PBQ Full Documents 1

GKB/ACB 8/15/97
PBQ Belief Questionnaire
Name_______________________________________________________ Date:___________________
Please read the statements below and rate HOW MUCH YOU BELIEVE EACH ONE. Try to judge how
you feel about each statement MOST OF THE TIME.
4 3 2 1 0
|-----------------------------|-----------------------------|------------------------------|-----------------------------|
I Believe it I Believe it I Believe it I Believe it I Don’t Believe
Totally Very Much Moderately Slightly it at all
Example HOW MUCH DO YOU BELIEVE IT?

1. The world is a dangerous place. 4 3 2 1 0
(Please circle) Totally Very Moderately Slightly Not at
Much All
1. I am socially inept and socially undesirable in 4 3 2 1 0

work or social situations.
2. Other people are potentially critical, 4 3 2 1 0

indifferent, demeaning, or rejecting.
3. I cannot tolerate unpleasant feelings. 4 3 2 1 0
4. If people get close to me, they will discover 4 3 2 1 0

the “real” me and reject me.
5. Being exposed as inferior or inadequate will 4 3 2 1 0

be intolerable.
6. I should avoid unpleasant situations at all 4 3 2 1 0

cost.
4 3 2 1 0
7. If I feel or think something unpleasant, I
should try to wipe it out or distract myself (for
example, think of something else, have a
drink, take a drug, or watch television).
4 3 2 1 0
8. I should avoid situations in which I attract
attention, or be as inconspicuous as possible.
4 3 2 1 0
9. Unpleasant feelings will escalate and get out
of control.
(c) 1995 by Aaron T. Beck, M.D. and Judith S. Beck, Ph.D.

1
HOW MUCH DO YOU BELIEVE IT?
Very Not at
Totally Much Moderately Slightly All
10. If others criticize me, they must be right. 4 3 2 1 0
11. It is better not to do anything than to try 4 3 2 1 0

something that might fail.
12. If I don’t think about a problem, I don’t have 4 3 2 1 0

to do anything about it.
13. Any signs of tension in a relationship indicate 4 3 2 1 0

the relationship has gone bad; therefore, I
should cut it off.
14. If I ignore a problem, it will go away. 4 3 2 1 0
15. I am needy and weak. 4 3 2 1 0
16. I need somebody around available at all times 4 3 2 1 0

to help me to carry out what I need to do or in
case something bad happens.
17. My helper can be nurturant, supportive, and 4 3 2 1 0

confident -- if he or she wants to be.
18. I am helpless when I’m left on my own. 4 3 2 1 0
19. I am basically alone -- unless I can attach 4 3 2 1 0

myself to a stronger person.
20. The worst possible thing would be to be 4 3 2 1 0

abandoned.
21. If I am not loved, I will always be unhappy. 4 3 2 1 0
22. I must do nothing to offend my supporter or 4 3 2 1 0

helper.
23. I must be subservient in order to maintain his 4 3 2 1 0

or her good will.
24. I must maintain access to him or her at all 4 3 2 1 0

times.
25. I should cultivate as intimate a relationship as 4 3 2 1 0

possible.
2
Very Not at
26. I can’t make decisions on my own. 4 3 2 1 0
27. I can’t cope as other people can. 4 3 2 1 0
28. I need others to help me make decisions or tell 4 3 2 1 0

me what to do.
29. I am self-sufficient, but I do need others to 4 3 2 1 0

help me reach my goals.
30. The only way I can preserve my self-respect 4 3 2 1 0

is by asserting myself indirectly; for example,
by not carrying out instructions exactly.
31. I like to be attached to people but I am 4 3 2 1 0

unwilling to pay the price of being dominated.
32. Authority figures tend to be intrusive, 4 3 2 1 0

demanding, interfering, and controlling.
33. I have to resist the domination of authorities 4 3 2 1 0

but at the same time maintain their approval
and acceptance.
34. Being controlled or dominated by others is 4 3 2 1 0

intolerable.
35. I have to do things my own way. 4 3 2 1 0
36. Making deadlines, complying with demands, 4 3 2 1 0

and conforming are direct blows to my pride
and self-sufficiency.
37. If I follow the rules the way people expect, it 4 3 2 1 0

will inhibit my freedom of action.
38. It is best not to express my anger directly but 4 3 2 1 0

to show my displeasure by not conforming.
39. I know what’s best for me and other 4 3 2 1 0

people shouldn’t tell me what to do.
3
Very Not at
40. Rules are arbitrary and stifle me. 4 3 2 1 0
41. Other people are often too demanding. 4 3 2 1 0
42. If I regard people as too bossy, I have a right 4 3 2 1 0

to disregard their demands.
43. I am fully responsible for myself and others. 4 3 2 1 0
44. I have to depend on myself to see that things 4 3 2 1 0

get done.
45. Others tend to be too casual, often 4 3 2 1 0

irresponsible, self-indulgent, or incompetent.
46. It is important to do a perfect job on 4 3 2 1 0

everything.
47. I need order, systems, and rules in order to get 4 3 2 1 0

the job done properly.
48. If I don’t have systems, everything will fall 4 3 2 1 0

apart.
49. Any flaw or defect of performance may lead 4 3 2 1 0

to a catastrophe.
50. It is necessary to stick to the highest standards 4 3 2 1 0

at all times, or things will fall apart.
51. I need to be in complete control of my 4 3 2 1 0

emotions.
52. People should do things my way. 4 3 2 1 0
53. If I don’t perform at the highest level, I will 4 3 2 1 0

fail.
54. Flaws, defects, or mistakes are 4 3 2 1 0

intolerable.
55. Details are extremely important. 4 3 2 1 0
4
Very Not at
56. My way of doing things is generally the best 4 3 2 1 0

