Penn State Worry Questionnaire for Adults (PSWQ-A)

1. Abstract

The Penn State Worry Questionnaire for Adults (PSWQ-A; Meyer et al., 1990) represents the gold-standard self-report psychometric instrument designed to evaluate trait-level pathological worry in adult populations. Grounded in cognitive-behavioral paradigms of anxiety, the instrument conceptualizes worry not merely as a transient reaction to environmental stressors, but as an enduring, uncontrollable, pervasive, and content-independent cognitive phenomenon primarily characterized by repetitive, negatively valenced thought sequences. The questionnaire consists of 16 self-report items evaluated on a 5-point Likert-type response scale ranging from 1 (“not at all typical of me”) to 5 (“very typical of me”). Eleven items are worded positively to assess the presence and severity of pathological worry, whereas five reverse-scored items capture the perceived capacity to suppress, dismiss, or avoid worry.

Total composite scores range from 16 to 80, with higher scores reflecting greater levels of chronic, pathological worry. Extensive psychometric evaluations across psychiatric, clinical, community, and undergraduate populations consistently demonstrate excellent internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha coefficients typically ranging from .88 to .95; McDonald’s omega > .90) and robust test-retest reliability across time intervals spanning 2 to 10 weeks (coefficients between .74 and .93). Construct validity is affirmed by significant positive correlations with related constructs such as generalized anxiety, depression, and neuroticism, alongside distinct divergence from somatic symptoms of autonomic arousal. Structural investigations using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis (EFA and CFA) have established that while the scale reflects an essentially unidimensional construct of pathological worry, an artifactual two-factor or bifactor structure often emerges due to method effects associated with reverse-worded items. This article provides an exhaustive, critical psychometric review of the PSWQ-A, delineating its theoretical foundations, structural morphology, normative properties, clinical utility, and cross-cultural validity.

2. Keywords

Penn State Worry Questionnaire, PSWQ, pathological worry, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, cognitive avoidance, psychometrics, trait anxiety, confirmatory factor analysis, metacognition, intolerance of uncertainty, clinical assessment, internal consistency, structural equation modeling

3. Authors

The Penn State Worry Questionnaire was developed by a team of prominent clinical psychologists and researchers at the Pennsylvania State University (University Park, Pennsylvania, USA):

• Thomas D. Borkovec, Ph.D. — Emeritus Professor of Psychology at the Pennsylvania State University. Dr. Borkovec is widely recognized as a pioneering investigator in the cognitive and physiological mechanisms of worry, insomnia, and Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD). His groundbreaking theoretical work laid the foundation for the cognitive avoidance model of worry.
• T. J. Meyer, Ph.D. — Clinical research psychologist affiliated with the Department of Psychology at Pennsylvania State University during the conceptualization, psychometric extraction, and validation of the scale.
• M. L. Miller, Ph.D. — Research associate and co-investigator at the Penn State Anxiety Disorders Clinic, specializing in psychometric modeling, behavioral measurement, and diagnostic discrimination.
• Richard L. Metzger, Ph.D. — Cognitive psychologist and psychometrician who collaborated extensively on the item-reduction protocols, exploratory factor analyses, and structural validation of the instrument.

Correspondence regarding the original development of the instrument was historically directed to the Department of Psychology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, USA. The instrument is accessible in the open academic literature for non-commercial research and clinical practice.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Penn State Worry Questionnaire for Adults is to quantify the generality, excessive intensity, and perceived uncontrollability of trait worry without confounding the measurement with the specific, transient thematic contents of worries. Prior to the development of the PSWQ in 1990, assessment tools in anxiety research predominantly focused on autonomic and somatic manifestations (such as palpitations, perspiration, or muscle tension), behavioral avoidance, or specific worry domains (such as health, finances, social relationships, or academic performance). Consequently, clinicians and researchers lacked a psychometrically sound, standardized instrument capable of capturing the central diagnostic feature of Generalized Anxiety Disorder as codified in modern psychiatric classification systems (DSM-III-R, DSM-IV, and DSM-5): excessive, uncontrollable, and pervasive apprehension.

Worry is inherently a verbal-linguistic cognitive process characterized by an attempt to engage in mental problem-solving regarding anticipated negative future events. While non-pathological worry is typically circumscribed, episodic, responsive to reassurance, and perceived as controllable, pathological worry is chronic, trans-situational, disproportionate to actual threat probabilities, and resistant to deliberate cessation. The PSWQ was specifically operationalized to measure this pathological variant by assessing:

• Chronicity and Trait Pervasiveness: The extent to which an individual experiences worry as a continuous, baseline feature of their daily psychological existence across time and varying contexts.
• Intensity and Severity: The degree to which worry dominates conscious awareness, drains cognitive resources, and induces subjective emotional distress.
• Uncontrollability: The inability to terminate or dismiss intrusive, negative anticipatory thoughts once initiated, even when the individual consciously recognizes the irrationality or unproductiveness of the process.
• Trans-situational Generality: The tendency for worry to generalize across multiple life circumstances, including minor, mundane, or low-threat daily hassles.

In clinical practice, the PSWQ functions as an indispensable screening measure to identify individuals meeting criteria for GAD, to gauge baseline symptom severity, and to monitor therapeutic changes during evidence-based psychological interventions, including Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), and Metacognitive Therapy (MCT). In clinical research trials, the PSWQ serves as a primary outcome benchmark to evaluate treatment efficacy, relapse vulnerability, and the cognitive mechanisms underlying treatment-related reductions in chronic anxiety.

5. Psychological Construct

The psychological construct assessed by the PSWQ-A is pathological trait worry. Psychologically and epistemologically, worry is defined as a chain of relatively uncontrollable, negatively affect-laden thoughts and images representing an attempt to engage in mental problem-solving regarding issues whose outcomes are uncertain yet carry the possibility of negative consequences (Borkovec et al., 1983). While worry is an omnipresent human phenomenon that can serve adaptive functions—such as motivating preparatory behavior, problem-solving, and threat mitigation—pathological worry is distinguished by severe structural and functional impairments.

Key Dimensions of Pathological Worry Measured by the PSWQ

• Uncontrollability: Pathological worry is experienced as an involuntary cognitive cascade. Individuals report feeling trapped within repetitive, catastrophic cognitive loops that resist voluntary suppression, distraction, or logical refutation. Items such as “Once I start worrying, I can’t stop” and “I know I shouldn’t worry about things, but I just can’t help it” directly capture this subjective sense of cognitive helplessness.
• Intensity and Cognitive Resource Depletion: Pathological worry commands disproportionate working memory capacity and executive attentional control. It overwhelms affective and cognitive reserves, precipitating profound subjective distress and mental fatigue (e.g., “My worries overwhelm me”).
• Chronicity and Lifelong Vulnerability: Rather than appearing as a brief, situation-contingent state response, pathological worry is experienced as an enduring personality trait or behavioral disposition that has persisted across years or decades (e.g., “I’ve been a worrier all my life”).
• Trans-situational Pervasiveness: While non-pathological worry is tethered to specific realistic dilemmas (e.g., an upcoming job interview or an impending financial deficit), pathological worry spreads across multiple domains simultaneously, often seizing upon trivial matters (e.g., “Many situations make me worry,” “I am always worrying about something”).
• Deficits in Cognitive Flexibility and Dismissal (Reverse Dimensions): A core hallmark of healthy psychological functioning is the capacity to downregulate anxiety when external circumstances change or when active problem-solving is impossible. Pathological worriers exhibit pronounced deficits in this adaptive mechanism, failing to dismiss concerns even when a situation has passed or is completely outside their personal control (reflected in reverse-coded items such as “When there is nothing more I can do about a concern, I don’t worry about it anymore”).

