Professional Documents
Culture Documents
P2: GCV
pp528-cotr-375825
10:27
The original version of the Schema Questionnaire was developed by Young to measure
early maladaptive schemas. These maladaptive schemas are thought to be important in
the development and maintenance of psychiatric symptoms, such as anxiety and depression. Factor analytic research with this 205-item version of the Schema Questionnaire
has supported the schemas proposed by Young. The Schema QuestionnaireShort
Form (SQ-SF) was designed (J. E. Young, 1998) to measure 15 maladaptive schemas
and is a briefer (75 item) instrument. The present study examined the psychometric
properties of the SQ-SF with a sample of patients in a psychiatric day treatment program. The factor analysis supported the 15 schema subscales proposed by Young. These
15 subscales demonstrated good internal consistency. The present study also examined
the relationship between the SQ-SF subscales and psychiatric symptomatology. Results
provided support for the construct validity of the SQ-SF, suggesting the importance of
maladaptive schemas in the development and maintenance of psychiatric symptoms.
KEY WORDS: Brief Symptom Inventory; Schema Questionnaire; schema; factor analysis; questionnaire
validation; psychiatric symptoms.
The Schema Questionnaire (SQ) was developed by Young and Brown (1994)
to measure early maladaptive schemas (EMS). Schemas are underlying cognitive
structures that help to mediate and organize ones experience of the world (reality
filters) and are, therefore, salient in information processes such as selective attention. EMS are thought to reflect childhood experiences related to attachment and
approval/disapproval experiences. Schemas are, therefore, not irrational (in opposition to some models of cognitive therapy), but simply reflect this earlier learning and
make sense in that context. It has been posited that schemas are likely to be an integrative concept across differing therapeutic modalities such as cognitive, interpersonal,
1 Ottawa
519
C 2002 Plenum Publishing Corporation
0147-5916/02/0800-0519/0
P1: GDW/GCR/GIR/GMF
P2: GCV
520
pp528-cotr-375825
10:27
dynamic, and constructivist (Welburn, Dagg, Coristine, & Pontefract, 2000). Examples of these EMS are abandonment (the belief that those individuals who provide
support and connection cannot be relied upon), vulnerability to harm (unrealistic or
disproportionate fear that a catastrophe could strike at any time), and unrelenting
standards (the belief that one must perform at extremely high standards to avoid
rejection or criticism).
Theoretically, there is an association between certain schema and psychiatric
symptomatology. For example, the schemas for vulnerability to harm is more likely
to be related to feelings of anxiety rather than depression. Implications of schemas
are also noted in terms of information processing, with selective filtering of corroborating information and discounting of conflicting information (Beck, 1976; Beck,
Freeman, & Associates, 1991; McGinn & Young, 1996; Schmidt, Joiner, Young, &
Telch, 1995). The processes of scanning for proof and discounting conflicting information serve to perpetuate the schemas over time into ones adult life and relationships.
This self-perpetuating nature of EMS leaves the individual vulnerable to experiences
of depression and anxiety in situations that activate the schemas (see Segal, 1988 for
a further discussion of this issue). Therefore, the assessment of schemas has important clinical relevance. Once identified, schemas can be targeted with interventions
to correct cognitive distortions and reduce related symptomatology.
One of the difficulties in assessing schema is that they are thought to be underlying or unconscious structures whereas self-report measures are based on the respondents conscious awareness and self-perception (Muran, 1991; Muran, Samstag,
Segal, & Winston, 1998; Segal & Shaw, 1986). It can be argued, therefore, that schemas
can be best assessed when using non-self-report measures such as projective-like tests
or physiological indicators of information processing. However, even though schema
operate outside of conscious awareness, it is not unlikely that there would be some
awareness of the schema, particularly when they result in numerous negative experiences. For example, schemas for mistrust unconsciously influence and shape the
perception of ones interpersonal interactions, resulting in an automatic scanning
for evidence that others cannot be trusted and discounting of information to the
contrary. It would be unlikely that the individual would not be aware of not trusting others, particularly where the schema operates to the extent to create ongoing
negative interpersonal experiences. Furthermore, non-self-report measures are not
without their own limitations and difficulties. They may be more useful in highly
controlled research situations and they can be cumbersome and time consuming in
clinical practice. They also may require specialized training to administer thus restricting their use for many clinicians. There is clearly a need for a reliable and valid
self-report instrument that assesses maladaptive schema.