way.
57. I have to look out for myself. 4 3 2 1 0
58. Force or cunning is the best way to get things 4 3 2 1 0

done.
59. We live in a jungle and the strong person is 4 3 2 1 0

the one who survives.
60. People will get at me if I don’t get them first. 4 3 2 1 0
61. It is not important to keep promises or honor 4 3 2 1 0

debts.
62. Lying and cheating are OK as long as you 4 3 2 1 0

don’t get caught.
63. I have been unfairly treated and am entitled to 4 3 2 1 0

get my fair share by whatever means I can.
64. Other people are weak and deserve to be 4 3 2 1 0

taken.
65. If I don’t push other people, I will get pushed 4 3 2 1 0

around.
66. I should do whatever I can get away with. 4 3 2 1 0
67. What others think of me doesn’t really matter. 4 3 2 1 0
68. If I want something, I should do whatever is 4 3 2 1 0

necessary to get it.
69. I can get away with things so I don’t need to 4 3 2 1 0

worry about bad consequences.
70. If people can’t take care of themselves, that’s 4 3 2 1 0

their problem
5
Very Not at
71. I am a very special person. 4 3 2 1 0
72. Since I am so superior, I am entitled to special 4 3 2 1 0

treatment and privileges.
73. I don’t have to be bound by the rules that 4 3 2 1 0

apply to other people.
74. It is very important to get recognition, praise, 4 3 2 1 0

and admiration.
75. If others don’t respect my status, they should 4 3 2 1 0

be punished.
76. Other people should satisfy my needs. 4 3 2 1 0
77. Other people should recognize how special I 4 3 2 1 0

am.
78. It’s intolerable if I’m not accorded my due 4 3 2 1 0

respect or don’t get what I’m entitled to.
79. Other people don’t deserve the admiration or 4 3 2 1 0

riches they get.
80. People have no right to criticize me. 4 3 2 1 0
81. No one’s needs should interfere with my own. 4 3 2 1 0
82. Since I am so talented, people should go out 4 3 2 1 0

of their way to promote my career.
83. Only people as brilliant as I am understand 4 3 2 1 0

me.
84. I have every reason to expect grand things. 4 3 2 1 0
85. I am an interesting, exciting person. 4 3 2 1 0
86. In order to be happy, I need other people to 4 3 2 1 0

pay attention to me.
6
Very Not at
4 3 2 1 0
87. Unless I entertain or impress people, I am
nothing.
4 3 2 1 0
88. If I don’t keep others engaged with me,
they won’t like me.
4 3 2 1 0
89. The way to get what I want is to dazzle or
amuse people.
4 3 2 1 0
90. If people don’t respond very positively to me,
they are rotten.
4 3 2 1 0
91. It is awful if people ignore me.
4 3 2 1 0
92. I should be the center of attention.
4 3 2 1 0
93. I don’t have to bother to think things through -
- I can go by my “gut” feeling.
4 3 2 1 0
94. If I entertain people, they will not notice my
weaknesses.
4 3 2 1 0
95. I cannot tolerate boredom.
4 3 2 1 0
96. If I feel like doing something, I should go
ahead and do it.
4 3 2 1 0
97. People will pay attention only if I act in
extreme ways.
4 3 2 1 0
98. Feelings and intuition are much more
important than rational thinking and planning.
4 3 2 1 0
99. It doesn’t matter what other people think of
me.
4 3 2 1 0
100. It is important for me to be free and
independent of others.
4 3 2 1 0
101. I enjoy doing things more by myself than with
other people.
4 3 2 1 0
102. In many situations, I am better off to be left
alone.
7
Very Not at
103. I am not influenced by others in what I decide
to do. 4 3 2 1 0
104. Intimate relations with other people are not

important to me. 4 3 2 1 0
105. I set my own standards and goals for myself.

4 3 2 1 0
106. My privacy is much more important to me
than closeness to people. 4 3 2 1 0
107. What other people think doesn’t matter to me.

4 3 2 1 0
108. I can manage things on my own without
anybody’s help. 4 3 2 1 0
109. It’s better to be alone than to feel “stuck” with

other people. 4 3 2 1 0
110. I shouldn’t confide in others.

4 3 2 1 0
111. I can use other people for my own purposes as
long as I don’t get involved. 4 3 2 1 0
112. Relationships are messy and interfere with

freedom. 4 3 2 1 0
113. I cannot trust other people.

4 3 2 1 0
114. Other people have hidden motives.
4 3 2 1 0
115. Others will try to use me or manipulate me if I
don’t watch out. 4 3 2 1 0
116. I have to be on guard at all times.

4 3 2 1 0
117. It isn’t safe to confide in other people.
4 3 2 1 0
118. If people act friendly, they may be trying to
use or exploit me. 4 3 2 1 0
119. People will take advantage of me if I give

them the chance. 4 3 2 1 0
8
Very Not at
120. For the most part, other people are unfriendly. 4 3 2 1 0
121. Other people will deliberately try to demean 4 3 2 1 0

me.
122. Oftentimes people deliberately want to annoy 4 3 2 1 0

me.
123. I will be in serious trouble if I let other people 4 3 2 1 0

think they can get away with mistreating me.
124. If other people find out things about me, they 4 3 2 1 0

will use them against me.
125. People often say one thing and mean 4 3 2 1 0

something else.
126. A person whom I am close to could be 4 3 2 1 0

disloyal or unfaithful.
9
Personality Belief Questionnaire Scoring Key
Patient Name: ______________________________________ Date: ____________