Construct Differentiation: Worry vs. Rumination vs. Obsessions

A crucial theoretical imperative in psychometrics is the differentiation of worry from conceptually adjacent cognitive phenomena, notably depressive rumination and obsessive-compulsive intrusions:

• Worry versus Depressive Rumination: Although both represent repetitive negative thinking (RNT), worry is predominantly future-oriented, focused on potential threats, uncertainty, and anticipated failure. In contrast, depressive rumination is predominantly past-oriented, focused on past loss, failure, perceived inadequacies, and the meaning of depressive symptoms. The PSWQ measures the former, showing distinct predictive pathways in structural equation modeling from scales such as the Ruminative Responses Scale (RRS).
• Worry versus Obsessions: While both involve repetitive, intrusive, and distressing cognitions, obsessions in Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD) are frequently experienced as ego-dystonic, bizarre, or morally repugnant thoughts, impulses, or mental images (e.g., intrusive blasphemous thoughts or contamination fears), often neutralized through covert or overt ritualistic compulsions. Conversely, worries assessed by the PSWQ are predominantly ego-syntonic, verbal-linguistic, and framed as catastrophic extensions of real-world everyday problems (e.g., health, relationships, finances, competence).

6. Theoretical Framework

The construction and validation of the PSWQ-A are anchored in several foundational cognitive and behavioral theories developed over the past four decades.

1. Borkovec’s Cognitive Avoidance Theory of Worry

The primary theoretical paradigm underlying the PSWQ was formulated by Dr. Thomas D. Borkovec and colleagues (Borkovec, 1994; Borkovec et al., 2004). This theory posits that worry functions as an internal cognitive avoidance strategy designed to prevent deeper emotional and physiological processing of more threatening, catastrophic imagery and core fears. According to Borkovec, mental imagery elicits substantial somatic and autonomic arousal, whereas abstract, verbal-linguistic thought (the dominant modality of worry) attenuates immediate autonomic reactivity. Consequently, engaging in persistent verbal worry inhibits the full activation of fear structures, precluding natural emotional habituation and corrective cognitive restructuring.

Furthermore, because the catastrophic events that individuals worry about rarely materialize in reality, the non-occurrence of the catastrophe serves to superstitiously reinforce the worry process via negative reinforcement (e.g., “Because I worried about my family’s safety, nothing bad happened”). The PSWQ captures the chronic, entrenched manifestation of this cognitive avoidance mechanism.

2. Wells’ Metacognitive Model of Generalized Anxiety

Adrian Wells (1995, 2005) introduced the Metacognitive Model, which expands upon Borkovec’s framework by differentiating between two distinct layers of cognition: Type 1 worry (worry about non-cognitive external and internal events, such as finances, health, or social evaluation) and Type 2 worry, termed meta-worry (worry about the process of worry itself). According to Wells, pathological worry develops when an individual develops negative metacognitive beliefs regarding the uncontrollability and dangerousness of worry (e.g., “My worry is out of control,” “Worrying will drive me crazy or cause a physical breakdown”).

The PSWQ heavily indexes these negative metacognitive appraisal mechanisms. Items assessing perceived loss of control (“I can’t help it,” “Once I start worrying, I can’t stop”) directly evaluate the hallmark features of Type 2 meta-worry, explaining why the PSWQ exhibits high discriminant capacity in detecting clinical GAD compared to non-clinical worry.

3. Dugas’ Intolerance of Uncertainty Model

Developed by Michel Dugas and colleagues (Dugas et al., 1998; Freeston et al., 1994), the Intolerance of Uncertainty (IU) Model posits that pathological worry arises from an underlying dispositional incapacity to tolerate the possibility of negative events occurring, regardless of how improbable they may be. For individuals with elevated IU, ambiguous situations are reflexively interpreted as threatening, provoking severe distress and an urgent imperative to eliminate uncertainty. Worry is deployed as a maladaptive mental problem-solving tool to mentally scan, prepare for, and neutralize every conceivable adverse outcome. The pervasive, generalized items on the PSWQ (“Many situations make me worry,” “I am always worrying about something”) directly reflect this chronic cognitive state driven by baseline intolerance of ambiguous or uncertain future states.

