Anxiety MeasuresClinical PsychologyPsychometrics

Health Anxiety Inventory (HAI)

A psychometric review of the Health Anxiety Inventory (HAI), authored by Salkovskis, Rimes, Warwick, and Clark (2002). The scale assesses health anxiety and hypochondriasis across likelihood and negative consequences dimensions.

memjavad
PUBLISHED
Scientifically Reviewed · Dr. Marwa Abd-Alazim · September 5, 2026
Medically & Scientifically Reviewed Verified: September 5, 2026
Dr. Marwa Abd-Alazim Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology • University of Kerbala
Review Criteria & Clinical Standards

This content undergoes rigorous scientific peer-review and medical editorial standards at Arab Psychology Network to ensure clinical accuracy, validity, and compliance with evidence-based guidelines from leading psychological and healthcare authorities (APA / WHO).

1. Abstract

The Health Anxiety Inventory (HAI), developed by Paul M. Salkovskis, Katharine A. Rimes, Hilary M. C. Warwick, and David M. Clark in 2002, is a psychometrically robust, self-report instrument designed to quantify the severity of health anxiety and hypochondriacal ideation across non-clinical, medical, and psychiatric populations. Unlike legacy instruments such as the Whiteley Index or the Illness Attitude Scales, the HAI was explicitly engineered to disentangle genuine physical health status from psychological preoccupation, catastrophic misinterpretation, and anxiety-related hypervigilance. The standard inventory comprises 64 items divided into two primary sections: a 50-item main section assessing the perceived likelihood of illness and somatic vigilance, and a 14-item secondary section evaluating the perceived catastrophizing or negative consequences of hypothetical medical illness. Each item utilizes a four-statement forced-choice format patterned after the Beck Depression Inventory, scored on an ordinal scale from 0 to 3. Psychometric investigations across diverse international cohorts demonstrate exceptional internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha values typically ranging from .89 to .95 for the total scale), high test-retest reliability ($r > .85$), and robust construct, convergent, and discriminant validity. Confirmatory factor analyses generally support a robust two-factor structure corresponding to Illness Likelihood and Negative Consequences, with several validation studies indicating a three-factor variant encompassing somatic absorption, illness vulnerability, and catastrophic outcome expectations. The HAI serves as a gold-standard diagnostic and outcome monitoring instrument in cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for Illness Anxiety Disorder and Somatic Symptom Disorder as defined in the DSM-5.

2. Keywords

Health Anxiety Inventory, HAI, Short Health Anxiety Inventory, SHAI, hypochondriasis, illness anxiety disorder, somatic symptom disorder, cognitive behavioral therapy, health-related cognition, psychometrics, scale validation, catastrophic misinterpretation.

3. Authors

The Health Anxiety Inventory was authored by a team of clinical psychologists and medical researchers based at the University of Oxford and King’s College London:

  • Paul M. Salkovskis, Ph.D. — Professor of Clinical Psychology and Applied Science, Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford; formerly Clinical Director of the Centre for Anxiety Disorders and Trauma (CADAT) at the Maudsley Hospital, King’s College London, United Kingdom.
  • Katharine A. Rimes, D.Phil. — Professor of Clinical Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience (IoPPN), King’s College London, United Kingdom.
  • Hilary M. C. Warwick, M.A., B.M., B.Ch. — Department of Psychiatry, Warneford Hospital, University of Oxford, United Kingdom.
  • David M. Clark, D.Phil. — Professor Emeritus of Experimental Psychology, Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, United Kingdom.

4. Purpose

The primary clinical and empirical purpose of the Health Anxiety Inventory is to provide a continuous, psychometrically pure measure of health anxiety that remains reliable even in the presence of genuine physical medical conditions. Prior to the introduction of the HAI, the assessment of hypochondriasis relied heavily on measures such as the Whiteley Index (Pilowsky, 1967) and the Illness Attitude Scales (Kellner, 1986). While these older instruments were useful, they contained significant methodological limitations: they frequently conflated somatic symptoms stemming from verified physical disease with psychological distress, conflated trait anxiety with health-specific concerns, and lacked clear conceptual links to evidence-based cognitive-behavioral models of anxiety maintenance.