Criterion Group Z-scores
Patients with Patients with

PBQ Scale Raw Score Z-score corresponding PD no PD
Avoidant Sum of items 1-14 =_____ (Raw score - 18.8)/10.9 =_____ .62 -.69
Dependent Sum of items 15-28 =_____ (Raw score – 18.0)/11.8 =_____ .83 -.49
Passive- No data -.38

Aggressive Sum of items 29-42 =_____ (Raw score – 19.3)/10.5 =_____
Obsessive- .31 -.51

Compulsive Sum of items 43-56 =_____ (Raw score – 22.7)/11.5 =_____
Antisocial Sum of items 57-70 =_____ (Raw score – 9.3)/6.8 =_____ .31 -.18
Narcissistic Sum of items 71-84 =_____ (Raw score – 10.0)/7.6 =_____ 1.10 -.38
Histrionic Sum of items 85-98 =_____ (Raw score – 14.0)/9.3 =_____ No data -.29
Schizoid Sum of items 99-112 =_____ (Raw score – 16.3)/8.6 =_____ No data -.14
Paranoid Sum of items 113-126 =_____ (Raw score – 14.6)/11.3 =_____ .51 -.55
Borderline Sum items 4, 9, 13, 15, =_____ (Raw score – 15.8)/10.5 =_____ .77 -.65
16, 18, 27, 60, 97, 113,
116, 119, 125, and 126
Note: Z-scores are based on a sample of 756 psychiatric outpatients with mixed diagnoses.
Beck, A. T., Butler, A. C., Brown, G. K., Dahslgaard, K. K., Newman, C. F., & Beck, J. S. (2001). Dysfunctional beliefs discriminate
personality disorders. Behavioral Research and Therapy, 39, 1213-1225.
Butler, A. C., Brown, G. K., Beck, A. T., & Grisham, J. R. (2002). Assessment of dysfunctional beliefs in borderline personality
disorder. Behavioral Research and Therapy, 40(1), 1231-1240.
ACButler, 6/02
Development of the Personality Belief Questionnaire (PBQ)
Andrew C. Butler, Ph.D., September, 2003
Cognitive theory of personality disorders emphasizes the importance of schemas and core
beliefs as organizational structures and global mental representations that guide information
processing and behavior (Beck, Freeman, and Associates, 1990). Being cognizant of the
prototypic cognitive profile of each personality disorder can help guide clinicians as they
conceptualize difficult cases.
Specific schema content (key dysfunctional beliefs) of each of the personality disorders
has been identified through clinical and theoretical work by Beck and associates (Beck, et al.,
1990; 2003). The Personality Belief Questionnaire (PBQ, Beck & Beck, 1991) was developed to
assist clinicians and researchers in assessing these beliefs among patients. The 126-item PBQ
includes scales for nine of the disorders listed on Axis II of the DSM. Each scale consists of 14
beliefs. The scales can be administered separately or (more typically) together. The entire PBQ
takes approximately 20 minutes to complete.
Psychometric findings on the PBQ can be found in Beck, Butler, Brown, Dahlsgaard,
Newman, and Beck (2001; see summary table below). Beck et al. (2001) examined the criterion
validity of the PBQ Avoidant, Dependent, Obsessive-Compulsive, Narcissistic, and Paranoid
scales among psychiatric outpatients with corresponding SCID-II-derived diagnoses. Findings
strongly supported the study predictions. In general, patients with one of these Axis II diagnoses
scored higher on the corresponding PBQ scale than patients with alternative Axis II diagnoses.
Also, patients scored significantly higher on the PBQ scale theoretically associated with their
Axis II diagnosis than on PBQ scales associated with other personality disorders. A subsequent
study conducted by Butler, Brown, Beck, and Grisham (2002) identified 14 PBQ beliefs that
empirically distinguish patients with borderline personality disorder from patients with other
personality disorders.
The PBQ can be used clinically in two ways: to provide a cognitive profile and to identify
specific dysfunctional beliefs that can be addressed in treatment. One benefit of a PBQ profile is
that the relative strengths of beliefs across numerous personality disorders can be seen. This is
important since personality disorder patients rarely present with a “pure” personality disorder
and co-existing features from multiple personality disorders are common (Clark, 1999). PBQ
responses can be reviewed with patients to explore several important areas: for example, how
certain beliefs are currently impacting their emotions and behavior and how these beliefs may
have been learned and maintained, even in the face of significant contradictory data. Patients
can also be guided to assess the relative advantages and disadvantages of holding these beliefs
and to develop alternative more adaptive beliefs.
References
Beck, A. T., & Beck, J. S. (1991). The Personality Belief Questionnaire. Bala Cynwyd, PA:
The Beck Institute for Cognitive Therapy and Research.
Beck, A. T., Butler, A. C., Brown, G. K., Dahslgaard, K. K., Newman, C. F., & Beck, J. S.
(2001). Dysfunctional beliefs discriminate personality disorders. Behavioral Research and
Therapy, 39, 1213-1225.
Beck, A. T., Freeman, A. and Associates (1990). Cognitive Therapy of Personality Disorders.
New York: Guilford Press.
Butler, A. C., Brown, G. K., Beck, A. T., & Grisham, J. R. (2002). Assessment of dysfunctional
beliefs in borderline personality disorder. Behavioral Research and Therapy, 40(1), 1231-
1240.
Clark, L. A. (1999). Dimensional approaches to personality disorder assessment and diagnosis.
In C. Robert Cloninger (Ed.), Personality and Psychopathology, (pp. 219-244). Washington,
DC: American Psychiatric Press.
Table 1.
Inter-correlations, Reliability Estimates, Means, and Standard Deviations for All PBQ Scales in a