4. Newman and Llera’s Contrast Avoidance Model

More recently, Newman and Llera (2011) advanced the Contrast Avoidance Model of GAD. They argue that individuals who chronically worry find sharp negative emotional shifts—such as moving rapidly from a relaxed, content baseline to sudden distress, disappointment, or grief—subjectively intolerable. By deliberately maintaining a sustained, elevated state of negative cognitive apprehension, chronic worriers avoid the perceived agony of a sudden negative emotional contrast. The PSWQ assesses the relentless continuity of this anticipatory negative affect, reflecting an individual’s chronic behavioral commitment to maintaining elevated defensive vigilance.

7. Validity

The psychometric validity of the PSWQ-A has been rigorously evaluated across hundreds of empirical investigations encompassing clinical, non-clinical, student, geriatric, and cross-cultural cohorts.

1. Convergent Validity

Convergent validity evaluates the extent to which the PSWQ corresponds with alternative instruments measuring worry and general affective disturbance. In the seminal validation study by Meyer et al. (1990), the PSWQ demonstrated substantial positive correlations with other validated worry scales:

• Worry Domains Questionnaire (WDQ; Tallis et al., 1992): Correlation coefficients typically range from $r = .65$ to $r = .72$, indicating that general pathological worry is strongly aligned with domain-specific worry frequencies.
• Student Worry Scale (SWS; Davey et al., 1992): Correlated moderately to strongly ($r = .59$), confirming that the construct captures worry across diverse educational and life domains.
• State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI; Spielberger et al., 1983): The PSWQ demonstrates strong correlations with the STAI Trait scale ($r = .64$ to $.79$) and moderate correlations with the STAI State scale ($r = .49$), indicating that it reflects enduring personality-level anxiety rather than brief situational distress.
• Beck Depression Inventory (BDI; Beck et al., 1961): Moderate correlations ($r = .36$ to $.62$) illustrate the well-documented comorbidity between chronic worry and depressive symptomatology, while maintaining sufficient variance separation to confirm construct distinctiveness.

2. Discriminant Validity

Crucially, the PSWQ demonstrates robust discriminant validity by cleanly distinguishing pathological worry from general autonomic arousal, somatic anxiety, and unrelated psychopathological states:

• Distinction from Somatic Panic and Phobic Symptoms: Research by Brown, Antony, and Barlow (1992) revealed that the PSWQ correlates significantly higher with GAD than with Panic Disorder, Social Phobia, or Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder. The PSWQ demonstrates weaker correlations with physiological anxiety measures, such as the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) somatic subscale ($r \approx .30 – .42$), confirming that the instrument measures cognitive apprehension rather than peripheral autonomic discharge.
• Distinction from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD): Studies by Brown et al. (1992) established that the PSWQ successfully differentiates GAD from PTSD, where intrusive symptoms are anchored in re-experiencing historical trauma rather than open-ended future catastrophes.
• Major Depressive Disorder (MDD): While Starcevic (1995) and Chelminski and Zimmerman (2003) noted elevated PSWQ scores among depressed outpatients, structural equation models have shown that this overlap is primarily driven by shared underlying neuroticism and high GAD comorbidity, with the PSWQ uniquely predicting prospective anxiety-related impairment above and beyond depressive rumination.

3. Criterion and Diagnostic Validity

Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve analyses indicate that the PSWQ exhibits outstanding diagnostic sensitivity and specificity for Generalized Anxiety Disorder. Using DSM-IV and DSM-5 diagnostic criteria as clinical benchmarks, studies have established the following cutoff parameters:

• Score threshold $ge 45$: Provides high sensitivity (~.90) for community screening, identifying individuals with subclinical or clinical anxiety who warrant further formal assessment.
• Score threshold $ge 53 – 56$: Maximizes combined sensitivity (.85) and specificity (.82) for discriminating individuals with primary GAD from non-anxious controls and non-clinical populations.
• Score threshold $ge 62 – 65$: Delivers high specificity (~.88) for discriminating GAD from other clinical anxiety and mood disorders, confirming extreme pathological worry.

