Cognitive Error Questionnaire (CEQ): Psychometric Properties and Factor Structure of the German Translation

  • Patrick Pössel


A central component of Beck et al.’s (1979) cognitive theory of depression is faulty information processing reflected by so-called cognitive errors. These cognitive errors are the reason why depressed individuals systematically misinterpret the significance of events in a negative way. They are usually assessed with the application of the Cognitive Error Questionnaire (CEQ). This study examines the psychometric properties and factor structure of the German version of the CEQ in a sample of 796 volunteers at a German university. Results confirmed that the German CEQ has satisfactory to very good psychometric properties, like the American original. Confirmatory factor analyses demonstrated that a hierarchical four-factor model with four subscales and 1 s order factor fits the data best. Therefore, besides using the German CEQ in studies with German-speaking samples, the similarities in psychometric properties of the American and German CEQ allow for cross-cultural studies.


Depression Cognitive model Cognitive errors Psychometric property Factor structure 


  1. Beck, A. T., Rush, J., & Shaw, B. F. (1979). Cognitive therapy of depression. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1, 185–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hautzinger, M., & Bailer, M. (1993). Allgemeine depressions-skala. Weinheim: Beltz.Google Scholar
  5. Henriques, G., & Leitenberg, H. (2002). An experimental analysis of the role of cognitive errors in the development of depressed mood following negative social feedback. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 26, 245–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Lefebvre, M. F. (1981). Cognitive distortion and cognitive errors in depressed psychiatric and low back pain patients. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49, 517–525.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Neimeyer, R. A., & Feixas, G. (1992). Cognitive evaluation in depression: A comparison of some existing instruments. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 8, 47–56.Google Scholar
  9. Pössel, P., Seemann, S., & Hautzinger, M. (2005). Evaluation eines deutschsprachigen Instrumentes zur Erfassung positiver und negativer automatischer Gedanken [Evaluation of a German questionnaire to measure positive and negative automatic thoughts]. Zeitschrift für Klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie, 34, 27–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES–D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Scogin, F., Hamblin, D., & Beutler, L. (1986). Validity of the Cognitive Error Questionnaire with depressed and nondepressed older adults. Psychological Report, 59, 267–272.Google Scholar
  12. Steiger, J. H., & Lind, J. M. (1980, May). Statistically based tests for the number of common factors. Paper presented at the Psychometrika Society meeting, Iowa City, Iowa.Google Scholar
  13. Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). The reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ustun, T. B., Ayuso-Mateos, J. L., Chatterji, S., Mathers, C., & Murray, C. J. (2004). Global burden of depressive disorders in the year 2000. British Journal of Psychiatry, 184, 386–392.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Weems, C. F., Berman, S. L., Silverman, W. K., & Saavedra, L. M. (2001). Cognitive errors in youth with anxiety disorders: The linkages between negative cognitive errors and anxious symptoms. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 25, 559–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of TübingenTübingenGermany
  2. 2.Department of Educational and Counseling Psychology, College of Education and Human DevelopmentUniversity of LouisvilleLouisvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations