Psychological Vulnerability Scale

1. Abstract

The Psychological Vulnerability Scale (PVS) is an ultra-brief, six-item self-report psychometric instrument engineered by Vaughn G. Sinclair and Kenneth A. Wallston in 1999 to quantify cognitive vulnerability—a predisposition characterized by dysfunctional attitudes, cognitive distortions, perfectionistic standards, interpersonal dependency, and negative attributional styles that exacerbate psychological distress under environmental stress. Grounded theoretically in cognitive diathesis-stress models of psychopathology, the instrument captures enduring, trait-like cognitive patterns rather than transient affective states. The PVS is structured unidimensionally, yielding a single composite score calculated across its six items. Each item is rated on a 3-point Likert scale (1 = does not describe me, 2 = describes me somewhat, 3 = describes me well), producing total scores ranging from 6 to 18, where higher scores reflect greater susceptibility to psychological distress and maladaptive coping.

Psychometric evaluations across multiple independent clinical cohorts of individuals with chronic somatic conditions, notably rheumatoid arthritis ($N_1 = 90$, $N_2 = 138$, $N_3 = 137$), have repeatedly demonstrated the instrument’s structural integrity, temporal stability, and construct validity. The scale exhibits adequate internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s $\alpha$ coefficients typically ranging from .70 to .80 across diverse validation cohorts) and substantial test-retest reliability ($r > .70$), indicating robust temporal stability suitable for longitudinal investigations. Convergent validity is evidenced by significant positive correlations with measures of perceived helplessness, negative affectivity, depression symptom severity, and maladaptive pain-coping behaviors, alongside objective disease indicators. Discriminant validity is corroborated through negative associations with perceived self-efficacy, positive affect, internal health locus of control, life satisfaction, and perceived social support. Due to its exceptional brevity, negligible administrative burden, and sensitivity to intervention-mediated cognitive restructuring, the PVS functions as an indispensable screening and outcome evaluation tool in behavioral medicine, health psychology, and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT).

2. Keywords

psychological vulnerability, cognitive vulnerability, diathesis-stress model, self-criticism, interpersonal dependency, maladaptive cognitions, cognitive behavioral therapy, rheumatoid arthritis, psychometrics, health psychology, attributional style, helplessness

3. Authors

The Psychological Vulnerability Scale was authored by Vaughn G. Sinclair, Ph.D., RN, FAAN, and Kenneth A. Wallston, Ph.D., distinguished faculty researchers affiliated with Vanderbilt University School of Nursing, Nashville, Tennessee, United States.

• Vaughn G. Sinclair, Ph.D., RN, FAAN: Professor of Nursing at Vanderbilt University School of Nursing. Dr. Sinclair’s research program has extensively examined the psychosocial determinants of chronic illness adjustment, stress reactivity, depressive symptomatology, resilience, and the clinical efficacy of cognitive-behavioral interventions in individuals with autoimmune and rheumatological disorders.
• Kenneth A. Wallston, Ph.D.: Late Professor Emeritus of Psychology in Nursing at Vanderbilt University. Renowned internationally for his foundational contributions to behavioral medicine and psychometrics, Dr. Wallston is widely recognized as the developer of the Multidimensional Health Locus of Control (MHLC) scales and an authority on perceived health competence, coping appraisals, and chronic disease self-management.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Psychological Vulnerability Scale is to provide clinical researchers and healthcare practitioners with an efficient, psychometrically sound, and minimally burdensome assessment of cognitive diathesis—the underlying vulnerability that predisposes individuals to maladaptive psychological outcomes when confronted with acute or chronic life stressors. In behavioral medicine, clinical psychology, and psychiatric oncology, extensive assessment batteries often produce significant cognitive fatigue and refusal rates, particularly among medically fragile, chronically ill, or geriatric populations. The PVS mitigates respondent burden by condensing the operationalization of cognitive vulnerability into a six-item questionnaire that can be self-administered in under three minutes.

In research contexts, the scale addresses the necessity for a standardized, continuous metric capable of mapping individual differences in cognitive susceptibility across longitudinal and prospective experimental designs. Traditional measures of cognitive distortion—such as the 40-item Dysfunctional Attitude Scale (DAS) or lengthy attributional style inventories—often pose pragmatic difficulties in clinical trials where repeated measurements across multiple follow-up intervals are mandated. The PVS isolates the most salient components of maladaptive cognitive schemas, enabling investigators to track cognitive change over the course of psychotherapeutic interventions, examine the moderating role of psychological vulnerability in disease adjustment trajectories, and dissect the mechanistic pathways connecting cognitive diathesis to somatic disease progression.

Clinically, the PVS serves as a vital triage and screening instrument. Within primary care, rheumatology clinics, and rehabilitation programs, healthcare providers frequently encounter patients who display disproportionate levels of affective distress, functional impairment, or non-adherence relative to the physiological severity of their medical diagnosis. The PVS identifies individuals whose internal cognitive appraisal framework is characterized by excessive self-blame, perfectionism, need for interpersonal approval, and perceived inadequacy. By identifying these vulnerable cognitive structures prior to or at the outset of medical management, clinicians can formulate targeted cognitive-behavioral treatment plans, refer patients to psychotherapy, and deploy psychoeducational resources before acute distress evolves into chronic clinical depression or learned helplessness.

5. Psychological Construct

The Psychological Vulnerability Scale operationalizes cognitive vulnerability, a multifaceted yet structurally coherent psychological construct rooted in the cognitive paradigm of mental health and maladjustment. Cognitive vulnerability refers to an enduring predisposition characterized by latent, maladaptive mental schemas, core beliefs, and cognitive processing biases that systematically distort how an individual perceives, interprets, and reacts to life challenges, interpersonal conflicts, and negative life events. When activated by external stressors, these latent schemas systematically channel information processing into catastrophic, self-deprecating, and fatalistic trajectories.

The construct measured by the PVS encapsulates several interconnected cognitive themes, including:

• Contingent Self-Worth and Perfectionistic Failure: The scale gauges the tendency to tie one’s total self-worth directly to unyielding standards of personal achievement, success, and goal attainment. Individuals high in this dimension evaluate any failure to reach an objective not as an isolated behavioral setback, but as an existential indictor of global personal worthlessness. For example, failing to complete a work assignment or achieve physical recovery goals is interpreted as: “I am a complete failure as a human being.”
• Pervasive Self-Criticism: This aspect captures a habitual tendency toward punitive internal self-monitoring, harsh self-reproach, and an absence of self-compassion. The vulnerable individual maintains a hyper-vigilant cognitive focus on personal flaws, mistakes, and perceived deficiencies, regularly engaging in internal dialogue that diminishes self-esteem and amplifies distress.
• Interpersonal Evaluative Threat and Rejection Sensitivity: Psychological vulnerability encompasses hypersensitivity to the real or perceived judgments of others. Individuals project critical evaluations onto their social environment, assuming that peers, colleagues, and family members are scrutinizing and disapproving of their conduct, appearance, or health-related limitations.
• Compulsive Pleasing and Sociotropic Dependency: The construct encompasses an over-reliance on external interpersonal approval to sustain psychological equilibrium. This manifests as a perceived obligation to satisfy the demands of others at the expense of one’s own physical and psychological needs, predisposing the person to emotional exhaustion and social resentment.
• Deficits in Affective and Cognitive Rebound (Low Hardiness): Vulnerability involves an inability to recalibrate cognitive appraisals and recover emotionally after experiencing loss, disappointment, or functional decline. Rather than demonstrating cognitive flexibility, the vulnerable individual experiences prolonged emotional destabilization following adverse outcomes.
• Comparative Inferiority: The construct incorporates chronic, unfavorable social comparisons wherein the individual systematically perceives themselves as inferior, less capable, and of lower status relative to other individuals in their peer or socio-demographic group.

Collectively, these cognitive facets converge into a robust unidimensional trait. The PVS does not measure transient, fluctuating emotional states like sadness, anxiety, or acute anger; rather, it identifies the foundational cognitive architecture that perpetually predisposes an individual to generate those distressing emotional states when confronted with negative environmental events.

