Cited by 47Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychological Treatments and AssessmentsPerfectionism, Procrastination, Anxiety Studies

Assessing positive beliefs about worry: validation of a structured interview

Francis, Kylie, Dugas, Michel J·2004·Personality and Individual Differences

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.paid.2003.09.012

Cites

5 of 5 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Francis, K., & Dugas, M. J.
Affiliations
  • Concordia University (CA)
  • Hôpital du Sacré-Cœur de Montréal (CA)
Corresponding author
Dugas, Michel J
Venue
Personality and Individual Differences
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2004-07
Volume
37
Issue
2
Pages
405-415
ISSN
0191-8869 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2005487515
Cited by
47
References
5
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 3
FWCI
3.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Personality and Individual Differences (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 › Clinical Psychology › Perfectionism, Procrastination, Anxiety Studies
Keywords
excessive worry, instrument validation, magical thinking, dysfunctional attitudes, anxiety, depression

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