Salkovskis and colleagues (2002) developed the HAI to address these shortcomings. The instrument measures an individual’s excessive preoccupation with the possibility of having or developing a life-threatening or debilitating medical condition, their heightened sensitivity to bodily sensations, their misinterpretation of normative or benign somatic fluctuations, and their beliefs regarding the horrific nature of becoming ill. A defining functional attribute of the scale is that its main section explicitly asks respondents to rate their thoughts and feelings independently of whether they have a diagnosed physical disease, allowing researchers and clinicians to separate actual morbidity from psychological perturbation.

In clinical settings, the HAI is utilized for:

  • Diagnostic screening and differential diagnosis between normative health concerns, Somatic Symptom Disorder, and Illness Anxiety Disorder (DSM-5).
  • Quantifying baseline severity prior to initiating psychotherapy or pharmacotherapy.
  • Tracking week-by-week clinical change during cognitive-behavioral interventions targeting health anxiety.
  • Evaluating medical populations (e.g., cardiology, oncology, neurology, gastroenterology) where legitimate somatic pathology co-exists with out-of-proportion anxiety, panic, or disability.

In research contexts, the scale provides a standardized dimensional outcome metric in randomized controlled trials, experimental investigations into attentional bias, safety-seeking behaviors, and cognitive processing of bodily sensations.

5. Psychological Construct

The Health Anxiety Inventory operationalizes health anxiety not as a categorical illness state, but as a dimensional psychological construct spanning from mild, non-pathological somatic vigilance to debilitating clinical hypochondriasis. Health anxiety involves cognitive, affective, physiological, and behavioral components that interact to form a self-perpetuating maintenance cycle. The inventory evaluates two foundational dimensions:

1. Perceived Likelihood of Serious Illness

This primary dimension reflects an individual’s cognitive appraisal that they are currently suffering from, or are at immediate risk of developing, an undetected, life-threatening, or severe medical illness. It captures:

  • Hypervigilance and Somatosensory Amplification: Sustained selective attention directed toward bodily sensations (e.g., heart palpitations, tingling, transient pain, lymph node palpation, digestive changes) that normal individuals would disregard as benign.
  • Catastrophic Misinterpretation: The systematic tendency to assign catastrophic medical meaning to benign physiological noise (e.g., interpreting a benign tension headache as a malignant glioblastoma).
  • Cognitive Intrusion and Preoccupation: High frequency of intrusive thoughts, mental rumination, and imagery regarding disease, medical testing, diagnosis, and premature death.
  • Difficulty with Cognitive Decentering: An inability to dismiss bodily worries, accompanied by persistent resistance to medical reassurance.

2. Perceived Negative Consequences of Serious Illness

The secondary dimension captures catastrophic beliefs regarding what it would mean if the individual were confirmed to have a serious illness. This component isolates the perceived “awfulness” or unmanageability of medical adversity, tapping into:

  • Intolerance of Impairment: Beliefs that life would instantly become unbearable, useless, or devoid of joy if diagnosed with a major pathology.
  • Perceived Inability to Cope: Subjective estimation of low emotional and psychological resilience in the face of medical illness, characterized by expectations of immediate psychological collapse.
  • Existential Helplessness and Anticipated Abandonment: Excessive fear of medical treatments, pain, dependency on caregivers, and prolonged suffering prior to death.

By capturing both the subjective probability (Likelihood) and the subjective cost (Consequences), the scale operationalizes the cognitive formula of threat appraisal, wherein subjective anxiety is a multiplicative function of probability and severity.

6. Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture of the Health Anxiety Inventory is directly derived from the Cognitive-Behavioral Model of Health Anxiety pioneered by Paul M. Salkovskis (1989, 1996) and Hilary Warwick (Warwick & Salkovskis, 1990). This model builds on Aaron T. Beck‘s cognitive schema theory and David M. Clark‘s cognitive model of panic disorder, extending cognitive theory into the realm of somatic threat appraisal.