Mixed Diagnosis Sample
Scale 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Avoidant .89
2. Dependent .69 .90
3. Obsessive- .52 .48 .90
Compulsive
4. Narcissistic .27 .29 .41 .84
5. Paranoid .57 .46 .53 .44 .93
6. Histrionic .53 .54 .52 .64 .50 .87
7. Passive- .52 .44 .51 .52 .55 .59 .88
Aggressive
8. Schizoid .25 .04 .38 .39 .51 .32 .46 .81
9. Antisocial .33 .32 .48 .60 .55 .56 .54 .48 .81
Mean 18.80 18.00 22.69 10.02 14.62 13.96 19.28 16.29 9.31
SD 10.92 11.82 11.48 7.60 11.33 9.26 10.47 8.55 6.81
Note. N = 756. Coefficients in bold on the diagonal are reliability estimates (Cronbach’s alpha).
With the exception of the correlation between the Dependent and Schizoid scales, all coefficients
are statistically significant at p < .05.
Assessing Dysfunctional Beliefs Related to Personality Disorders
Andrew C. Butler, Ph.D.
Cognitive theory of personality disorders emphasizes the importance of schemas and core
beliefs as organizational structures and global mental representations that guide information
processing and behavior (Beck, Freeman, Davis, & Associates, 2003). Research over the past
decade has identified specific sets of dysfunctional beliefs that are empirically associated with
the various Axis II personality disorders (Beck, Butler, Brown, Dahlsgaard, Newman, & Beck,
2001; Butler, Brown, Beck, & Grisham, 2002). Being cognizant of the prototypic cognitive
profile of each personality disorder can help guide clinicians as they conceptualize difficult
cases.
Personality disorder beliefs have been measured using the Personality Belief
Questionnaire (Beck and Beck, 1991). Beck et al. (2001) recently examined the criterion
validity of the PBQ Avoidant, Dependent, Obsessive-Compulsive, Narcissistic, and Paranoid
scales among psychiatric outpatients with corresponding SCID-II-derived diagnoses. Findings
strongly supported the study predictions. In general, patients with one of these Axis II diagnoses
scored higher on the corresponding PBQ scale than patients with alternative Axis II diagnoses.
Also, patients scored significantly higher on the PBQ scale theoretically associated with their
Axis II diagnosis than on PBQ scales associated with other personality disorders. A subsequent
study conducted by Butler et al. (2002) identified 14 PBQ beliefs that empirically distinguish
patients with borderline personality disorder from patients with other personality disorders.
The PBQ can be used clinically in two ways: to provide a cognitive profile and to identify
specific dysfunctional beliefs that can be addressed in treatment. One benefit of a PBQ profile is
that the relative strengths of beliefs across numerous personality disorders can be seen. This is
important since personality disorder patients rarely present with a “pure” personality disorder
and co-existing features from multiple personality disorders are common (Clark, 1999). PBQ
responses can be reviewed with patients to explore several important areas: for example, how
certain beliefs are currently impacting their emotions and behavior and how these beliefs may
have been learned and maintained, even in the face of significant contradictory data. Patients
can also be guided to assess the relative advantages and disadvantages of holding these beliefs
References
Beck, A. T., & Beck, J. S. (1991). The Personality Belief Questionnaire. Bala Cynwyd, PA:
The Beck Institute for Cognitive Therapy and Research.
Beck, A. T., Butler, A. C., Brown, G. K., Dahslgaard, K. K., Newman, C. F., & Beck, J. S.
(2001). Dysfunctional beliefs discriminate personality disorders. Behavioral Research and
Therapy, 39, 1213-1225.
Beck, A. T., Freeman, A., Davis, D., and Associates (2003). Cognitive Therapy of Personality
Disorders, Second Edition. New York: Guilford Press.
Butler, A. C., Brown, G. K., Beck, A. T., & Grisham, J. R. (2002). Assessment of dysfunctional
beliefs in borderline personality disorder. Behavioral Research and Therapy, 40(1), 1231-
1240.
Clark, L. A. (1999). Dimensional approaches to personality disorder assessment and diagnosis.
In C. Robert Cloninger (Ed.), Personality and Psychopathology, (pp. 219-244). Washington,
DC: American Psychiatric Press.
Response to Scoring Question:
The formula for computing Z scores for each PBQ scale is:
Z score = (patient's raw score - normative mean) / normative SD
The normative means, SD’s and Z scores for many PD diagnoses, and for outpatients
without a PD diagnosis, are listed in the scoring sheet you received from the Beck
Institute. Statistically speaking, in a mixed-diagnosis outpatient psychiatric sample, 99%
of the time a patient’s Z score will fall between -3 and +3, and the average Z score will be
0. Practically speaking, a Z score near or above the Z score listed for a diagnostic group
is likely to be diagnostically suggestive and clinically meaningful. However, please keep
in mind the following: (1) The PBQ assesses beliefs associated with various Axis II
disorders. It does not directly assess the criterion behaviors for these disorders. (2)
Assessment of criterion behaviors should be done through other assessment methods
(e.g., diagnostic interviewing). (3) There is no empirically established cut-off score on
the PBQ that indicates the presence or absence of a personality disorder diagnosis.
Andrew C. Butler, Ph.D.