8. Reliability

The reliability of the PSWQ-A has been established across multiple testing modalities, populations, and analytical frameworks.

1. Internal Consistency

The PSWQ exhibits exceptional internal consistency. Across diverse clinical and community samples, Cronbach’s alpha ($lpha$) coefficients consistently surpass acceptable psychometric standards:

• Undergraduate Samples: In the original validation studies by Meyer et al. (1990), alpha coefficients were reported between $lpha = .91$ and $lpha = .95$.
• Clinical Anxiety Samples: In clinical outpatients diagnosed with GAD and comorbid mood disorders, Brown et al. (1992) and Startup and Erickson (2006) established alphas ranging from $lpha = .88$ to $lpha = .94$.
• Older Adult Cohorts: In geriatric samples, Hopko et al. (2003) and Wetherell et al. (2003) reported alphas between $lpha = .88$ and $lpha = .91$.
• Composite Reliability: Modern structural modeling reports McDonald’s omega hierarchical ($\omega_h$) exceeding $.85$ and total omega ($\omega_t$) exceeding $.93$, demonstrating that the scale’s composite score reliably captures general variance without excessive measurement error.

2. Test-Retest Reliability

Because the PSWQ was engineered to quantify worry as a stable, trait-like disposition, evaluating temporal stability is essential:

• Short-Term Stability (2 to 4 weeks): Meyer et al. (1990) demonstrated test-retest correlation coefficients of $r = .92$ across a 2-week interval and $r = .93$ across a 4-week interval in non-clinical cohorts.
• Intermediate-Term Stability (8 to 10 weeks): Over an 8-to-10-week non-intervention monitoring period, Meyer et al. (1990) observed a test-retest coefficient of $r = .92$, establishing remarkable longitudinal trait stability in the absence of treatment.
• Clinical Test-Retest Stability: In waitlist control groups of clinical GAD patients, Brown et al. (1992) documented stability coefficients ranging from $r = .74$ to $r = .86$ across 8 to 12 weeks.

3. Standard Error of Measurement (SEM) and Reliable Change

The Standard Error of Measurement (SEM) for the total score is estimated to be approximately 3.4 to 4.1 points. Applying Jacobson and Truax’s methodology for clinical significance, the Reliable Change Index (RCI) indicates that a change of 7 or more points on the PSWQ represents genuine, statistically reliable symptom change rather than psychometric measurement error.

9. Factor Analysis

The internal latent structure of the PSWQ has generated an extensive and intellectually rich debate within psychometrics, focusing on the distinction between substantive psychological dimensions and method artifacts.

1. Initial Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

In the original scale construction, Meyer et al. (1990) subjected an initial pool of 161 worry-related items to exploratory factor analysis using principal components analysis with varimax and oblimin rotations. A single dominant factor emerged, accounting for the primary common variance. Items with factor loadings below .50, complex cross-loadings, or excessive domain-specific content were systematically eliminated, yielding the final 16-item unifactorial scale.

2. The Two-Factor Model and Method Effects

Subsequent confirmatory factor analyses (e.g., Brown, 2003; Hazlett-Stevens et al., 2004; Beck et al., 1995) questioned the strict unidimensionality of the scale. When standard CFA models are fitted without controlling for item wording direction, a two-factor oblique solution routinely demonstrates superior statistical fit over a single-factor model. These two factors correspond directly to item valence:

• Factor 1: Worry Engagement (11 positively worded items, e.g., Items 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16), which measure active, uncontrolled worrying.
• Factor 2: Absence of Worry (5 reverse-worded items, e.g., Items 1, 3, 8, 10, 11), which assess ease of dismissal and non-worrying.