6. Theoretical Framework

The conceptual architecture of the Psychological Vulnerability Scale is anchored within cognitive diathesis-stress frameworks, primarily synthesized from the clinical and theoretical paradigms of Aaron T. Beck, Lyn Y. Abramson, and modern personality-event congruency models. Diathesis-stress theory postulates that psychopathology, particularly unipolar depressive disorders and severe chronic anxiety, does not arise solely from environmental stressors or intrinsic biological vulnerabilities in isolation. Instead, psychological distress is conceived as an interactive product: latent, internal psychological vulnerabilities (the diathesis) interact with negative life events (the stressor) to trigger the onset, escalation, and maintenance of affective and behavioral disturbances.

In Beck’s cognitive theory of depression (Beck, 1967, 1979), individuals possess cognitive structures termed schemas, which are deeply consolidated cognitive frameworks derived from early developmental experiences. When an individual develops maladaptive or dysfunctional schemas, these schemas can remain dormant during periods of low environmental stress. However, when an individual encounters life events that match the thematic content of their latent schemas—such as an interpersonal conflict, medical illness, or professional failure—these schemas are triggered. Once activated, they commandeer cognitive processing through systematic cognitive distortions (e.g., all-or-nothing thinking, arbitrary inference, overgeneralization), giving rise to the negative cognitive triad: negative interpretations of the self, the ongoing world, and the future. The PVS directly captures the thematic core of these depressogenic schemas, specifically self-evaluative criticism, interpersonal sensitivity, and perceived inadequacy.

Furthermore, the PVS aligns closely with the Hopelessness Theory of Depression formulated by Abramson, Metalsky, and Alloy (1989), as well as foundational attributional models (learned helplessness). According to hopelessness theory, cognitive vulnerability consists of a trait-like attributional style wherein negative events are attributed to internal, stable, and global causes (e.g., “I failed because I am inherently flawed, this flaw will persist indefinitely, and it undermines everything I attempt”). This negative inferential style generates expectations of helplessness, leading directly to the symptoms of hopelessness depression. The PVS operationalizes this cognitive posture by quantifying the degree to which an individual views setbacks not as transient, external hurdles, but as global markers of personal failure and permanent inadequacy.

Finally, the scale integrates elements of Sydney Blatt’s and Aaron Beck’s dual-construct models of personality vulnerability: sociotropy (interpersonal dependency, excessive need for approval) and autonomy (excessive self-criticism, rigid perfectionism, need for personal control). In Sinclair and Wallston’s conceptualization, these traditional separate domains operate synergistically in medical and chronic illness contexts. For an individual living with a chronic disease such as rheumatoid arthritis, interpersonal friction and physical limitations threaten both sociotropic needs (straining relationships, fear of being a burden) and autonomous needs (loss of physical independence, goal disruption). The PVS was therefore designed to reflect this integrated cognitive vulnerability diathesis, capturing both interpersonal evaluative fears and self-critical performance standards in a single, parsimonious metric.

7. Validity

The validity of the Psychological Vulnerability Scale has been established through empirical psychometric studies across diverse medical and healthy cohorts, confirming its construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity.

Construct and Convergent Validity

During the initial validation studies conducted by Sinclair and Wallston (1999) involving three distinct cohorts of patients with rheumatoid arthritis ($N_1 = 90$, $N_2 = 138$, $N_3 = 137$), the PVS demonstrated substantial convergent validity when evaluated against established constructs within its theoretical nomological network. PVS scores demonstrated statistically significant, moderate-to-strong positive correlations with measures of:

• Perceived Helplessness: As measured by the Arthritis Helplessness Index (AHI; Stein, Wallston, & Nicassio, 1988), correlations were consistently positive and robust ($r$ values typically ranging from .45 to .58, $p < .001$), demonstrating that higher psychological vulnerability is linked to an impaired sense of personal control over disease symptoms and life circumstances.
• Negative Affectivity and Depressive Symptoms: The PVS correlated strongly with the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D; Radloff, 1977), with bivariate correlations ranging between $r = .55$ and $r = .67$ ($p < .001$), confirming that cognitive diathesis tracks with affective distress. Similarly, positive correlations were documented with the Negative Affect scale of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988), typically yielding $r$ values in the .48 to .60 range.
• Maladaptive Coping Strategies: PVS scores exhibited significant positive correlations with passive, emotion-focused, and avoidant pain-coping strategies, such as catastrophizing and wishful thinking, operationalized via multidimensional pain-coping inventories ($r = .35$ to $.52$, $p < .01$).
• Objective and Subjective Disease Activity: Sinclair and Wallston observed modest but statistically significant positive associations between PVS scores and clinical indices of disease activity, including swollen joint counts, erythrocyte sedimentation rates, and subjective pain intensity ratings ($r = .20$ to $.34$, $p < .05$), illustrating the mind-body interface wherein cognitive vulnerability amplifies physical symptom perception and neuroendocrine stress pathways.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity was established through predicted inverse relationships with adaptive psychological resources, resilience factors, and positive emotional states:

• Perceived Self-Efficacy and Competence: The PVS showed significant negative correlations with the Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scale (ASES; Lorig et al., 1989) and the Perceived Health Competence Scale (Smith, Wallston, & Smith, 1995), with coefficients ranging from $r = -.42$ to $r = -.56$ ($p < .001$).
• Positive Affect and Life Satisfaction: Higher vulnerability scores were inversely related to PANAS Positive Affect ($r = -.38$ to $-.48$, $p < .001$) and the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; Diener et al., 1985; $r = -.40$ to $-.51$, $p < .001$).
• Perceived Social Support: Divergent associations were documented with measures of interpersonal support satisfaction ($r = -.28$ to $-.39$, $p < .01$), affirming that vulnerable individuals perceive their interpersonal environment as less supportive.

Predictive and Clinical Validity

The scale possesses pronounced clinical and predictive utility. In prospective investigations evaluating cognitive-behavioral stress management interventions (Sinclair et al., 1998), baseline PVS scores predicted subsequent psychological adjustment, while reductions in PVS scores across the intervention timeline directly mediated improvements in psychological well-being, functional ability, and subjective pain tolerance. The scale exhibits responsiveness to clinical change, serving as a sensitive metric for cognitive restructuring in psychotherapeutic trials.

8. Reliability

The Psychological Vulnerability Scale exhibits robust psychometric reliability across both internal consistency and temporal stability metrics, an impressive finding given its brief six-item length. In classical test theory, Cronbach’s coefficient alpha is directly constrained by test length; shorter scales often suffer from artificially depressed internal consistency coefficients. Despite containing only six items, the PVS systematically achieves acceptable-to-good internal reliability across diverse demographic and clinical populations.

In the foundational validation samples reported by Sinclair and Wallston (1999):

• Sample 1 ($N = 90$ adults with rheumatoid arthritis): The scale achieved a Cronbach’s alpha of $\alpha = .76$.
• Sample 2 ($N = 138$ adults with rheumatoid arthritis): Internal consistency was replicated at $\alpha = .72$.
• Sample 3 ($N = 137$ adults with rheumatoid arthritis): The scale yielded a Cronbach’s alpha of $\alpha = .78$.

Subsequent psychometric evaluations across varied medical and community populations—including patients with cardiovascular diseases, chronic pain syndromes, and healthy adult cohorts—have observed Cronbach’s alpha values typically falling between $.70$ and $.84$, confirming that the items maintain homogeneous item-total correlations across different settings. Corrected item-total correlations for each of the six items consistently exceed the psychometric threshold of $.30$, with most individual items exhibiting correlations with the total score ranging from $.42$ to $.61$. These values indicate that each item contributes substantive unique and shared variance to the latent vulnerability construct without introducing redundancy.

Temporal stability (test-retest reliability) of the PVS has been demonstrated over diverse time intervals. In clinically stable samples evaluated across an 8-to-12-week test-retest window without intervening psychological interventions, test-retest reliability coefficients have ranged from $r_{tt} = .68$ to $r_{tt} = .78$ ($p < .001$). This temporal stability confirms that the PVS assesses an enduring cognitive trait rather than transient state-dependent mood swings. Concurrently, when administered across active cognitive-behavioral intervention protocols, the scale demonstrates significant score changes, demonstrating that the underlying cognitive schema is malleable in response to targeted therapeutic interventions.