The SQ was developed based on the observations and reasoning of experienced
clinicians. This 205 item self-report inventory was originally designed to measure
16 primary maladaptive schemas (Young, 1994). The 16 subscales of the SQ have
demonstrated adequate test-retest reliability and internal consistency as well as convergent and discriminant validity. Schmidt et al. (1995) conducted a series of three
studies to assess the psychometric properties of the SQ. The results of the factor analyses with a large student sample (n = 1129) showed support for 13 of the 16 proposed
schemas. In a smaller sample of psychiatric patients (n = 187) the factor analysis
P1: GDW/GCR/GIR/GMF
P2: GCV
pp528-cotr-375825
10:27
Schema Questionnaire
521
P1: GDW/GCR/GIR/GMF
P2: GCV
522
pp528-cotr-375825
10:27
P1: GDW/GCR/GIR/GMF
P2: GCV
pp528-cotr-375825
10:27
Schema Questionnaire
523
RESULTS
Factor Analysis of the SQ-SF
An exploratory factor analysis was conducted using the principal components
method. A varimax rotation was used for interpretability of results (Stevens, 1986).
Participants missing less than 10% of the items on the SQ-SF were retained in the
analyses. Given that the pattern of missing data was random, for these participants
(n = 45) missing data were recoded to the item mean. The resulting sample size for
the factor analysis was 196, less than the suggested minimum of five individuals per
variable (Gorsuch, 1983). Although this warrants caution in the interpretation of the
results of the factor analysis, Gorsuch also suggests that a smaller sample size is less
problematic when the sample size is greater than 100 and the number of expected
variables per factor is low.
Based on the principal components methods, a 15-factor solution converged in
15 iterations, accounting for 73.1% of the variance. Using the Kaiser criterion (retention of components with eigenvalues greater than one; Stevens, 1986), all 15 factors
were retained. As recommended by Stevens (1986), the critical value for factor loadings was based on sample size. With a sample size of approximately 200, loadings
greater than .36 were considered significant. The resulting factor structure, including eigenvalues, percent of variance accounted for by each factor, internal reliability
estimates for each factor, and significant factor loadings are reported in Table I.
Sample SQ-SF items representing the two highest loading items on each factor are
detailed. Four of the 75 items cross-loaded on more than one factor. Item 50 loaded
on both Factor 6 (factor loading of .60) and Factor 2 (factor loading of .38). Based on
the factor loadings and the question content, this item fits best on Factor 6. Item 35
loaded on both Factor 11 (factor loading of .51) and Factor 2 (factor loading of .40).
Examination of question content suggests that this item fits best on Factor 11. Item 36
loads on both Factor 11 (factor loading of .47) and to Factor 15 (factor loading of .41).
We kept the item on Factor 15 given the similar loadings and theoretical congruence
with that factor. Item 46 cross-loaded to Factor 11 (factor loading of .37) and had an
insignificant loading on Factor 14 (factor loading of .30). Examination of item content suggested some overlap in content across these two factors. Based on Youngs
theoretical model, this item was left on Factor 14. Finally, Item 38 did not have a
P1: GDW/GCR/GIR/GMF
P2: GCV
pp528-cotr-375825
524
10:27
Factor
loading
P1: GDW/GCR/GIR/GMF
P2: GCV
pp528-cotr-375825
10:27
Schema Questionnaire
525
Table I. (Continued )
Factors
Factor
loading
Factor 10 unrelenting standards (eigenvalue = 1.71; % variance = 2.3, Cronbachs alpha = .84)
Q63 I must meet all my responsibilities
.80
Q62 I try to do my best; I cant settle for good enough
.76
Q65
.74
Q64
.73
Q61
.67
Factor 11 dependency (eigenvalue = 1.50; % variance = 2.0, Cronbachs alpha = .86)
Q32 I think of myself as a dependent person when it comes to everyday functioning
.67
Q31 I do not feel capable of getting by on my own in everyday life