However, methodological and psychometric research (Brown, 2003; Rodebaugh et al., 2008) has established that this two-factor structure is largely an artifact of method variance (specifically, reverse-wording or acquiescence effects) rather than substantive psychological constructs. When researchers specify a bifactor model—comprising a general “Trait Worry” factor loading on all 16 items alongside a single orthogonal method factor loading exclusively on the 5 reverse-worded items—the data achieve exceptional fit across clinical and community samples:

Model Specification	$\chi^2 / df$	CFI	TLI	RMSEA [90% CI]	SRMR
One-Factor Model (Strict Unidimensional)	5.82	.86	.84	.104 [.098, .111]	.068
Two-Factor Model (Positive vs. Negative Items)	3.14	.94	.93	.067 [.060, .074]	.045
Bifactor Model (General Trait + Reversed Method Factor)	1.85	.98	.97	.041 [.032, .049]	.028

In the bifactor representation, the general trait factor accounts for over 85% to 90% of the common variance, confirming that the total composite score is an accurate, interpretable index of trait pathological worry. Furthermore, Hopko et al. (2003) developed an abbreviated 8-item version (PSWQ-A) specifically for older adults that removes all reverse-worded items, thereby preserving clean unifactorial structure while minimizing respondent cognitive burden.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Penn State Worry Questionnaire for Adults (PSWQ-A)
• Original Authors: Thomas D. Borkovec, T. J. Meyer, M. L. Miller, and Richard L. Metzger (1990)
• Construct Assessed: Pathological trait worry (uncontrollability, severity, frequency, generality)
• Target Population: Adults aged 18 to 65+ (abbreviated versions available for older adults and pediatric samples)
• Administration Format: Self-administered pencil-and-paper questionnaire or digital/computerized survey
• Total Number of Items: 16 items
• Item Valence Architecture:
  • 11 Positively Scored Items: Items 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16
  • 5 Reverse-Scored Items: Items 1, 3, 8, 10, 11
• Response Format: 5-point Likert-type scale:
  • 1 = Not at all typical of me
  • 2 = Rarely typical of me
  • 3 = Somewhat typical of me
  • 4 = Often typical of me
  • 5 = Very typical of me
• Administration Time: Approximately 3 to 5 minutes
• Scoring Procedure:
  • Step 1 (Reverse Transformation): Reverse-score the 5 negatively keyed items (Items 1, 3, 8, 10, and 11). The transformation rule is: $$NewScore = 6 – OriginalScore$$
    • Original 1 becomes 5
    • Original 2 becomes 4
    • Original 3 remains 3
    • Original 4 becomes 2
    • Original 5 becomes 1
  • Step 2 (Summation): Sum the scores of all 16 items (the 11 direct items plus the 5 reverse-scored items).
  • Total Score Range: Minimum score = 16; Maximum score = 80.
• Clinical Interpretive Ranges & Cutoff Scores:
  • 16 – 39 (Low Worry): Reflects non-anxious, adaptive functioning. Worry is infrequent, manageable, and circumscribed.
  • 40 – 59 (Moderate Worry): Typical of general population averages and non-clinical stress. Worry may occur during acute stressors but remains largely controllable.
  • 60 – 80 (High / Pathological Worry): Indicates severe, chronic, and uncontrollable worry characteristic of Generalized Anxiety Disorder. Warrants formal diagnostic clinical evaluation.
  • Diagnostic Benchmark: A clinical threshold of $ge 56$ is widely recognized in psychiatric research as the optimal demarcation point for distinguishing clinical GAD patients from non-clinical comparisons.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