Beliefs 1
Running Head: PERSONALITY DISORDER BELIEFS
Dysfunctional Beliefs Discriminate Personality Disorders
Aaron T. Beck*, Andrew C. Butler, Gregory K. Brown, Katherine K.
Dahlsgaard, Cory F. Newman and Judith S. Beck
University of Pennsylvania
*Corresponding author: University of Pennsylvania School of

Medicine, Department of Psychiatry, Room 754, The Science
Center, 3600 Market Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104.
Fax: 610-649-7092 Email: becka@Landru.cpr.upenn.edu. All other
authors may be reached at the above postal address.
Beliefs 2
Abstract
This study examines whether specific sets of dysfunctional
beliefs are differentially associated with five personality
disorders (PD's) as predicted by cognitive theory. Four hundred
ten psychiatric outpatients completed the Personality Belief
Questionnaire (PBQ) at intake and were assessed for PD's using a
standardized clinical interview conducted by assessors who were
blind to patients' PBQ responses. Findings showed that patients
with avoidant, dependent, obsessive-compulsive and narcissistic
PD's preferentially endorsed PBQ beliefs theoretically linked to
their specific disorders. Patients with a given PD scored
significantly higher on the corresponding PBQ scale than did
patients with alternative PD's (r's from 0.15 to 0.43).
Patients with narcissistic PD made surprisingly strong
endorsements of obsessive-compulsive beliefs. The study results
support the cognitive theory of personality disorders.
Suggestions are made regarding the clinical utility of the PBQ
with personality-disordered patients and future research on the
PBQ.
Keywords: Personality Disorders, Cognitive Therapy, Personality
Scales and Inventories, Personality Theory

Beliefs 3
Dysfunctional Beliefs Discriminate Personality Disorders
A prominent feature of the cognitive theory of personality
disorders is its emphasis on the role of dysfunctional beliefs.
According to cognitive theory, the essence of a personality
disorder is revealed in the dysfunctional beliefs that
characterize and perpetuate it (Beck & Freeman, 1990; Pretzer &
Beck, 1996). For example, people with avoidant personality
disorder hold key beliefs such as “I am socially inept and
undesirable” and “I cannot tolerate unpleasant feelings,” among
others. Such beliefs can parsimoniously explain a wide range of
avoidant personality disorder thoughts and behavior, such as
frequently expecting rejection and consequent unbearable psychic
distress, focusing inordinately on one's flaws and others'
potential negative evaluation, and avoiding or retreating from
social situations where others might discover one's
shortcomings.
An emphasis on key dysfunctional beliefs is one component
that distinguishes cognitive theory from other theories of
personality disorders including psychoanalytic (e.g., Kernberg,
1996), evolutionary (Millon & Davis, 1996a), interpersonal
(Benjamin, 1996), and neurobiological (e.g., Cloninger, 1987;
Depue, 1996). Consistent with their prominence in cognitive
theory, dysfunctional beliefs are a primary focus of treatment

Beliefs 4
in cognitive therapy of personality disorders (Beck, 1996;
1998). They form the central component of a cognitive case
conceptualization and are a prime target for intervention. When
correctly identified, key dysfunctional beliefs reflect one or
more conceptual themes that link a patient's developmental
history, compensatory strategies, and dysfunctional reactions to
current situations. As therapist and patient work together to
identify and modify these key beliefs, improvements may be seen
simultaneously across many areas of functioning (Beck, 1998).
Although assessment of patients' dysfunctional beliefs is
primarily accomplished through clinical interviewing techniques
(see Beck, 1995), self-report questionnaires can facilitate this
process. For instance, the Dysfunctional Attitude Scale
(Weissman & Beck, 1978) is a self-report questionnaire that has
been used to help identify the attitudes and beliefs that
underlie a patient’s depression. Many personality disorder
beliefs may be accessible via a similar self-report measure.
A number of structured or semi-structured clinical
interview protocols are available for diagnosing personality
disorders (e.g., the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM;
First, Spitzer, Gibbon & Williams, 1995: Personality Disorder
Examination; Loranger, Susman, Oldham, & Russakoff, 1987: and
Structured Interview for DSM Personality; Pfohl, Blum &
Zimmerman, 1997). However, none of these instruments

Beliefs 5
specifically assess dysfunctional beliefs. The same is true for
self-report instruments such as the Personality Diagnostic
Questionnaire – Revised (PDQ – R; Hyler, Skodol, Oldham, Kellman
& Doidge, 1992) and the Millon Multiaxial Clinical Inventory
(MMCI; Millon, Millon & Davis, 1994). Thus, there is a need for
a measure that will help clinicians and researchers assess the
dysfunctional beliefs associated with specific personality
disorders.
In a previous report, Beck, Freeman and associates (1990)
listed specific sets of dysfunctional beliefs associated
theoretically and clinically with individual personality
disorders. Beck and Beck (1991) incorporated these belief sets
into a self-report measure called the Personality Belief
Questionnaire (PBQ). The PBQ contains nine scales that can be
administered separately or together and that correspond to nine
of the personality disorders on Axis II of the DSM-III-R.1
We have now administered the PBQ routinely for the past
several years in two cognitive therapy settings. Clinical
observations suggest that the more strongly patients endorse one
of the belief sets in the PBQ, the more likely they are to meet
behavioral criteria for the corresponding disorder.
Alternatively, if patients do not endorse the beliefs proposed
to underlie a specific personality disorder, they tend not to
show the behavior patterns characteristic of that disorder. The

Beliefs 6
present study is designed to test the criterion validity of the
PBQ empirically. Evidence regarding its criterion validity has
implications for both the cognitive theory of personality
disorders and the utility of the PBQ for clinical diagnosis and
intervention.
The psychometric properties of an early version of the PBQ
were investigated by Trull, Goodwin, Schopp, Hillenbrand, and
Schuster (1993).2 These researchers tested the PBQ among
college students by examining the inter-correlations among the
scales, and the correlations between the scales and other
personality disorder measures. They found good evidence of
reliability but not surprisingly, less support for validity in
this nonclinical sample. The median inter-correlation among PBQ
scales was .40, and only modest correlations were obtained
between the PBQ and both the Personality Disorder Questionnaire-
Revised (Hyler et al., 1992) and the MMPI-PD (Morey, Waugh, &
Blashfield, 1985).
Two problems arise when interpreting the findings from
Trull et al. (1993). First, the PBQ was designed for use with
psychiatric patients and tests of its criterion validity should
evaluate how it performs with its intended population.
Secondly, Trull et al. suggested that the inter-correlations
between the scales indicated overlap among the constructs being
measured and that this detracts from the validity of the scales.
Beliefs 7
To the degree that there is overlap among the constructs
measured by the PBQ, this may accurately reflect overlap in the
nosological categories (Beck & Freeman, 1990). However, a more
likely reason for moderate inter-correlations between PBQ scales
is the common heterogeneity of personality disorder features and
the rarity of "pure" personality disorders (Millon & Davis,
1996b).
We set out to investigate the reliability and validity of
the PBQ in a sample of psychiatric outpatients. Several
important questions are addressed in this study. First, do PBQ
scales show adequate internal consistency in a patient
population? Second, do patients with a given Axis II diagnosis
score higher on the corresponding PBQ scale than patients with
no Axis II diagnosis? Third, do patients with a given Axis II
diagnosis score higher on the corresponding PBQ scale than
patients with alternative Axis II diagnoses? Finally, do
patients with a given Axis II diagnosis score higher on the
corresponding PBQ scale than on other PBQ scales? This fourth
question addresses the potential of the PBQ to provide
meaningful patient profiles of Axis II beliefs. Due to limited
sample sizes for some Axis II disorders, we focused our
investigation on five diagnoses: Avoidant, Dependent, Obsessive-
Compulsive, Narcissistic, and Paranoid personality disorders.

Beliefs 8
Method
Setting
The study was conducted using data from patients presenting
for therapy at one of two outpatient sites. Most of the
patients were seen at the Center for Cognitive Therapy, a
psychotherapy unit in the Department of Psychiatry at the
University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. A minority (24%) of the sample consisted of
patients treated at the Beck Institute for Cognitive Therapy and
Research, a private not-for-profit clinic, and training and
research institute in the Greater Philadelphia area.
Subjects
Subjects consisted of 410 adult psychiatric outpatients
evaluated between February of 1995 and June of 2000 for whom
complete PBQ data were obtained. The mean age of the sample was
34.73 years (SD = 11.46; range 18-73). There were 217 (53%)
women and 193 (47%) men. The racial composition of the sample
was 82% White, 10% African-American, 2% Hispanic, and 4% Asian.
Fifty-two percent of the subjects were single and had never been
married. Of the remaining subjects, 33% were married, 11%
divorced, 4% separated, and 1% widowed. Sixty-three percent
were employed, 17% were unemployed, and 20% were students. With
respect to education, 57% of subjects had a college degree, 40%
had graduated from high school, and 3% had not graduated from
Beliefs 9
high school. Regarding psychiatric history, 70% of subjects had
received prior psychotherapy, 50% had received pharmacotherapy,
and 18% reported having been hospitalized for a psychiatric
reason.
All patients were diagnosed according to the Structured
Clinical Interview for the DSM-III-R Personality Disorders
(SCID-II; Spitzer, Williams, Gibbon, and First, 1992), or for
those whose diagnostic evaluation occurred after January 1996,
according to the Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM-IV
Personality Disorders (First, Spitzer, Gibbon, and Williams,
1995). All assessors were postdoctoral clinicians who received
training on the SCID-II prior to conducting diagnostic
evaluations. Two hundred thirty (56%) patients were diagnosed
with an Axis I mood disorder (including single episode or
recurrent depression, bipolar disorder, dysthymia, depressive
disorder not otherwise specified, or adjustment disorder with
depressed or mixed anxiety and depressed mood) and 180 (44%)
were diagnosed with nonmood disorders. With regard to primary
Axis II diagnosis, sample sizes for individual personality
disorders were as follows: Avoidant (n = 130), Dependent (n =
38), Obsessive-Compulsive (n = 94), Narcissistic (n = 20), and
Paranoid (n = 17). Patients with an Axis I diagnosis but no
Axis II diagnosis served as controls (n = 111).

Beliefs 10
Measures
The PBQ includes an equal number of items (14) representing
Avoidant, Dependent, Obsessive-Compulsive, Histrionic, Passive-
Aggressive, Narcissistic, Paranoid, Schizoid, and Antisocial
personality disorders. The scale contains the following
instructions: “Please read the statements below and rate how
much you believe each one. Try to judge how you feel about each
statement most of the time.” Respondents are asked to circle a
number reflecting how much they believe a statement. Options
are 0 “I don’t believe it at all”, 1 “I believe it slightly”, 2
“I believe it moderately”, 3 “I believe it very much”, and 4 “I
believe it totally.” Sample items for the five PBQ scales under
investigation are as follows: Avoidant, “If people get close to
me, they will discover the real me and reject me”; Dependent, “I
am needy and weak”; Obsessive-Compulsive, “Flaws, defects, or
mistakes are intolerable”; Narcissistic, “I don’t have to be
bound by the rules that apply to other people”; and Paranoid,
“Other people will try to use me or manipulate me if I don’t
watch out.”
The SCID interview establishes personality disorder
diagnoses based on DSM criteria. While the large majority of
these criteria are behavioral, some refer to psychological
constructs such as fears or “lack of confidence”. Two relevant
criteria actually represent beliefs: "views self as socially