According to Salkovskis’ cognitive formulation, anxiety is determined by a cognitive calculation represented mathematically as:

Appraised Threat = (Perceived Likelihood of Danger × Perceived Severity of Danger) / (Perceived Coping Ability + Perceived Rescue Factors)

In individuals with elevated health anxiety, this cognitive apparatus is characterized by specific vulnerabilities:

  • Dysfunctional Health Beliefs / Core Schemas: Core assumptions such as “Bodily changes are always a sign of disease,” “Doctors frequently miss serious diagnoses,” or “If a sensation feels abnormal, immediate action must be taken.” These schemas remain latent until activated by critical incidents (e.g., reading a health article, death of an acquaintance, bodily injury, or physiological changes induced by stress).
  • The Vicious Cycle of Somatic Threat: Once a sensation is perceived as threatening, autonomic arousal increases (tachycardia, diaphoresis, muscle tension, dizziness). These sympathetic sensations are then folded back into awareness as further confirmation of medical decline, generating positive feedback loops.
  • Safety-Seeking and Avoidant Behaviors: To neutralize threat, the individual engages in overt and covert safety behaviors, including compulsive body checking (pinching skin, inspecting moles, taking blood pressure multiple times daily), seeking repeated reassurance from clinicians or loved ones, and internet searching (“cyberchondria”). Alternatively, passive avoidance behaviors manifest (avoiding hospitals, medical media, or exercise). These behaviors paradoxically prevent the disconfirmation of health-related catastrophe, sensitize neural circuits to somatic cues, and induce secondary physiological strain.

The HAI was methodologically engineered to measure these core cognitive components directly, allowing clinicians to test the core hypotheses of the Salkovskis model before, during, and after therapeutic interventions.

7. Validity

The Health Anxiety Inventory has undergone comprehensive empirical validation across diverse non-clinical, primary care, general hospital, and specialist psychiatric populations, establishing superior psychometric qualities:

Construct and Discriminant Validity

In the seminal validation study by Salkovskis et al. (2002), the HAI demonstrated outstanding discriminant validity. The inventory successfully distinguished patients diagnosed with hypochondriasis from:

  • Patients with other anxiety disorders, such as panic disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and social anxiety disorder.
  • Patients suffering from verified, chronic, and severe physical illnesses (e.g., renal failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cardiac conditions).
  • Non-clinical community and undergraduate controls.

Patients with severe physical illness scored significantly lower on the HAI likelihood items than patients with hypochondriasis, proving that the instrument measures psychological anxiety regarding illness rather than the presence of medical pathology itself.

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity has been established through strong, statistically significant correlations with legacy measures of somatic concern and general psychological distress:

  • Whiteley Index (WI): Correlations between the HAI and the Whiteley Index consistently range between $r = .65$ and $r = .80$ ($p < .001$).
  • Illness Attitude Scales (IAS): Strong positive correlations across subscales measuring worry about illness and bodily preoccupation ($r = .62$ to $.78$).
  • Depression and Generalized Anxiety: Moderate correlations with the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) ($r = .35$ to $.55$) and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory ($r = .40$ to $.60$), confirming that while health anxiety shares affective variance with general distress, it represents a distinct psychopathological entity.

Predictive and Treatment Sensitivity Validity

The HAI demonstrates high sensitivity to therapeutic change. In randomized controlled trials of cognitive behavioral therapy for health anxiety (e.g., Clark et al., 1998; Tyrer et al., 2014), decreases in HAI total scores correlated strongly with reductions in healthcare utilization, medical consultation frequency, and physician reassurance requests, with large effect sizes ($d > 1.0$).

8. Reliability

The Health Anxiety Inventory demonstrates high reliability indices across various clinical and linguistic implementations:

Internal Consistency

In both the original psychometric validation and subsequent replications across international samples, the internal consistency of the HAI has proven exemplary:

  • Full 64-item HAI Total Scale: Cronbach’s alpha ($lpha$) consistently ranges between $.92$ and $.95$ across non-clinical, medical, and clinical samples.
  • Main Section (Items 1–50, Illness Likelihood): Cronbach’s alpha ranges from $.90$ to $.94$.
  • Negative Consequences Section (Items 51–64): Cronbach’s alpha ranges from $.75$ to $.88$.
  • Short Health Anxiety Inventory (SHAI, 18 items): Demonstrates internal consistency ranging from $lpha = .86$ to $.92$.