.65
Q33
.55
Q34
.50
Q35
.51
Factor 12 defectiveness/shame (eigenvalue = 1.37; % variance = 1.8, Cronbachs alpha = .91)
Q24 I feel that Im not loveable
.72
Q25 I am too unacceptable in very basic ways to reveal myself to other people
.65
Q23
.62
Q21
.61
Q22
.60
Factor 13 entitlement (eigenvalue = 1.29; % variance = 1.7, Cronbachs alpha = .76)
Q69 I feel that I shouldnt have to follow the normal rules and conventions other
.77
people do
Q67 Im special and shouldnt have to accept many of the restrictions placed on other
.73
people
Q70
.70
Q68
.55
Q66
.39
Factor 14 subjugation of needs (eigenvalue = 1.23; % variance = 1.6, Cronbachs alpha = .88)
Q48 In relationships, I let the other person have the upper hand
.73
Q49 Ive always let others make choices for me, so I really dont know what I want for
.63
myself
Q50
.60
Q47
.52
Q46
.30 (ns)
Factor 15 vulnerability to harm (eigenvalue = 1.06; % variance = 1.4, Cronbachs alpha = .80)
Q40 I worry that Im developing a serious illness, even though nothing serious has been
.67
diagnosed by a physician
Q39 I worry that Ill lose all my money and become destitute
.65
Q37
.58
Q36
.41
Q38
.31 (ns)
significant loading on any factor. However, it fit best on Factor 15 (factor loading
of .31). In all following analyses the 15 subscales of the SQ-SF were scored using the
items as presented in Table I and consistent with original scoring of the instrument.
Internal reliability coefficients were calculated for each of the 15 subscales of
the SQ-SF. Cronbachs alpha coefficients ranged from .76 to .93, suggesting moderate
to good internal consistency for each of the 15 five-item subscales.
Relationship Between SQ-SF Subscales and the BSI
Correlational and regression analyses were conducted to explore the relationship between the subscales of the Schema Questionnaire and psychological distress
P1: GDW/GCR/GIR/GMF
P2: GCV
pp528-cotr-375825
526
10:27
Som
OC
IS
Dep
Anx
Hos
Phob
Par
Psy
Failure
Insufficient self-control
Abandonment
Mistrust/abuse
Emotional deprivation
Self-sacrifice
Enmeshment
Social alienation
Emotional inhibition
Unrelenting standards
Dependency
Defectiveness/shame
Entitlement
Subjugation of needs
Vulnerability to harm
.34
.46
.28
.34
.42
.46
.35
.28
.49
.48
.47
.36
.39
.42
.55
.34
.48
.43
.55
.38
.50
.57
.39
.45
.48
.40
.37
.30
.32
.44
.45
.69
.09
.35
.28
.23
.22
.20
.38
.23
.30
.32
.48
.07
.31
.25
.32
.23
.22
.48
.27
.21
.41
.47
.11
.25
.42
.39
.24
.16
.45
.47
.26
.49
.38
.21
.27
.21
.37
.30
.31
.41
.47
.21
.36
.44
.12
.32
.37
.31
.26
.27
.45
.40
.28
.45
.57
.07
.35
.40
.36
.20
.23
.41
.36
.38
.42
.48
.05
.32
.36
.30
.23
.24
.51
.34
.24
.44
.52
.21
.40
.30
.31
.26
.17
.34
.40
.35
.48
.58
.46
.45
.51
.49
.26
.32
.32
.44
.35
.24
.51
.52
.34
.50
.59
based on the BSI. Correlations of the 15 SQ-SF subscales and the BSI subscales are
presented in Table II. Given the large number of correlations, a more conservative
alpha level (.001) was used to determine significant correlations. Overall, most of the
subscales of the SQ-SF correlated significantly with the BSI subscales.
Three standard multiple regression analyses were conducted in order to examine the relationship between the subscales of the SQ-SF and three measures of
psychological distress (the depression, anxiety, and paranoid anxiety subscales of the
BSI). Results of the regression analysis with the anxiety subscale as the dependent
variable indicated that the SQ-SF subscales accounted for a significant proportion
of the variance (52%) in anxiety (R = .72, p < .0001). Five of the SQ-SF subscales
were significant individual predictors of anxiety, with abandonment accounting for
11.3% of the unique variance (t = 3.90, p < .01), vulnerability to harm accounting
for 10.5% of the unique variance (t = 3.74, p < .001), failure accounting for 5.2%
of the unique variance (t = 2.56, p < .05), self-sacrifice accounting for 3.5% of the
unique variance (t = 2.07, p < .05), and emotional inhibition accounting for 3.3%
of the unique variance (t = 2.03, p < .05).