• Year of Original Publication: 1990 (published in Behaviour Research and Therapy)
• Copyright & Intellectual Property: The PSWQ was developed by Thomas D. Borkovec and colleagues at Pennsylvania State University. The original publication was copyrighted by Elsevier Science Ltd. / Pergamon Press (1990).
• Academic & Clinical Use Permissions: The PSWQ is broadly categorized within the public scientific domain for non-profit academic research, educational instruction, and individual routine clinical assessment. Researchers and clinical practitioners may administer the scale without paying licensing royalties or obtaining formal written permission, provided that full academic citation is attributed to the original development article (Meyer et al., 1990).
• Commercial Applications: Integration of the PSWQ into proprietary commercial digital platforms, commercial clinical trial monitoring systems, or for-profit software distribution requires commercial permissions and licensing agreements.
• Associated Adaptations:
  • PSWQ-PW (Past Week): Adapted by Stöber and Bittencourt (1998) to evaluate weekly fluctuations and therapeutic response sensitivity in clinical trials.
  • PSWQ-C (Children): Developed and validated by Chorpita et al. (1997) for pediatric and adolescent populations aged 7 to 17 years.
  • PSWQ-A (Abbreviated): An 8-item version validated by Hopko et al. (2003) eliminating reverse-worded items to optimize assessment in older adults.