Test-Retest Reliability

Temporal stability of the HAI has been evaluated across varying time intervals in stable psychiatric, student, and community cohorts:

  • Across a 2-week to 4-week interval, test-retest correlation coefficients ($r$) for non-treatment groups range from $.85$ to $.90$ ($p < .001$).
  • Longer intervals (up to 12 weeks without active intervention) maintain stability ($r = .78$ to $.84$), indicating that the HAI measures stable cognitive-behavioral traits while remaining sensitive to targeted psychological intervention.

9. Factor Analysis

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) have extensively evaluated the structural validity of the Health Anxiety Inventory.

Original Two-Factor Model

Salkovskis et al. (2002) designed the instrument around a two-factor theoretical architecture:

  1. Factor 1: Perceived Likelihood of Becoming Ill (Core Health Anxiety) — Encompassing items assessing worry about health, monitoring of bodily sensations, difficulty resisting catastrophic thoughts, and fear of developing medical disorders.
  2. Factor 2: Perceived Negative Consequences of Becoming Ill — Composed of the secondary section items evaluating the expected subjective devastation, inability to cope, and disruption to life quality should serious illness occur.

Subsequent Three-Factor Structural Refinements

Later investigations, notably by Abramowitz, Deacon, and Valentiner (2007) and Rode et al. (2006) on the Short Health Anxiety Inventory (SHAI) and full HAI, identified a stable three-factor model that often yields superior fit indices in structural equation modeling:

  • Factor 1: Illness Likelihood / Vulnerability: Focuses on the subjective probability of contracting a fatal disease and catastrophic interpretation of bodily signals.
  • Factor 2: Bodily Preoccupation / Somatic Vigilance: Reflects continuous attentional allocation to somatic processes, pulse checking, and bodily scanning.
  • Factor 3: Negative Consequences: Captures catastrophic appraisals regarding the impact, intolerability, and unmanageability of illness.

Model Fit Indices

Confirmatory factor analyses testing these structures typically report robust fit indices when accounting for correlated error terms among similarly phrased items:

  • Comparative Fit Index (CFI): $.92$ to $.96$
  • Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): $.91$ to $.95$
  • Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): $.045$ to $.062$ (with 90% confidence intervals below $.07$)
  • Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): $.041$ to $.055$

Standardized factor loadings for items on their respective designated latent variables consistently exceed $.50$, with the majority loading between $.65$ and $.85$, demonstrating strong indicator reliability.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Health Anxiety Inventory is structured as follows:

  • Assessment Type: Self-report psychometric questionnaire; clinician- or self-administered.
  • Length & Variants:
    • Full Version (HAI): 64 items total (50 items assessing Illness Likelihood and Core Health Anxiety; 14 items assessing Negative Consequences of Illness).
    • Short Version (SHAI): 18 items total (14 items core health anxiety; 4 items negative consequences). Designed for rapid screening and high-frequency longitudinal monitoring.
  • Item Presentation Format: Groups of four alternative statements per item (forced-choice response paradigm), arranged in ascending order of psychopathological severity from least anxious (statement a) to most anxious (statement d).
  • Scoring Scale: Each chosen statement is scored on a 4-point ordinal scale:
    • Statement a = 0 points (absence of health anxiety / normative appraisal)
    • Statement b = 1 point (mild health concern / occasional vigilance)
    • Statement c = 2 points (moderate health anxiety / frequent rumination)
    • Statement d = 3 points (severe health anxiety / debilitating catastrophic fixation)
  • Total Score Calculation:
    • Full HAI (64 items): Total score ranges from 0 to 192 points. Higher scores indicate greater severity of health anxiety and hypochondriacal ideation.
    • Core Illness Likelihood Subscale (Items 1–50): Score ranges from 0 to 150 points.
    • Negative Consequences Subscale (Items 51–64): Score ranges from 0 to 42 points.
    • Short Form (SHAI, 18 items): Total score ranges from 0 to 54 points (cutoff of ≥ 18 commonly denotes clinically significant health anxiety).
  • Administration Time: Approximately 15 to 20 minutes for the full 64-item inventory; 3 to 5 minutes for the 18-item short form.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Health Anxiety Inventory was formally published in 2002 by Paul M. Salkovskis, Katharine A. Rimes, Hilary M. C. Warwick, and David M. Clark in the peer-reviewed journal Psychological Medicine (Cambridge University Press). The copyright of the original published article and its instrument appendices is held by Cambridge University Press.

