Overview
The Adolescent Cognitive Style Questionnaire (Hankin & Abramson, 2002) was adapted from an adult measure for cognitive style (described by Metalsky & Joiner, 1992). The measure is made up of hypothetical situations, adapted to be relevant to adolescents' experiences. Respondents are asked to write possible causes for hypothetical situations and rate the likelihood of further negative consequences arising, as well as the extent to which the event would indicate they are flawed.Scoring & Interpretation
Adolescents read 12 hypothetical scenarios (e.g., “you take a test and get a bad grade”; “someone says something bad about how you look”) Each of the 12 scenarios has 5 questions, assessing different domains of cognitive style (e.g., Will this cause last (Stable–Unstable) Will this cause affect all areas of life (Global–Specific) Will this cause lead to more negative events (Consequences) Does this imply I am flawed (Self-Worth). Respondents then rate the dimension of that cause on a 1 to 7 Likert scale. A mean score is computed across all dimensions and scenarios. A rating of 1 typically represents a low-negativity, positive style, and 7 represents a highly negative, vulnerable cognitive style.Psychometric Properties
Internal Consistency
Hankin & Abramson (2002) identified internal consistency of the overall ASCQ to be excellent with Cronbach alpha = .96. The attributional styles subscale had an alpha score (α) of .91 – this subscale was also split into a generality subscale (α = .91) and internality (α = .81). For negative inferences about consequence, α = .91, and for negative inferences about self, α = .93.
Test-Retest Reliability
Test-retest reliability over 2 weeks = .73. Over two years, stability was .51 (Hankin & Abramson, 2002).
Factor Structure
The ACSQ has a three-factor structure (Hankin & Abramson, 2002): negative inferences for cause (stable and global attributions), negative inferences for consequence, and negative inferences about the self. A one-factor model was also tested, but had a poorer fit to the data.
Validity
Construct validity: Hankin & Abramson (2002) showed that overall ACSQ score and the subscale scores interacted significantly with negative events to predict general depressive symptoms and raw scores for anxiety/depression.
Divergent validity: The ACSQ was not found to be associated with externalising behaviours (Hankin & Abramson, 2002).