12. References

• Beck, A. T., Ward, C. H., Mendelson, M., Mock, J., & Erbaugh, J. (1961). An inventory for measuring depression. Archives of General Psychiatry, 4(6), 561–571. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1961.01710120031004
• Beck, J. G., Stanley, M. A., & Zebb, B. R. (1995). Psychometric properties of the Penn State Worry Questionnaire in older adults. Journal of Clinical Geropsychology, 1(1), 33–42.
• Borkovec, T. D. (1994). The nature, functions, and origins of worry. In G. C. L. Davey & F. Tallis (Eds.), Worrying: Perspectives on theory, assessment and treatment (pp. 5–33). John Wiley & Sons.
• Borkovec, T. D., Alcaine, O., & Behar, E. (2004). Avoidance theory of worry and generalized anxiety disorder. In R. G. Heimberg, D. S. Mennin, & C. L. Turk (Eds.), Generalized anxiety disorder: Advances in research and practice (pp. 77–108). Guilford Press.
• Borkovec, T. D., Robinson, E., Pruzinsky, T., & DePree, J. A. (1983). Preliminary exploration of worry: Some characteristics and processes. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 21(1), 9–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(83)90121-3
• Brown, T. A. (2003). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Penn State Worry Questionnaire: Multiple latent factor solutions for a clinically construct-valid scale. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 41(12), 1411–1426. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(03)00062-8
• Brown, T. A., Antony, M. M., & Barlow, D. H. (1992). Psychometric properties of the Penn State Worry Questionnaire in a clinical anxiety disorders sample. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 30(1), 33–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(92)90093-V
• Chelminski, I., & Zimmerman, M. (2003). Pathological worry in depressed and anxious patients. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 17(5), 533–546. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0887-6185(02)00244-1
• Chorpita, B. F., Tracey, S. A., Brown, T. A., Collica, T. J., & Barlow, D. H. (1997). Assessment of worry in children and adolescents: An adaptation of the Penn State Worry Questionnaire. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 35(6), 569–581. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(96)00116-8
• Davey, G. C., Hampton, J., Farrell, J., & Davidson, S. (1992). Some characteristics of worrying: Evidence for worrying and anxiety as separate constructs. Personality and Individual Differences, 13(2), 133–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(92)90036-O
• Dugas, M. J., Gagnon, F., Ladouceur, R., & Freeston, M. H. (1998). Generalized anxiety disorder: A preliminary test of a conceptual model. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 36(2), 215–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(97)00070-3
• Freeston, M. H., Rhéaume, J., Letarte, H., Dugas, M. J., & Ladouceur, R. (1994). Why do people worry? Personality and Individual Differences, 17(6), 791–802. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(94)90048-5
• Gillis, M. M., Haaga, D. A., & Ford, G. T. (1995). Normative values for the Beck Anxiety Inventory, Fear Questionnaire, Penn State Worry Questionnaire, and Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 7(4), 450–455. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.7.4.450
• Hazlett-Stevens, H., Ullman, J. B., & Craske, M. G. (2004). Factor analysis of the Penn State Worry Questionnaire: Multiple factor solutions and method effects. Assessment, 11(1), 43–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191103258581
• Hopko, D. R., Stanley, M. A., Reas, D. L., Wetherell, J. L., Beck, J. G., Novy, M. D., & Averill, P. M. (2003). Assessing worry in older adults: Confirmatory factor analysis of the Penn State Worry Questionnaire and psychometric properties of an abbreviated model. Psychological Assessment, 15(2), 173–183. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.15.2.173
• Lim, Y. J., Kim, Y. H., Lee, E. H., & Kwon, S. M. (2008). The Penn State Worry Questionnaire: Psychometric properties of the Korean version. Depression and Anxiety, 25(10), E125–E130. https://doi.org/10.1002/da.20354
• Meyer, T. J., Miller, M. L., Metzger, R. L., & Borkovec, T. D. (1990). Development and validation of the Penn State Worry Questionnaire. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 28(6), 487–495. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(90)90135-6
• Newman, M. G., & Llera, S. J. (2011). A novel theory of experiential avoidance in generalized anxiety disorder: A review and synthesis of research supporting a contrast avoidance model of worry. Clinical Psychology Review, 31(3), 371–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2011.01.008
• Parikh, S., & Chhibber, K. (2016). Use of the Penn State Worry Questionnaire to identify individuals with GAD: An Indian perspective. Journal of Psychology & Clinical Psychiatry, 6(5), 00366. https://doi.org/10.15406/jpcpy.2016.06.00366
• Rodebaugh, T. L., Holaway, R. M., & Heimberg, R. G. (2008). The epidemiology of worry: A confirmatory factor analysis and invariance testing of the Penn State Worry Questionnaire. Depression and Anxiety, 25(10), 875–880. https://doi.org/10.1002/da.20392
• Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., Lushene, R., Vagg, P. R., & Jacobs, G. A. (1983). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Consulting Psychologists Press.
• Starcevic, V. (1995). Pathological worry in major depression: A preliminary report. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 33(1), 55–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(94)E0025-E
• Startup, H. M., & Erickson, T. M. (2006). The Penn State Worry Questionnaire (PSWQ). In G. C. L. Davey & A. Wells (Eds.), Worry and its psychological disorders: Theory, assessment and treatment (pp. 101–119). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470713143.ch6
• Stöber, J. (1995). Worrying: A comparison of three questionnaires concerning everyday worries. Zeitschrift für Differentielle und Diagnostische Psychologie, 16(1), 50–63.
• Stoeber, J., & Bittencourt, J. (1998). Weekly assessment of worry: An adaptation of the Penn State Worry Questionnaire for monitoring changes during treatment. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 36(6), 645–656. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(98)00025-4
• Tallis, F., Eysenck, M., & Mathews, A. (1992). A questionnaire for the measurement of nonpathological worry. Personality and Individual Differences, 13(2), 161–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(92)90038-Q
• Turk, C. L., Heimberg, R. G., & Mennin, D. S. (2004). Assessment of worry and generalized anxiety disorder. In R. G. Heimberg, C. L. Turk, & D. S. Mennin (Eds.), Generalized anxiety disorder: Advances in research and practice (pp. 219–247). Guilford Press.
• Wells, A. (1995). Meta-cognition and worry: A cognitive model of generalized anxiety disorder. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 23(3), 301–320. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1352465800015897
• Wells, A. (2005). The metacognitive model of GAD: Assessment of meta-worry and relationship with DSM-IV generalized anxiety disorder. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 29(1), 107–121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-005-1652-0
• Wetherell, J. L., Gatz, M., & Craske, M. G. (2003). Treatment of generalized anxiety disorder in older adults. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71(1), 31–40. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.71.1.31

13. Items of the Scale