Cited by 225Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychological Treatments and AssessmentsIdentity, Memory, and Therapy

A catastrophizing assessment of worrisome thoughts

Vasey, Michael W., Borkovec, Thomas D.·1992·Cognitive Therapy and Research

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/bf01175138

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 35 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vasey, M. W., & Borkovec, T. D.
Affiliations
  • The Ohio State University (US)
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
Venue
Cognitive Therapy and Research
Published
1992-10
Volume
16
Issue
5
Pages
505-520
ISSN
  • 0147-5916 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-2819
OpenAlex
W1965811127
Cited by
225
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 6
FWCI
4.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Cognitive Therapy and Research (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychological Treatments and Assessments
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Identity, Memory, and Therapy
Keywords
catastrophic thinking, chronic worry, what-if questions, subjective discomfort, anxiety, cognitive therapy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review