • Item 4: Treatment Control (0 = “not at all”, 10 = “extremely helpful”)
  • Item 5: Identity (0 = “no symptoms at all”, 10 = “many severe symptoms”)
  • Item 6: Illness Concern (0 = “not at all concerned”, 10 = “extremely concerned”)
  • Item 7: Illness Coherence (0 = “don’t understand at all”, 10 = “understand very clearly”)
  • Item 8: Emotional Representation (0 = “not at all affected emotionally”, 10 = “extremely affected emotionally”)
  • Item 9: Causal Attributions (open-ended self-report; respondents rank-order the three most important perceived causes).
• Scoring Procedures:
  • Profile Scoring (Recommended): Each of the first 8 items is evaluated as an individual dimension score from 0 to 10, presenting a multi-faceted cognitive and emotional profile.
  • Overall Illness Threat Composite Score: A cumulative score can be calculated to quantify total threat appraisal. To calculate this, first reverse score the three positive/adaptive items:
    
    $$\text{Item } 3_{\text{reversed}} = 10 – \text{Item } 3$$
    $$\text{Item } 4_{\text{reversed}} = 10 – \text{Item } 4$$
    $$\text{Item } 7_{\text{reversed}} = 10 – \text{Item } 7$$
    
    Then sum these reversed values with the remaining items:
    
    $$\text{Total Score} = \text{Item } 1 + \text{Item } 2 + \text{Item } 3_{\text{reversed}} + \text{Item } 4_{\text{reversed}} + \text{Item } 5 + \text{Item } 6 + \text{Item } 7_{\text{reversed}} + \text{Item } 8$$
    
    The composite score ranges from 0 to 80. Higher scores represent a more threatening perception of the illness, characterized by greater perceived symptom burden, severe consequences, chronic timeline, low controllability, poor coherence, and intense emotional impact.
  • Qualitative Causal Analysis (Item 9): The responses to Item 9 are typically categorized into qualitative groupings via content analysis or matched against established IPQ-R causal dimensions (e.g., stress/worry, lifestyle factors, hereditary/genetic risks, environmental exposures, biological agents, or aging).
• Completion Time: Approximately 2 to 4 minutes.
• Target Demographics: Adults and older adults across general medical, surgical, chronic, and psychiatric settings. Specialized child and adolescent adaptations are also available.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (BIPQ) was published in 2006 by Elizabeth Broadbent, Keith J. Petrie, Jennifer Main, and John Weinman. The Dutch cross-cultural adaptation (IPQ-K / BIPQ-DLV) was established and evaluated by E. J. de Raaij and colleagues between 2007 and 2012.

Licensing and Academic Accessibility: The BIPQ is placed in the public domain for academic research and non-profit clinical practice. No licensing fees or royalty payments are required when administering the scale for academic studies, public health initiatives, doctoral dissertations, or routine diagnostic patient evaluations. The instrument, alongside authorized translations into over 30 languages, can be downloaded directly from academic repositories and the official illness perception research portal managed by the original authors (formerly hosted via the University of Auckland). Commercial entities, pharmaceutical clinical trial sponsors, and for-profit digital healthcare platforms seeking to integrate the BIPQ into proprietary diagnostic software or monetization protocols should contact the principal copyright holders (Prof. Elizabeth Broadbent or King’s College London / University of Auckland) to obtain appropriate administrative permissions.

References

Broadbent, E., Petrie, K. J., Main, J., & Weinman, J. (2006). The Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 60(6), 631–637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2005.10.020

Broadbent, E., Wilkes, C., Koschwanez, H., Weinman, J., Norton, S., & Petrie, K. J. (2015). A systematic review and meta-analysis of the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire. Psychology & Health, 30(11), 1361–1385. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2015.1070851

de Raaij, E. J., Schroder, C., Maissan, F. J., Pool, J. J., & Wittink, H. (2012). Cross-cultural adaptation and measurement properties of the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire-Dutch Language Version. Manual Therapy, 17(4), 330–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.math.2012.03.001

Leventhal, H., Meyer, D., & Nerenz, D. (1980). The common sense representation of illness danger. In S. Rachman (Ed.), Contributions to Medical Psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 7–30). Pergamon Press.

Leventhal, H., Phillips, L. A., & Burns, E. (2016). The Common-Sense Model of Self-Regulation (CSM): A dynamic framework for understanding illness self-management. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 39(6), 935–946. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-016-9782-x

Moss-Morris, R., Weinman, J., Petrie, K. J., Horne, R., Cameron, L. D., & Buick, D. (2002). The Revised Illness Perception Questionnaire (IPQ-R). Psychology & Health, 17(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870440290001494

Tiemens, B. G., Kloos, M. W., Vonk, P., & van Dulmen, S. (2020). Psychometric properties of the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire in patients with mild to moderate mental disorders in primary care. BMC Psychiatry, 20(1), Article 410. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-020-02813-8

Weinman, J., Petrie, K. J., Moss-Morris, R., & Horne, R. (1996). The Illness Perception Questionnaire: A new measure for assessing the cognitive representation of illness. Psychology & Health, 11(3), 431–445. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870449608400270

Items of the Scale