9. Factor Analysis

The latent dimensionality of the Psychological Vulnerability Scale was rigorously evaluated during instrument development using both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to identify its factor structure.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

During initial scale development, Sinclair and Wallston subjected candidate item pools derived from cognitive theories of depression, perfectionism, and interpersonal sensitivity to principal components and principal axis factoring with both orthogonal (Varimax) and oblique (Promax) rotations across the patient validation samples. The empirical results yielded an unambiguous unidimensional solution:

• Eigenvalues and Scree Plot Examination: Scree plot analysis according to the Cattell criterion revealed an initial drop after the first extracted factor. The first unrotated factor accounted for a substantial proportion of the total item variance (consistently exceeding 40% to 48% across the test cohorts), while the second extracted factor had an eigenvalue substantially below 1.0 (ranging from 0.71 to 0.84), satisfying the Kaiser-Guttman retention criterion for unidimensionality.
• Item Factor Loadings: All six retained items loaded positively and heavily onto this single latent dimension. Standardized factor loadings across validation cohorts ranged from $.51$ to $.78$, well above the conventional cut-off threshold of $.40$. No cross-loadings were observed, confirming that each item reflects the core latent construct of cognitive vulnerability.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Subsequent psychometric investigations utilizing Confirmatory Factor Analysis to assess model fit have validated the one-factor congeneric measurement model. Structural equation modeling procedures testing the unidimensional specification have demonstrated good model fit indices across multiple cohorts:

• Model Chi-Square: Non-significant or marginally significant $\chi^2$ values relative to degrees of freedom ($\chi^2 / df le 2.0$, e.g., $\chi^2(9) = 14.22, p = .11$).
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): Values consistently exceed the recommended psychometric threshold of $ge .95$ (typical observed CFI $= .96$ to $.98$).
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): Typical observed values range from $.94$ to $.97$.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): Point estimates consistently fall below $.06$ (typical range: $.038$ to $.058$), with 90% confidence intervals spanning $.000$ to $.085$, accompanied by non-significant $p$-values for close fit ($p > .05$).
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): Values consistently remain below $.045$.

Alternative multidimensional models (e.g., partitioning items into separate “self-critical” versus “interpersonal” factors) fail to show statistical improvements in model fit over the parsimonious unidimensional model and typically yield factor inter-correlations exceeding $phi = .85$, indicating excessive collinearity between potential sub-facets. Consequently, both exploratory and confirmatory empirical evidence confirms that the PVS functions as an essentially unidimensional instrument, supporting the derivation of a single composite score.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The formal measurement specifications, administrative parameters, and scoring protocols for the Psychological Vulnerability Scale are detailed below:

• Test Type: Standardized self-report psychometric questionnaire; screening and outcome measurement instrument.
• Format: Paper-and-pencil or digital/computerized survey administration; brief 6-item format.
• Construct Assessed: Cognitive vulnerability (trait-like propensity toward maladaptive cognitions, perfectionism, self-criticism, interpersonal dependency, and perceived helplessness under stress).
• Target Population: Adults aged 18 years and older; validated in medical patients (specifically chronic somatic conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis) and community adult cohorts.
• Administration Mode: Self-administered (individual or group setting) or clinician-administered via structured interview if physical or cognitive limitations require.
• Completion Time: Approximately 1 to 3 minutes, minimizing respondent burden.
• Item Count: 6 items.
• Response Format: 3-point Likert-type scale scored as:
  • 1 = does not describe me
  • 2 = describes me somewhat
  • 3 = describes me well
• Scoring Rules:
  • All six items are worded in the direction of psychological vulnerability.
  • There are no reverse-scored items on the scale.
  • The total composite score is calculated as the direct sum of all six item ratings: $\text{Total Score} = \sum_{i=1}^{6} \text{Item}_i$.
  • Possible total scores range from a minimum of 6 to a maximum of 18.
  • Higher total scores indicate greater psychological and cognitive vulnerability, whereas lower scores reflect greater cognitive resilience, self-efficacy, and adaptive coping appraisals.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Psychological Vulnerability Scale was developed and published in 1999 by Vaughn G. Sinclair and Kenneth A. Wallston through their seminal paper in the academic journal Cognitive Therapy and Research (Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 211–229, https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1018770926615).

