Cited by 829Psychological Testing and AssessmentPersonality Traits and PsychologyPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The Cook-Medley hostility scale: item content and ability to predict survival.

Abstract

Previous studies have identified the MMPI-based Cook and Medley hostility scale (Ho) as a predictor of health outcomes. To achieve a better understanding of the construct measured by this scale, Ho items were classified on an a priori basis. Six subsets were identified: Cynicism, Hostile Attributions, Hostile Affect, Aggressive Responding, Social Avoidance, and Other. Study 1 examined the correlations of these subsets with scales of the NEO Personality Inventory in two samples of undergraduates. Good convergent and discriminant validity were demonstrated, but there was some evidence that items in the Social Avoidance and Other categories reflect constructs other than hostility. Study 2 examined the ability of the Ho scale and the item subsets to predict the 1985 survival of 118 lawyers who had completed the MMPI in 1956 and 1957. As in previous studies, those with high scores had poorer survival (chi 2 = 6.37, p = 0.012). Unlike previous studies, the relation between Ho scores and survival was linear. Cynicism, Hostile Affect, and Aggressive Responding subsets were related to survival, whereas the other subsets were not. The sum of the three predictive subsets, with a chi 2 of 9.45 (p = 0.002), was a better predictor than the full Ho scale, suggesting that it may be possible to refine the scale and achieve an even more effective measure of those aspects of hostility that are deleterious to health.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00006842-198901000-00005

Cites

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 829

Metadata

Authors
Barefoot, J. C., Dodge, K. A., Peterson, B. L., Dahlstrom, W. G., & Williams, R. B.
Affiliations
Duke Medical Center (US)
Venue
Psychosomatic Medicine
Published
1989-01
Volume
51
Issue
1
Pages
46-57
ISSN
0033-3174 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1995645776
Cited by
825
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 63 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 24 · 2013: 27 · 2012: 25
FWCI
25.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychosomatic Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5k04hd000806-05)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (HL 36587, P01HL036587)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (MH 70482)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (KO4 HD00806)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
hostility, MMPI, cynicism, hostile attribution, social avoidance, survival prediction, health outcomes, personality traits, lawyers, construct validity
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Coronary Disease, Female, Hostility, Humans, Hypertension, Male, Middle Aged, MMPI, Personality Tests, Prognosis, Risk Factors, Type A Personality

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