The second regression analysis indicated that the SQ-SF subscales accounted
for a significant proportion of the variance (62%) in paranoia (R = .79, p < .0001).
Four of the SQ-SF subscales contributed significant unique variance to paranoia, with
mistrust/abuse accounting for 22.5% of the unique variance (t = 5.87, p < .0001),
vulnerability to harm accounting for 8.4% of the unique variance (t = 3.31, p <
.01), self-sacrifice accounting for 4.7% of the unique variance (t = 2.42, p < .05),
and insufficient self-control accounting for 3.4% of the unique variance (t = 2.04,
p < .05).
The third regression analysis indicated that the SQ-SF subscales accounted for
a significant proportion of the variance (47%) in depression (R = .69, p < .0001).
P1: GDW/GCR/GIR/GMF
P2: GCV
pp528-cotr-375825
10:27
Schema Questionnaire
527
Women
SQ-SF subscale
F(1, 194)
SD
SD
Self-sacrifice
Enmeshment
Failure
Abandonment
Defectiveness/shame
Subjugation of needs
Unrelenting standards
Mistrust/abuse
Vulnerability to harm
Emotional deprivation
Social alienation
Dependency
Entitlement
Emotional inhibition
Insufficient self-control
23.56
12.76
12.54
11.51
9.39
3.29
2.02
2.72
3.29
3.05
3.26
4.01
3.18
3.13
3.85
4.14
3.05
2.70
3.36
3.68
1.37
1.07
1.47
1.45
1.42
1.35
1.27
1.37
1.34
1.45
1.36
1.29
1.11
1.31
1.35
4.27
2.82
3.52
4.06
3.75
3.88
4.53
3.76
3.51
4.17
4.35
3.18
2.59
3.29
3.73
1.32
1.65
1.52
1.52
1.55
1.45
1.23
1.45
1.41
1.36
1.37
1.34
1.12
1.48
1.53
8.41
7.55
7.29
3.24
2.27
1.08
0.42
0.42
0.10
0.04
< .003.
Two of the SQ-SF subscales were significant individual predictors of depression. The
abandonment subscale accounted for 12.5% of the unique variance in depression
(t = 4.13, p < .001) and the insufficient self-control subscale accounted for 5.5% of
the unique variance in depression (t = 2.62, p < .01).
Scores for men and women on the Global Symptom Index (GSI; sum of items/
total number of responses) of the BSI were analyzed with a one-way ANOVA. The
sample included 45 men and 90 women. Results indicated that women (M = 2.28,
SD = 0.76) scored significantly higher on the GSI than did men (M = 1.88, SD =
0.71). The mean scores for both men and women were 1 SD above the norms for
psychiatric outpatients.
Differences between men and women on the 15 subscales of the SQ-SF were
conducted with a one-way between-subjects MANOVA. The sample for this analysis included 65 men and 131 women. Results indicated that men and women differed significantly on the combination of the 15 subscales of the SQ-SF, F(15, 180) =
3.88, p < .0001. Examination of univariate F ratios using a corrected alpha level of
.003 indicated that men and women differed significantly on five of the SQ-SF subscales (self-sacrifice, enmeshment, failure, abandonment, and defectiveness/shame),
with women scoring higher than men on all five of these subscales. Table III displays
univariate F ratios, group means, and standard deviations.
DISCUSSION
Overall, the results of the present study on the SQ-SF are consistent with previous findings (Lee et al., 1999; Schmidt et al., 1995) for the longer, 205-item Schema
Questionnaire. The factor analytic results provide strong support for the hypothesized internal structure of the questionnaire, resulting in the 15 factors. Furthermore,
alpha reliability coefficients indicate that the subscales of the SQ-SF have adequate
to very good internal consistency.
P1: GDW/GCR/GIR/GMF
P2: GCV
528
pp528-cotr-375825
10:27
This sample size is similar to that of Schmidt et al.s (Schmidt et al., 1995) psychiatric sample (although those authors had a much larger nonclinical sample), with
the present study having a slightly larger proportion of females (46% vs. 67% in the
current study). The sample in the present study also appears to have higher levels of
current psychological symptomatology and distress. For example, in the Schmidt et al.
