Performance Failure Appraisal Inventory – Short Form (PFAI-S)

1. Abstract

The Performance Failure Appraisal Inventory (PFAI) and its brief counterpart, the Performance Failure Appraisal Inventory – Short Form (PFAI-S), developed by David E. Conroy and colleagues (2001, 2002), represent gold-standard multidimensional self-report instruments designed to assess the cognitive-motivational disposition known as fear of failure (FoF). Rooted in Richard Lazarus’s cognitive-motivational-relational theory of emotion, the instruments conceptualize fear of failure not as a monolithic construct, but as the appraisal of threat associated with the perceived aversive consequences of failing to meet achievement standards. The full-length PFAI consists of 25 items measuring five distinct cognitive appraisal dimensions: (a) Fear of Experiencing Shame & Embarrassment (FSE; 7 items), (b) Fear of Devaluing One’s Self-Estimate (FDSE; 4 items), (c) Fear of Having an Uncertain Future (FUF; 4 items), (d) Fear of Important Others Losing Interest (FIOLI; 5 items), and (e) Fear of Upsetting Important Others (FUIO; 5 items). The 5-item short form (PFAI-S) samples the single highest-loading item from each of these five dimensions to calculate an efficient index of global fear of failure.

Respondents evaluate statements using a subjective probability continuum ranging from -2 (Do Not Believe At All / 0% subjective probability) to +2 (Believe 100% of the Time), or alternative Likert-style variations (1 to 5). Across collegiate student-athletes, performing artists, adolescents, and academic populations, both the 25-item multidimensional inventory and the 5-item unidimensional short form demonstrate robust psychometric properties. Confirmatory factor analyses support a hierarchical higher-order structural model and a correlated five-factor model for the full inventory, alongside an essentially unidimensional structure for the PFAI-S. Reliability estimates routinely exceed standard thresholds, with subscale Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging from .74 to .88, and test-retest reliability demonstrating acceptable stability across longitudinal intervals. Convergent and discriminant validity are established through significant associations with competitive trait anxiety, cognitive disruption, perfectionistic concerns, self-worth contingency, and avoidance achievement goals.

2. Keywords

Performance Failure Appraisal Inventory, PFAI, PFAI-S, Fear of Failure, Achievement Motivation, Cognitive Appraisal Theory, Sport Psychology, Performance Anxiety, Psychometrics, Self-Worth Contingency, Avoidance Goals

3. Authors

The primary architect and psychometrician responsible for the development, structural validation, and theoretical framework of the Performance Failure Appraisal Inventory is David E. Conroy, Ph.D., currently Professor of Kinesiology and Human Development and Family Studies at The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA. Initial validation cohorts and structural elaborations were co-developed alongside Jason P. Willow and Jeffrey N. Metzler, who were affiliated with the Department of Kinesiology at The Pennsylvania State University. Foundational qualitative and contextual research leading to the item pool was conducted with Artur Poczwardowski, Ph.D. (University of Denver) and Keith P. Henschen, Ph.D. (University of Utah).

Institutional contact for psychometric documentation and laboratory manuals: Department of Kinesiology, The Pennsylvania State University, 268 Recreation Building, University Park, PA 16802, USA.

4. Purpose

The core purpose of the Performance Failure Appraisal Inventory – Short Form (PFAI-S) and its 25-item parent inventory is to provide an empirically derived, theoretically grounded operationalization of fear of failure across diverse achievement settings, including competitive sports, academic classrooms, the performing arts, and professional environments. Historically, psychological research on fear of failure was constrained by projective techniques such as the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT; McClelland, Atkinson, Clark, & Lowell, 1953) or unidimensional trait anxiety inventories, such as the Hostility-Affection Scales or Birney, Burdick, and Teevan’s (1969) Hostile Press system. These earlier instruments often suffered from questionable psychometric reliability, ambiguous construct boundaries, and an inability to distinguish cognitive threat appraisals from subsequent behavioral defense mechanisms.

The PFAI framework addresses these clinical and empirical deficiencies by conceptualizing fear of failure through modern cognitive appraisal theory. The instrument measures an individual’s dispositional tendency to anticipate specific aversive consequences following non-attainment of performance standards. In research contexts, the scale allows behavioral scientists to untangle how distinct failure appraisals predict maladaptive motivation, such as adoption of performance-avoidance and mastery-avoidance achievement goals (Elliot & Church, 1997), academic procrastination, self-handicapping, burned-out states, and performance choking.