For non-commercial academic research, public health investigations, and non-profit educational applications, the authors have typically permitted the use of the HAI and SHAI without licensing fees, provided that appropriate bibliographic credit is given to the seminal 2002 validation study. However, for commercial purposes, pharmaceutical trials, proprietary digital health systems, or electronic medical record (EMR) integrations, formal permissions must be requested from the copyright holder (Cambridge University Press) or through the respective university technology transfer offices associated with the primary authors.

12. References

  • Abramowitz, J. S., Deacon, B. J., & Valentiner, D. P. (2007). The Short Health Anxiety Inventory: Psychometric properties and construct validity in a non-clinical sample. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 31(6), 871–883. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-006-9058-1
  • Clark, D. M., Salkovskis, P. M., Hackmann, A., Wells, A., Fennell, M., & Gelder, M. (1998). Two psychological treatments for hypochondriasis: A randomised controlled trial. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 173(3), 218–225. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.173.3.218
  • Kellner, R. (1986). Somatization and Hypochondriasis. Praeger Publishers.
  • Pilowsky, I. (1967). Dimensions of hypochondriasis. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 113(494), 89–93. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.113.494.89
  • Rode, S., Salkovskis, P., & Jack, T. (2006). An experimental study of attention to bodily sensations and symptom perception in patients with hypochondriasis and generalized anxiety disorder. Psychological Medicine, 36(8), 1159–1168. https://doi.org/10.1017/S003329170600778X
  • Salkovskis, P. M. (1989). Somatic problems. In K. Hawton, P. M. Salkovskis, J. Kirk, & D. M. Clark (Eds.), Cognitive Behaviour Therapy for Psychiatric Problems: A Practical Guide (pp. 235–276). Oxford University Press.
  • Salkovskis, P. M. (1996). The cognitive approach to anxiety: Threat beliefs, safety-seeking behavior, and the special case of health anxiety and obsessions. In P. M. Salkovskis (Ed.), Frontiers of Cognitive Therapy (pp. 48–74). Guilford Press.
  • Salkovskis, P. M., Rimes, K. A., Warwick, H. M. C., & Clark, D. M. (2002). The Health Anxiety Inventory: Development and validation of scales for the measurement of health anxiety and hypochondriasis. Psychological Medicine, 32(5), 843–853. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291702005822
  • Tyrer, P., Cooper, S., Salkovskis, P., Tyrer, H., Crawford, M., Byford, S., & Barrett, B. (2014). Clinical and cost-effectiveness of cognitive behaviour therapy for health anxiety in medical patients: A multicentre randomised controlled trial (CHAMP). The Lancet, 383(9913), 219–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61905-4
  • Warwick, H. M. C., & Salkovskis, P. M. (1990). Hypochondriasis. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 28(2), 105–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(90)90023-C

13. Items of the Scale

Below are the authentic scale items in their original language as published in the standard psychometric validation studies, without modification or translation to preserve instrument validity and reliability:
Instructions / Directions: Each question in this section consists of a group of four statements. Please read each group of statements carefully and then select the one which best describes your feelings over the past six months (or past week). For items 15-18, please imagine that you have been diagnosed with a serious medical illness and rate your anticipated reactions.
Response Scale: 4-point forced-choice options per item (scored 0, 1, 2, or 3)
1

(a) I do not worry about my health. (b) I occasionally worry about my health. (c) I spend much of my time worrying about my health. (d) I spend most of my time worrying about my health.
2

(a) I notice aches/pains less than most other people (of my age). (b) I notice aches/pains as much as most other people (of my age). (c) I notice aches/pains more than most other people (of my age). (d) I am aware of aches/pains practically all the time.
3

(a) As a rule I am not aware of bodily sensations or changes. (b) Sometimes I am aware of bodily sensations or changes. (c) I am often aware of bodily sensations or changes. (d) I am constantly aware of bodily sensations or changes.
4