Beliefs 11
inept, personally unappealing, or inferior to others"
(avoidant), and "believes that he or she is 'special' and
unique…" (narcissistic). To avoid redundancy between our
dependent and independent variables we did not include PBQ items
that assessed these beliefs. Specifically, we dropped from
analyses the PBQ Avoidant item "I am socially inept and socially
undesirable in work or social situations", and the PBQ
Narcissistic items "I am a very special person" and "Other
people should recognize how special I am."3
Procedure
Subjects signed voluntary consent forms, completed the SCID
II Self-Report Questionnaire (First et al., 1995), and were
administered the SCID-II Interview (First et al., 1995) by
doctoral level diagnosticians. The SCID II Self Report
Questionnaire and the PBQ were included in the standard battery
of psychiatric tests and rating scales given to all individuals
seeking treatment at both treatment settings during the intake
procedure. Evaluators were blind to PBQ scores at the time they
made their diagnoses.
Results
Inter-correlations and Reliability of PBQ Scales
Table 1 shows the inter-correlations, reliability
estimates, means and standard deviations for each of the PBQ
scales among all patients. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were

Beliefs 12
computed for each scale and are displayed on the diagonal.
These coefficients indicate that each PBQ scale has at least
adequate reliability and the five PBQ scales under current
investigation show reliabilities generally near .90. The inter-
correlations between scales ranged from .04 for Schizoid and
Dependent scales to .65 for Avoidant and Dependent scales; the
median inter-correlation was .51.
A subset of 15 patients was administered the PBQ eight
weeks after the initial administration. Pearson test-retest
correlations for the individual PBQ scales on this sample are as
follows: Avoidant r = .57, Dependent r = .63, Obsessive-
Compulsive r = .74, Narcissistic r = .81, Paranoid r = .71,
Histrionic r = .60, Passive-Aggressive r = .80, Schizoid r =
.78, and Antisocial r = .93 (all p's < .05).
Discriminant Validity
A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted
on the five relevant PBQ scales by primary Axis II diagnosis
(six levels). The results indicated a significant overall
effect, Wilkes F(25, 1480.01) = 12.81, p < .0001. We next
conducted univariate ANOVAs and relevant t-tests for a priori
predictions. Due to the unidirectional predictions being
tested, t-tests were one-tailed with alpha set at .05.4 To
facilitate interpretation of the findings we display group Z-
scores on each of the relevant PBQ scales in Figure 1. These Z-

Beliefs 13
scores were calculated on a mixed diagnosis sample of all
patients who have completed the PBQ at our sites in the past 5
years (N = 756). Raw scores were used in hypothesis testing.
Within-group analyses. We predicted that patients with a
specific personality disorder would score higher on their
corresponding PBQ scale than on other PBQ scales associated with
other personality disorders. For example, Avoidant patients
should score higher on the PBQ Avoidant scale than on other PBQ
scales. To test this prediction, we first selected all avoidant
personality disorder patients who did not also have any of the
alternative personality disorder diagnoses. The five relevant
scale means for Avoidant patients are displayed in the first row
of Table 2. An ANOVA comparing these means was highly
significant, F(105, 424) = 73.36, p < .0001.
A priori contrasts were next conducted for avoidant
personality disorder patients. Each specific contrast included
all avoidant personality disorder patients who did not also have
the Axis II diagnosis that corresponded with the other PBQ scale
being tested.5 Results showed that, as predicted, avoidant
patients scored significantly higher on the Avoidant scale than
they did on the Dependent scale, t(139) = 7.00, p < .0001, the
Obsessive-Compulsive scale, t(125) = 2.34, p < .05, Narcissistic
scale, t(151) = 19.30, p < .0001, and the Paranoid scale, t(149)
= 10.76, p < .0001.

Beliefs 14
Patients with dependent personality disorder also showed
significant and predicted differences on their PBQ scores,
F(39,160) = 33.15, p < .0001. Specifically, their score on the
Dependent scale was significantly higher than their score on the
Avoidant scale, t(45) = 2.65, p < .05, the Obsessive-Compulsive
scale, t(56) = 2.84, p = .01, the Narcissistic scale, t(57) =
10.77, p < .0001, and the Paranoid scale, t(58) = 8.44, p <
.0001.
An ANOVA testing mean differences for obsessive-compulsive
patients was also highly significant, F(88,356) = 62.25, p <
.0001 and each of the a priori predictions was supported. These
patients scored higher on the Obsessive-Compulsive scale than
they did on the Avoidant scale, t(95) = 9.62, p < .0001, the
Dependent scale, t(120) = 9.90, p < .0001, the Narcissistic
scale, t(120) = 17.43, p < .0001, and the Paranoid scale, t(122)
= 11.93, p < .0001.
Although narcissistic patients showed significant mean
differences across the five PBQ scales, F(16,68) = 2.97, p <
.05, not all the differences were in the predicted direction.
As expected, they scored higher on the Narcissistic scale than
they did on the Avoidant scale, t(23) = 1.82, p < .05 and
Dependent scale, t(24) = 2.30 p < .05. However, their score on
the Narcissistic scale did not differ significantly from their
score on the Paranoid scale. Moreover, narcissistic patients

Beliefs 15
unexpectedly scored higher on the Obsessive-Compulsive scale
than they did on the Narcissistic scale, t(22) = -1.93, p < .05.
Paranoid patients showed some differences across scales,
F(17,72) = 6.76, p < .0001. These patients scored higher on the
Paranoid scale than the Dependent scale t(25) = 2.28, p < .05
and the Narcissistic scale t(23) = 5.82, p < .0001. They did
not show significant differences between their Paranoid scale
scores and their scores on the Avoidant or Obsessive-Compulsive
scales.
Between-group analyses. Our second set of comparisons
tested the hypothesis that patients with a specific personality
disorder will score higher on the corresponding PBQ scale than
patients with alternative personality disorders or no
personality disorder. A oneway ANOVA was conducted on each PBQ
scale testing for overall group differences. In these analyses,
primary Axis II diagnosis was used to define group membership.
This is a conservative test since 96 (32%) of those patients
with a primary Axis II diagnosis also had a secondary Axis II
diagnosis. Each of the univariate F tests was significant
(Avoidant F(5,404) = 32.26, p < .0001; Dependent F(5,404) =
15.02, p < .0001; Obsessive-Compulsive F(5,404) = 8.81, p <
.0001; Narcissistic F(5,404) = 9.28, p < .0001; and Paranoid
F(5,404) = 8.59, p < .0001).
In each between-group test, patients who had both of the