In clinical, educational, and performance consulting environments, the PFAI-S acts as an ultra-rapid screening battery (taking under one minute to complete) that signals whether an athlete, student, or client operates under intense generalized failure threat. When elevated scores are detected on the PFAI-S, practitioners can administer the full 25-item PFAI to pinpoint the idiosyncratic cognitive vulnerability driving the threat: interpersonal abandonment, perceived humiliation, loss of personal control, or existential confusion over long-term goals. Interventions can then be personalized using Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), rational-emotive approaches, or acceptance and commitment modalities targeting the specific cognitive appraisal involved.

5. Psychological Construct

Within the PFAI model, fear of failure is defined as a disposition to appraise threat in performance contexts based on the cognitive anticipation of shame-producing and life-disrupting consequences that follow failure. It is not merely the failure itself (i.e., making an error or missing a target) that elicits anxiety; rather, it is the subjective, internalized psychological costs ascribed to that failure. The construct comprises five distinct lower-order appraisal dimensions unified under a single higher-order generalized fear of failure construct:

Fear of Experiencing Shame & Embarrassment (FSE)

FSE assesses the extent to which an individual anticipates public humiliation, intense self-directed disparagement, and loss of dignity following unsuccessful performance. Items capture both the public visibility of failure and the internal attribution that one’s overall worth as a human being is degraded when performance standards are not met. Example core cognitions include feeling that “my value decreases” or worrying excessively about what other people might infer about one’s competence and effort.

Fear of Devaluing One’s Self-Estimate (FDSE)

FDSE reflects an internal cognitive threat wherein failure directly shatters the performer’s subjective evaluation of their intrinsic ability, competence, or natural talent. Rather than recognizing a failure as a temporary procedural deficit or task-specific error, the individual concludes that the poor outcome reveals a fundamental, irreversible lack of aptitude. Representative items assess thoughts such as “When I am failing, I blame my lack of talent” or “I am afraid that I might not have enough talent.”

Fear of Having an Uncertain Future (FUF)

FUF evaluates the cognitive projection that an acute performance setback will permanently disrupt, destabilize, or derail one’s broader educational, vocational, or developmental trajectory. The individual perceives failure as a threat to their life plans, prompting acute existential anxiety regarding what lies ahead. Statements assess beliefs such as “When I am failing, my future seems uncertain” and “it upsets my ‘plan’ for the future.”

Fear of Important Others Losing Interest (FIOLI)

FIOLI captures relational vulnerability rooted in perceived conditional regard. Performers who score high on this subscale view interpersonal connection, mentoring, peer attention, and social affection as contingent upon achievement. If they fail, they anticipate that valued social agents will withdraw emotional investments, cease helping them, or simply stop caring about them. Key items reflect the belief that “When I am not succeeding, people are less interested in me” or “people seem to want to help me less.”

Fear of Upsetting Important Others (FUIO)

FUIO targets the anticipatory guilt and anxiety linked to disappointing significant others—such as parents, coaches, mentors, or teachers—who have invested time, emotional resources, or financial capital into the individual’s performance. Distinct from the fear of interpersonal abandonment seen in FIOLI, FUIO is characterized by distress over causing sadness, anger, or frustration in valued others: “When I am failing, important others are disappointed” and “it upsets important others.”

The Short Form (PFAI-S) Composite

The PFAI-S aggregates one marker item from each of these five domains (specifically Items 7, 8, 11, 19, and 24). This composite operationalizes general fear of failure as an omnibus cognitive appraisal construct, balancing interpersonal threats (disappointment, loss of interest, public judgment) with intrapersonal hazards (loss of perceived talent, future uncertainty).

6. Theoretical Framework

The PFAI and PFAI-S are theoretically anchored within the confluence of two primary paradigms: Richard Lazarus’s Cognitive-Motivational-Relational (CMR) theory of emotion (Lazarus, 1991) and Martin Covington’s Self-Worth Theory of Achievement Motivation (1992).