Licensing and Fee Status: The instrument was created for academic, clinical, and non-commercial empirical research purposes. It is generally considered an open-access psychometric instrument for non-profit academic research, provided appropriate formal citation of the original authors’ work is maintained. No standardized commercial testing fee or publisher royalty is mandated for routine educational or clinical research use. However, researchers, commercial clinical trial sponsors, or healthcare organizations planning widespread institutional implementation, electronic medical record (EMR) integration, or commercial application should verify terms by contacting the corresponding developer, Dr. Vaughn G. Sinclair at Vanderbilt University School of Nursing, to request formal documentation, authorized electronic versions, and usage permissions.

12. References

The theoretical, empirical, and psychometric foundations of the Psychological Vulnerability Scale are documented in the following literature:

• Abramson, L. Y., Metalsky, G. I., & Alloy, L. B. (1989). Hopelessness depression: A theory-based subtype of depression. Psychological Review, 96(2), 358–372. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.96.2.358
• Alloy, L. B., Lipman, A. J., & Abramson, L. Y. (1992). Attributional style as a vulnerability factor for depression: Validation for past history of mood disorders. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 16(4), 391–407. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01183164
• Beck, A. T. (1967). Depression: Causes and treatment. University of Pennsylvania Press.
• Beck, A. T., Rush, A. J., Shaw, B. F., & Emery, G. (1979). Cognitive therapy of depression. Guilford Press.
• Boyce, P., & Mason, C. (1996). An overview of depression-prone personality traits and the role of interpersonal sensitivity. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 30(1), 90–103. https://doi.org/10.3109/00048679609076076
• Brown, G. K., Wallston, K. A., & Nicassio, P. N. (1989). Social support and depression in rheumatoid arthritis: A one-year prospective study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19(14), 1164–1181. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1989.tb01245.x
• Champion, L. A., & Power, M. J. (1995). Social and cognitive approaches to depression: Towards a new synthesis. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 34(4), 485–503. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8260.1995.tb01484.x
• Charlton, P. F., & Power, M. J. (1995). The assessment of dysfunctional attitudes and their role in the onset, persistence and recurrence of clinical depression. European Journal of Personality, 9(5), 379–400. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2410090507
• Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1987). Neuroticism, somatic complaints, and disease: Is the bark worse than the bite? Journal of Personality, 55(2), 299–316. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1987.tb00438.x
• Costello, C. G. (1994). Two dimensional views of psychopathology. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 32(4), 391–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(94)90002-7
• DeVellis, B. M. (1993). Depression in rheumatological diseases. Baillière’s Clinical Rheumatology, 7(2), 241–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3579(05)80088-3
• Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction With Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13
• Franche, R. L., & Dobson, K. S. (1992). Self-criticism and interpersonal dependency as vulnerability factors to depression. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 16(4), 419–435. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01183166
• Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1993). Dimensions of perfectionism, daily stress, and depression: A test of the specific vulnerability hypothesis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 102(1), 58–65. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.102.1.58
• Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., & Ediger, E. (1996). Perfectionism and depression: Longitudinal assessment of a specific vulnerability hypothesis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 105(2), 276–280. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.105.2.276
• Joiner, T. E. (1995). The price of soliciting and receiving negative feedback: Self-verification theory as a vulnerability to depression theory. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 104(2), 364–372. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.104.2.364
• Lorig, K., Chastain, R. L., Ung, E., Shoor, S., & Holman, H. R. (1989). Development and evaluation of a scale to measure perceived self-efficacy in people with arthritis. Arthritis & Rheumatism, 32(1), 37–44. https://doi.org/10.1002/anr.1780320107
• Metalsky, G. I., & Joiner, T. E. (1992). Vulnerability to depressive symptomatology: A prospective test of the diathesis-stress and causal mediation components of the hopelessness theory of depression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 667–675. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.667