(1995) sample, only 10% of the population had ever been hospitalised for psychiatric
reasons, whereas more than half of this sample had been admitted to hospital in the
past year alone. The present study extends the previous psychometric investigation
with a more severely ill psychiatric population.
The results from the factor analysis closely parallel the 15 subscales of the questionnaire. The high correspondence between the theoretical subscale structure and
the resulting empirical analysis provides good support for the construct validity of the
SQ-SF. In all, 70 of the 75 items loaded exactly with the theoretical structure of the
instrument, 4 had significant cross loadings with other subscales, and 1 item failed to
meet criteria for significance in loading on a factor. It is expected that there would
be at least some conceptual overlap for certain schema, such as dependency and
subjugation of needs. Those who feel highly dependent on others may well also feel
particularly at the mercy of others interpersonally and thus experience a sense of
subjugation of their own needs. Measures of internal consistency ranged from .76 to
.93, suggesting an adequate internal consistency of the 15 subscales.
In an examination of gender differences in negative schema, females were significantly higher on schemas of self-sacrifice, enmeshment, failure, abandonment,
and defectiveness. Schemas such as self-sacrifice may be culturally influenced and
manifest in gender differences where females learn to think of others needs as coming before their own. In a within subjects exploration, both men and women in
this sample gave the highest ratings on schema for unrelenting standards and social
alienation (all above 4 on a 6-point scale). Interestingly, females were lowest on entitlement schema whereas males were lowest on enmeshment. Consistent with high
self-sacrifice schema, females may also experience a lack of sense of entitlement for
having their own needs met. The relatively lower enmeshment ratings for males in
this sample may also reflect a culturally conditioning where men are expected to be
autonomous and independent. However, it remains to be seen if these results are
specific to a psychiatric population or if this pattern exists in a nonclinical population
as well.
The present study also examined the relationship of the SQ-SF subscales to
symptoms of anxiety, depression, and paranoia. The results support the construct validity of the SQ-SF and provide some insight into how cognitive schemas may relate
to specific psychological symptoms. Five of the maladaptive schemas were related
to anxiety. As hypothesized, the schema for vulnerability to harm was an important individual predictor of anxiety. However, abandonment, failure, self-sacrifice,
and emotional inhibition were also predictors of anxiety. The schemas most relevant to depression were abandonment (as predicted) and insufficient self-control.
Conceptually, items from the insufficient self-control schema overlap with symptoms of depression such as lack of energy and motivation. The link between the
abandonment schema and depression is consistent with the concept of abandonment depression in attachment theories. However, abandonment schema appear to
P1: GDW/GCR/GIR/GMF
P2: GCV
Schema Questionnaire
pp528-cotr-375825
10:27
529
be highly salient not only in predicting depression, but also for anxiety, accounting for
the most variance in both cases and highlighting the clinical significance of that particular schema. In early attachment experiences, abandonment would clearly represent
a greater sense of hopelessness than emotional deprivation arising from neglect experiences. When a caretaker is present but neglectful, there is potentially the hope
of eventually or intermittently gaining the needed approval and affection through
efforts such as trying harder to be lovable. When the caretaker abandons the child,
the situation is more hopeless as the childs best efforts go without any reinforcement
from the absent adult. Hopelessness, helplessness, and loss arising from the abandonment experience would leave the individual prone to episodes of depression, consistent with our finding of abandonment schema and depression. The early experience
of abandonment may also destroy an illusion of interpersonal security and connectedness, resulting in an ongoing experience of anxiety. Even occasionally nurturing
caretaking may allow for the internalizing of some ability to self-soothe from an anxious state. Abandonment may represent a more primal and primitive developmental
disruption, resulting in less ability to modulate or reduce the experience of anxiety.
The schema for mistrust was the best predictor of paranoia, consistent with our
hypothesis and adding to the construct validity of the subscale. Vulnerability to harm,
self-sacrifice, and insufficient self-control were also significant predictors of paranoia.
Vulnerability to harm predicted anxiety and paranoi, but not depression and thus
provides evidence for the divergent validity of that subscale. Although we had not
hypothesized the association between vulnerability to harm and paranoia, there is a
conceptual overlap relating to the sense of the world as a dangerous and threatening
place. In paranoi, the scale assesses the sense of threat specific to the interpersonal
realm.
