Cited by 95Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesResilience and Mental Health

Domain-general and domain-specific strategies for the assessment of distress intolerance.

Open access
McHugh, R. Kathryn, Otto, Michael W.·2011·Psychology of Addictive Behaviors

Abstract

Recent research has provided evidence that distress intolerance-the perceived inability to tolerate distressing states-varies based on the domain of distress (e.g., pain, anxiety). Although domain-specific assessment strategies may provide information targeted to specific disorders or maladaptive behaviors, domain-general measures have the potential to facilitate comparisons across studies, disorders, and populations. The current study evaluated the utilization of self-report measures of distress intolerance as domain-general measures by examining their association with indices of behavioral avoidance and substance craving. Two groups of participants (N = 55) were recruited including a substance-dependent group and a comparison group equated based on the presence of an affective disorder. Results provided support for the validity of domain-general measures for assessing distress intolerance across varied domains. The importance of both domain-general and domain-specific measurement of distress intolerance is discussed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0025094

Cites

27 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. First MB Spitzer RL Gibbon M Williams JBW 1996 Structured clinical interview for DSM-IV Axis I disorders: Patient edition New York New York State Psychiatric Institute

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McHugh, R. K., & Otto, M. W.
Affiliations
Boston University (US)
Venue
Psychology of Addictive Behaviors
Published
2011
Volume
25
Issue
4
Pages
745-749
ISSN
  • 0893-164X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1501
OpenAlex
W1974369239
Cited by
95
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 4
FWCI
7.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychology of Addictive Behaviors (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Clara Mayo Memorial
  • American Psychological Association
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (DA017904)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Resilience and Mental Health
Keywords
distress intolerance, self-report measures, behavioral avoidance, drug craving, substance dependence, mood disorders, measurement validity, pain tolerance
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Anxiety, Avoidance Learning, Female, Humans, Male, Pain, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychological Tests, Stress, Psychological, Reproducibility of Results, Mood Disorders, Substance-Related Disorders, Self Report

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