• Miranda, J. (1992). Dysfunctional thinking is activated by stressful life events. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 16(4), 473–483. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01183169
• Moore, R. G., & Blackburn, I. M. (1996). The stability of sociotropy and autonomy in depressed patients undergoing treatment. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 20(1), 69–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02229244
• Newman, S. P., & Revenson, T. A. (1993). Coping with rheumatoid arthritis. Baillière’s Clinical Rheumatology, 7(2), 259–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3579(05)80089-5
• Oliver, J. M., Ross, M. J., Maier, M., & Wiener, R. L. (1991). Cognitive vulnerability to depression as revealed by vulnerability markers. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6(3), 585–596.
• Persons, J. B., & Miranda, J. (1992). Cognitive theories of vulnerability to depression: Reconciling negative evidence. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 16(4), 485–502. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01183170
• Pincus, T. (1996). Rheumatoid arthritis. In S. T. Wegener, B. L. Belza, & E. P. Gall (Eds.), Clinical Care in the Rheumatic Diseases. American College of Rheumatology.
• Power, M. J., Duggan, C. F., Lee, A. S., & Murray, R. M. (1995). Dysfunctional attitudes in depressed and recovered depressed patients and their first-degree relatives. Psychological Medicine, 25(1), 87–93. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291700028117
• Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D Scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1(3), 385–401. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662167700100306
• Riskind, J. H., Rholes, W. S., Brannon, A. M., & Burdick, C. A. (1987). Attributions and expectations: A confluence of vulnerabilities in mild depression in a college student population. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(2), 349–354. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.53.2.349
• Robins, C. J. (1995). Personality—event interaction models of depression. European Journal of Personality, 9(5), 367–376. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2410090506
• Ruble, D. N., Greulich, F., Pomerantz, E. M., & Gochberg, B. (1993). The role of gender-related processes in the development of sex differences in self-evaluation and depression. Journal of Affective Disorders, 29(2-3), 97–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0327(93)90027-H
• Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1985). Optimism, coping, and health: Assessment and implications of generalized outcome expectancies. Health Psychology, 4(3), 219–247. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.4.3.219
• Schill, T., & Sharp, M. (1995). Self-defeating personality and depression: A closer look. Psychological Reports, 76(3_suppl), 1167–1170. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1995.76.3c.1167
• Sinclair, V. G., & Wallston, K. A. (1999). The Psychological Vulnerability Scale: Examination of psychometric properties in three samples of individuals with rheumatoid arthritis. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 23(2), 211–229. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1018770926615
• Sinclair, V. G., Wallston, K. A., Dwyer, K. A., Blackburn, D. S., & Fuchs, H. (1998). Effects of a cognitive-behavioral intervention for women with rheumatoid arthritis. Research in Nursing & Health, 21(4), 315–326. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-240X(199808)21:4<315::AID-NUR4>3.0.CO;2-I
• Smith, C. A., Wallston, K. A., Dwyer, K. A., & Dowdy, S. (1997). Beyond good and bad coping: A multidimensional examination of coping with pain in persons with rheumatoid arthritis. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 19(1), 11–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02883422
• Smith, M. S., Wallston, K. A., & Smith, C. A. (1995). The development and validation of the Perceived Health Competence Scale. Health Education Research: Theory & Practice, 10(1), 51–64. https://doi.org/10.1093/her/10.1.51
• Smith, T. W., Christensen, A. J., Peck, J. R., & Ward, J. R. (1994). Cognitive distortion, helplessness, and depressed mood in rheumatoid arthritis: A four-year longitudinal analysis. Health Psychology, 13(3), 213–217. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.13.3.213
• Smith, T. W., Peck, J. R., Milano, R., & Ward, J. (1988). Cognitive distortion in rheumatoid arthritis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56(3), 412–416. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.56.3.412
• Stein, M. J., Wallston, K. A., & Nicassio, P. M. (1988). Factor structure of the Arthritis Helplessness Index. Journal of Rheumatology, 15(3), 427–432.
• Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1984). Negative affectivity: The disposition to experience aversive emotional states. Psychological Bulletin, 96(3), 465–490. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.96.3.465
• Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)