The correspondence of the subscales of the SQ-SF with subscales of the BSI does
strengthen the assertion that the questionnaire is likely to be a valuable clinical and
research tool. This instrument could be particularly useful in assessing how different
therapeutic interventions may effect specific symptoms by targeting underlying cognitive schema. Further research is needed to examine the SQ-SFs effectiveness in
this regard.
One important consideration is the relatively small sample size for the factor
analysis. For a questionnaire with 75 items, a sample size of 375 would be recommended. Results can be more easily influenced by the idiosyncratic responding of a
few individuals when using a smaller sample size. However, the results of the factor
analysis are consistent with the theoretical factor structure in spite of limitations of
sample size. The current study does provide initial support for the factor structure
of the SQ-SF although further research with a larger sample size and using a confirmatory factor analysis will be important. In addition, a larger sample size allow for
an analysis of the factor structure of the SQ-SF for men and women separately.
A second limitation of the present study is the reliance on self-report instruments. This methodology does not answer the question of whether the SQ-SF is
truly assessing underlying cognitive schema that may be not easily accessible to the
conscious awareness required in responding to the self-report questionnaire. The SQSF remains to be validated against other, non-self-report measures of information
processing.
P1: GDW/GCR/GIR/GMF
P2: GCV
530
pp528-cotr-375825
10:27
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was supported in part by the Associates of Psychiatry, Royal Ottawa
Hospital. The authors gratefully acknowledge the invaluable assistance of Jackie
Clark, Linda Fong, Rosemarie Lidstone, Carmela OKeefe, Dayle Raine, and Enid
Robins-Holm in carrying out this study. We also acknowledge the helpful comments
of the reviewers and Dr Jane Evans.
REFERENCES
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.).
Washington, DC: Author.
Beck, A. T. (1976). Cognitive therapy and the emotional disorders. New York: International Universities
Press.
Beck, A. T., Freeman, A., & Associates. (1991). Cognitive therapy of personality disorders. New York:
Guilford Press.
Derogatis, L. R. (1993). Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI): Administration, scoring and procedures manual
(3rd ed.). Minneapolis: National Computer Systems.
Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lee, C. W., Taylor, G., & Dunn, J. (1999). Factor structure of the schema questionnaire in a large clinical
sample. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 23, 441451.
McGinn, L. K., & Young, J. E. (1996). Schema-focused therapy. In P. M. Salkauskis (Ed.), Frontiers of
cognitive therapy (pp. 182207). New York: Guilford Press.
Muran, J. C. (1991). A reformulation of the ABC model in cognitive psychotherapies: Implications for
assessment and theory. Clinical Psychology Review, 11, 399418.
Muran, J. C., Samstag, L. W., Segal, Z. V., & Winston, A. (1998). Interpersonal scenarios: An idiographic
measure of self-schemas. Psychotherapy Research, 8(3), 321333.
Riskind, J. H., Williams, N. L., Gessner, T. L., Chrosniak, L. D., & Cortina, J. M. (2000). The looming
maladaptive style: Anxiety, danger and schematic processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 837852.
Schmidt, N. B., Joiner, T. E., Young, J. E., & Telch, M. J. (1995). The Schema Questionnaire: Investigation
of psychometric properties and the hierarchical structure of a measure of maladaptive schemas.
Cognitive Therapy and Research, 19, 295321.
Segal, Z. V. (1988). Appraisal of the self-schema construct in cognitive models of depression. Psychological
Bulletin, 103(2), 147162.
Segal, Z. V., & Shaw, B. F. (1986). Cognition in depression: A reappraisal of Coyne and Gotlibs critique.
Cognitive Therapy and Research, 10, 671693.
Stevens, J. (1986). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Welburn, K., Dagg, P., Coristine, M., & Pontefract, A. (2000). Schematic change as a result of an intensive
group-therapy day-treatment program. Psychotherapy, 37(2), 189195.
Young, J. E. (1998). Young Schema Questionnaire Short Form (1st ed.). New York: Cognitive Therapy
Center.
Young, J. E., & Brown, G. (1994). Young Schema Questionnaire. In J. E. Young (Ed.), Cognitive therapy for
personality disorders: A schema-focused approach. (Rev. ed., pp. 6376). Sarasota, FL: Professional
Resource Exchange.