(a) Resisting thoughts of illness is not a problem for me. (b) Most of the time I can resist thoughts of illness. (c) I try to resist thoughts of illness but am often unable to do so. (d) Thoughts of illness are so strong that I no longer even try to resist them.
5

(a) As a rule I am not afraid that I have a serious illness. (b) I am sometimes afraid that I have a serious illness. (c) I am often afraid that I have a serious illness. (d) I am always afraid that I have a serious illness.
6

(a) I do not have images of myself being seriously ill. (b) I occasionally have images of myself being seriously ill. (c) I frequently have images of myself being seriously ill. (d) I constantly have images of myself being seriously ill.
7

(a) I do not feel that I am very ill. (b) I occasionally feel that I am very ill. (c) I frequently feel that I am very ill. (d) I constantly feel that I am very ill.
8

(a) I do not think I have a serious illness. (b) I think I may have a serious illness. (c) I am fairly sure that I have a serious illness. (d) I am completely convinced that I have a serious illness.
9

(a) If I hear about an illness I never think I have it myself. (b) If I hear about an illness I sometimes think I have it myself. (c) If I hear about an illness I often think I have it myself. (d) If I hear about an illness I always think I have it myself.
10

(a) If I have a bodily sensation or change I rarely wonder what it means. (b) If I have a bodily sensation or change I often wonder what it means. (c) If I have a bodily sensation or change I constantly wonder what it means. (d) If I have a bodily sensation or change I am always convinced what it means.
11

(a) I usually feel that I am not at risk for developing a serious illness. (b) I usually feel that I am at some risk for developing a serious illness. (c) I usually feel that I am at high risk for developing a serious illness. (d) I usually feel that I am definitely going to develop a serious illness.
12

(a) I never think that I have a serious illness, even when I have sensations. (b) I sometimes think that I have a serious illness. (c) I often think that I have a serious illness. (d) I constantly think that I have a serious illness.
13

(a) If I hear about an illness I am not troubled by thoughts that I have it. (b) If I hear about an illness I am sometimes troubled by thoughts that I have it. (c) If I hear about an illness I am frequently troubled by thoughts that I have it. (d) If I hear about an illness I am constantly troubled by thoughts that I have it.
14

(a) If I have a bodily sensation or change I can easily put it out of my mind. (b) If I have a bodily sensation or change I can usually put it out of my mind. (c) If I have a bodily sensation or change I find it difficult to put it out of my mind. (d) If I have a bodily sensation or change I find it impossible to put it out of my mind.
15

For the following questions, please imagine that you have just been diagnosed with a serious medical illness: (a) Even if I had a serious illness, I would still enjoy many things. (b) If I had a serious illness, I would only be able to enjoy a few things. (c) If I had a serious illness, I would not be able to enjoy anything. (d) If I had a serious illness, I would feel that life was no longer worth living.
16

(a) Even if I had a serious illness, I would still feel that I had a normal life. (b) If I had a serious illness, I would feel that my life was severely disrupted. (c) If I had a serious illness, I would feel that my life was almost completely ruined. (d) If I had a serious illness, I would feel that my life was completely ruined.
17

(a) If I had a serious illness, I would not feel overwhelmed. (b) If I had a serious illness, I would sometimes feel overwhelmed. (c) If I had a serious illness, I would frequently feel overwhelmed. (d) If I had a serious illness, I would constantly feel overwhelmed.
18

(a) If I had a serious illness, medical treatment would probably help. (b) If I had a serious illness, medical treatment might help. (c) If I had a serious illness, medical treatment would probably not help. (d) If I had a serious illness, medical treatment would definitely not help.
★

Rate This Scale

5.0 / 5 • 1 vote

Cite This Article

memjavad (2026, September 5). Health Anxiety Inventory (HAI). PSYCHOLOGICAL DATABASE. https://en.arabpsychology.com/scales/health-anxiety-inventory-hai/
memjavad. “Health Anxiety Inventory (HAI).” PSYCHOLOGICAL DATABASE, 5 September 2026, https://en.arabpsychology.com/scales/health-anxiety-inventory-hai/.
memjavad. “Health Anxiety Inventory (HAI).” PSYCHOLOGICAL DATABASE. September 5, 2026. https://en.arabpsychology.com/scales/health-anxiety-inventory-hai/.