Under Lazarus’s CMR theory, emotions are transactional processes elicited by cognitive appraisals rather than raw environmental stimuli. The appraisal process involves two core stages:

• Primary Appraisal: The individual assesses whether an event is personally relevant, goal-congruent, or goal-incongruent. When a situation carries high personal relevance but threatens core goals, it is appraised as a threat.
• Secondary Appraisal: The individual evaluates coping options, future expectations, and accountability. Fear of failure emerges precisely when an individual anticipates that failing an achievement event will trigger primary appraisal threats (e.g., loss of self-esteem, social ostracism) that exceed their perceived personal coping capacities.

Conroy synthesized CMR theory with Covington’s self-worth paradigm, which postulates that in competitive, performance-oriented societies, human value is frequently conflated with achievement. Individuals often equate their personal competence directly with self-worth: Performance = Ability = Worth. When ability is perceived as a fixed, unchangeable commodity, an outcome deemed a failure represents a catastrophic confirmation of personal inadequacy. To protect their fragile self-worth, high-fear-of-failure individuals experience acute anticipatory dread and frequently activate defensive, self-protective avoidance strategies.

Furthermore, the PFAI integrates with the Hierarchical Model of Achievement Motivation developed by Elliot and Church (1997). Within this framework, distal motive dispositions (such as the general fear of failure measured by the PFAI-S) serve as energizing mechanisms that directly prompt the adoption of proximal achievement goals. Specifically, individuals with high fear of failure systematically adopt performance-avoidance goals (striving to avoid looking incompetent relative to peers) and mastery-avoidance goals (striving to avoid failing to achieve personal performance standards), creating a motivational profile prone to heightened pre-performance state anxiety, impaired concentration, and burnout.

7. Validity

Extensive psychometric investigations have established the construct, criterion-related, convergent, and discriminant validity of both the PFAI and PFAI-S across various performance environments.

Construct and Structural Validity

In the seminal psychometric validation studies conducted by Conroy, Willow, and Metzler (2002) across multiple collegiate student cohorts (Sample 1: N = 414; Sample 2: N = 398), the five-factor multidimensional structure demonstrated superior fit relative to rival orthogonal or unidimensional models. Multi-group confirmatory factor analyses verified that the factor loadings and intercepts maintained structural invariance across biological sex and varying levels of athletic participation. The single-factor specification of the 5-item PFAI-S exhibited high factor loadings on the latent general fear of failure construct (standardized loadings ranging from .55 to .78), establishing it as a reliable surrogate for global failure threat.

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity is substantiated by robust correlations with related affective, motivational, and cognitive constructs:

• Trait Anxiety: The PFAI and PFAI-S display strong, positive correlations with the Sport Anxiety Scale (SAS; Smith, Smoll, & Schutz, 1990), demonstrating that fear of failure directly fuels pre-competitive somatic anxiety (r ≈ .38 to .48), worry (r ≈ .52 to .65), and concentration disruption (r ≈ .42 to .54).
• Perfectionism: PFAI subscales correlate positively with socially prescribed perfectionism (r ≈ .45 to .60) and concern over mistakes from the Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (Frost et al., 1990; Hewitt & Flett, 1991), confirming that irrational evaluative standards heighten failure threat.
• Achievement Goals: Consistent with Elliot and Church’s (1997) model, PFAI scores demonstrate strong positive associations with performance-avoidance goals (r ≈ .45 to .58) and mastery-avoidance goals (r ≈ .35 to .50), while demonstrating negligible or weakly negative associations with mastery-approach goals.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity has been demonstrated by showing that the PFAI subscales are distinct from general negative affectivity, depression, and generalized trait anxiety inventories (such as the STAI). Although moderate correlations exist between fear of failure and general neuroticism, structural equation models reveal that fear of failure accounts for substantial unique variance in performance disruption after controlling for broad neurotic personality traits. Furthermore, the correlation between PFAI-S and social desirability measures (e.g., Marlowe-Crowne) is statistically non-significant or trivial (|r| < .15), indicating that responses are not distorted by defensive self-presentation.

8. Reliability

Both the 25-item PFAI and the 5-item PFAI-S exhibit robust internal consistency and temporal stability across diverse validation samples.

Internal Consistency

In the original validation studies by Conroy (2001) and Conroy et al. (2002), Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients for the five subscales consistently met or exceeded the .70 criterion for psychometric acceptability:

• Fear of Experiencing Shame & Embarrassment (FSE): α = .80 to .88 (7 items)
• Fear of Devaluing One’s Self-Estimate (FDSE): α = .74 to .80 (4 items)
• Fear of Having an Uncertain Future (FUF): α = .80 to .83 (4 items)
• Fear of Important Others Losing Interest (FIOLI): α = .80 to .85 (5 items)
• Fear of Upsetting Important Others (FUIO): α = .78 to .81 (5 items)

For the full 25-item composite measure (General Fear of Failure), internal consistency coefficients consistently fall between α = .89 and .93. For the 5-item PFAI-S, despite its brief length and broad bandwidth across five heterogeneous dimensions, Cronbach’s alpha remains strong, typically ranging from α = .72 to .81 across adolescent, collegiate, and elite athletic samples, demonstrating high reliability for a short form.

Test-Retest Stability

Test-retest reliability examined across a two-week interval demonstrated intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) between .79 and .89 across the subscales, and .84 for the PFAI-S. Over longer multi-month academic semesters, stability coefficients remained moderate-to-high (r = .68 to .76), reflecting the expected nature of fear of failure as an enduring, trait-like cognitive appraisal disposition that can still demonstrate sensitivity to major developmental transitions.

9. Factor Analysis

The structural validity of the PFAI was developed through sequential exploratory factor analyses (EFA) and confirmed through rigorous confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) across independent collegiate and youth populations (Conroy, 2001; Conroy et al., 2002; Conroy, Willow, & Metzler, 2002).

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Initial item pools derived from qualitative phenomenological interviews with competitive athletes and performers were submitted to principal-axis factoring with oblique (promax) rotation. Iterative scree-test inspections and eigenvalue analysis clearly separated five correlated factors accounting for over 56% of the common variance, cleanly matching the five theoretically proposed consequences of failure. Items demonstrating cross-loadings above .30 or primary loadings below .40 were systematically eliminated, producing the refined 25-item set.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Subsequent testing using maximum likelihood CFA confirmed that the first-order five-factor correlated model provided an exceptional fit to empirical data:

• Model Fit Indices: Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = .94 to .97; Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI/TLI) = .93 to .96; Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) = .04 to .05; Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = .048 (90% CI: [.042, .054]).
• Hierarchical / Higher-Order Model: A second-order model—positing that a general latent Fear of Failure factor accounts for the shared variance among the five first-order factors—demonstrated fit virtually indistinguishable from the correlated model (CFI = .94, RMSEA = .050). Standardized loadings of the first-order factors onto the second-order factor were all high: FSE (γ = .92), FDSE (γ = .88), FUF (γ = .78), FIOLI (γ = .84), and FUIO (γ = .85).
• Short Form (PFAI-S) CFA: The unidimensional specification of the 5-item scale yields excellent model fit across multiple samples: χ²(5) = 11.2, p = .047, CFI = .98, TLI = .97, RMSEA = .051, SRMR = .031. Factor loadings across the five items range from λ = .55 to .78, confirming that the five items reflect a coherent underlying global appraisal continuum.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The operational administration parameters and scoring mechanics for the PFAI and PFAI-S are detailed below:

• Tool Name: Performance Failure Appraisal Inventory (PFAI) / Performance Failure Appraisal Inventory – Short Form (PFAI-S)
• Construct Assessed: Cognitive threat appraisals of the consequences of failing in achievement settings (Fear of Failure)
• Item Count:
  • Full Inventory (PFAI): 25 items
  • Short Form (PFAI-S): 5 items
• Administration Time: 5 to 7 minutes (Full Form); under 1 minute (Short Form)
• Target Population: Adolescents, collegiate athletes, university students, performing artists, and adult performers across achievement contexts
• Response Continuum:
  • Original Conroy Metric: 5-point subjective probability rating scale ranging from -2 to +2:
    • -2: Do Not Believe At All (0% of the time)
    • -1: Believe 25% of the time
    • 0: Believe 50% of the time (Half the time)
    • +1: Believe 75% of the time
    • +2: Believe 100% of the time
  • Alternative Research Metric: 5-point Likert agreement continuum (1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral/Undecided, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly Agree).
• Subscale Item Breakdown (25-Item Full Form):
  • Fear of Experiencing Shame & Embarrassment (FSE): Items 10, 15, 18, 20, 22, 24, 25 (7 items)
  • Fear of Devaluing One’s Self-Estimate (FDSE): Items 1, 4, 7, 16 (4 items)
  • Fear of Having an Uncertain Future (FUF): Items 2, 5, 8, 12 (4 items; *Note: Item 12 is reverse-scored)
  • Fear of Important Others Losing Interest (FIOLI): Items 11, 13, 17, 21, 23 (5 items)
  • Fear of Upsetting Important Others (FUIO): Items 3, 6, 9, 14, 19 (5 items)
• Short Form (PFAI-S) Item Mapping:
  • Item 1 corresponds to Long Form Item 7 (FDSE marker)
  • Item 2 corresponds to Long Form Item 8 (FUF marker)
  • Item 3 corresponds to Long Form Item 11 (FIOLI marker)
  • Item 4 corresponds to Long Form Item 19 (FUIO marker)
  • Item 5 corresponds to Long Form Item 24 (FSE marker)
• Scoring and Transformation Rules:
  • Reverse Coding: On the 25-item form, Item 12 (“When I am failing, I am not worried about it affecting my future plans”) must be reversed prior to computing the FUF score. On the -2 to +2 metric, reverse by multiplying the score by -1; on a 1 to 5 metric, compute (6 – score).
  • Subscale Scores: Calculated by averaging the items comprising each subscale (producing a mean score from -2.0 to +2.0, or 1.0 to 5.0).
  • General Fear of Failure (Full Form): Calculated as the unweighted grand mean across all 25 items (after reverse-scoring Item 12) or by summing subscale totals.
  • PFAI-S Score: Calculated as the mean (or sum) across the 5 items. Higher values reflect higher levels of generalized fear of failure.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The foundational development of the Performance Failure Appraisal Inventory was completed in 2001 through David E. Conroy’s doctoral dissertation at the University of Utah and subsequent peer-reviewed psychometric papers published in Anxiety, Stress & Coping (2001) and the Journal of Applied Sport Psychology (2002, 2003).

Licensing and Research Use: The PFAI and PFAI-S instruments are non-commercial, public-domain instruments for legitimate academic research, educational inquiry, and clinical non-profit applications. Dr. David E. Conroy has historically made the official user’s manual and scoring templates openly available via institutional university web servers. No royalty or per-administration user fees are required for scholarly or athletic research. Commercial software integration or corporate for-profit assessment use requires direct formal licensing and written permission from the primary author and respective copyright holders.

12. References

Conroy, D. E. (2000). The use of performance failure appraisals to conceptualize and assess fear of failure (Doctoral dissertation, University of Utah). ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

Conroy, D. E. (2001). Fear of failure as an exemplar for social development research in sport. Quest, 53(2), 165–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2001.10491736

Conroy, D. E. (2001). Progress in the development of a multidimensional measure of fear of failure: The Performance Failure Appraisal Inventory (PFAI). Anxiety, Stress & Coping: An International Journal, 14(4), 431–452. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615800108248365

Conroy, D. E., & Metzler, J. N. (2004). Patterns of self-talk associated with different forms of competitive anxiety. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 26(1), 69–89. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.26.1.69

Conroy, D. E., Poczwardowski, A., & Henschen, K. P. (2001). Evaluative criteria and consequences associated with failure and success among elite performers. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 13(3), 300–322. https://doi.org/10.1080/104132001753149892

Conroy, D. E., Willow, J. P., & Metzler, J. N. (2002). Multidimensional fear of failure measurement: The Performance Failure Appraisal Inventory. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14(2), 76–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200252907752

Covington, M. V. (1992). Making the grade: A self-worth perspective on motivation and school reform. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173582

Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(1), 218–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.1.218

Frost, R. O., Marten, P., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The dimensions of perfectionism. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14(5), 449–468. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01172967

Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. Oxford University Press.

Sagar, S. S., Busch, B. K., & Jowett, S. (2010). Success and failure, fear of failure, and coping responses of adolescent academy football players. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 22(2), 213–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413201003664677

Smith, R. E., Smoll, F. L., & Schutz, R. W. (1990). Measurement and correlates of sport-specific cognitive and somatic trait anxiety: The Sport Anxiety Scale. Anxiety Research, 2(4), 263–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/08917779008248733

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)