Beliefs 16
relevant personality disorders were excluded from analysis. For
example, 14 patients had both avoidant and dependent personality
disorders and were excluded from the corresponding between-group
tests.
Results for avoidant personality disorder beliefs were as
predicted across all scales. Avoidant patients scored higher on
the Avoidant scale than did patients with dependent t(54.66) =
1.83, p < .05, obsessive-compulsive, t(198.34) = 9.52, p <
.0001, narcissistic, t(24.62) = 3.90, p = .001, paranoid,
t(19.10) = 3.46, p < .005, and no personality disorder, t(239) =
12.41, p < .0001. Patients with dependent personality disorder
scored significantly higher on the Dependent scale than patients
with avoidant, t(56.90) = 4.04, p < .0001, obsessive-compulsive,
t(58.17) = 5.56, p < .0001, narcissistic, t(44.75) = 4.44, p <
.0001, paranoid, t(30.71) = 4.25, p < .0001, and no personality
disorder, t(54.31) = 7.17, p < .0001.
Between-group findings for obsessive-compulsive beliefs
were largely supportive. Patients with obsessive-compulsive
personality disorder scored significantly higher on the
Obsessive-Compulsive scale than patients with avoidant, t(204) =
1.96, p < .05, dependent, t(75.01) = 2.37, p < .05, paranoid,
t(20.08) = 1.89, p < .05, and no personality disorder, t(203) =
6.47, p < .0001. Patients with obsessive-compulsive personality
disorder did not score significantly higher than narcissistic

Beliefs 17
personality disorder patients on the Obsessive-compulsive scale.
Between-group predictions for narcissistic personality
disorder beliefs were uniformly supported. Narcissistic
personality disorder patients scored significantly higher on the
Narcissistic scale than patients with avoidant, t(22.75) = 4.28,
p < .0001, dependent, t(21.47) = 5.27, p = .0001, obsessive-
compulsive, t(24.16) = 3.80, p = .001, paranoid, t(33) = 3.19, p
< .005, and no personality disorders, t(21.47) = 5.27, p <
.0001.
Paranoid personality disorder beliefs discriminated between
groups as predicted in three of five comparisons. Patients with
paranoid personality disorder scored significantly higher on the
Paranoid scale than patients with dependent, t(22.88) = 1.79, p
< .05, obsessive-compulsive, t(18.76) = 1.90, p < .05, and no
personality disorder, t(17.87) = 3.27, p < .005. Their scores
did not differ significantly from patients with avoidant or
narcissistic personality disorders.
We conducted a final set of analyses to examine how well
each of the five PBQ scales discriminated its criterion group
from the collection of remaining personality disorder patients.
We coded a dichotomous diagnosis variable in which '1'
represented the criterion personality disorder and '0'
represented any personality disorder other than the criterion
disorder. Pearson correlation coefficients between the PBQ

Beliefs 18
scales and their respective diagnosis variables were as follows:
Avoidant, r = .42, p < .0001; Dependent, r = .34, p < .0001,
Obsessive-Compulsive, r = .16, p < .005; Narcissistic, r = .31,
p < .0001; and, Paranoid, r = .10, p < .05; all df = 321. Thus,
across all comparisons, patients with a given personality
disorder scored higher on the corresponding belief scale than
did the collection of patients with other personality disorders.
Discussion
Theoretical and Measurement Implications
Good internal consistency and test-retest reliability
estimates were found for all of the PBQ scales. This replicates
findings that Trull et al. (1993) obtained in a sample of
college students.
A substantial majority of the findings of this study
support the cognitive theory of personality disorders as well as
the construct validity of five PBQ scales. Patients with a
given personality disorder preferentially endorsed sets of
beliefs theoretically consistent with their specific disorder.
Our within-group analyses confirmed 16 of 20 (80%) of a priori
predictions. On tests of belief differences between diagnostic
groups, 22 of 25 (88%) of our a priori predictions were
confirmed. All of the personality disorders we investigated
scored significantly higher on their criterion PBQ scale than
psychiatric patients who did not have a personality disorder

Beliefs 19
diagnosis. Taken together, the findings by and large support
cognitive formulations for avoidant, dependent, obsessive-
compulsive, narcissistic, and paranoid personality disorders
(Beck and Freeman, 1990).
Findings that were not consistent with theoretical
predictions warrant further scrutiny. Patients with
narcissistic personality disorder endorsed narcissistic beliefs
as expected, but they also strongly endorsed paranoid beliefs
and the beliefs they endorsed most strongly were on the
Obsessive-compulsive scale. A post hoc review of these
obsessive-compulsive beliefs suggested that they fall into two
categories: beliefs reflecting an intolerance of imperfection
(e.g., "It is important to do a perfect job on everything" and
"Flaws, defects, or mistakes are intolerable"), and beliefs
reflecting high confidence in one's "rightness" (e.g., "People
should do things my way", "Other's tend to be too casual, often
irresponsible, self-indulgent, or incompetent", and "My way of
doing things is generally the best"). In retrospect, it is not
surprising that both obsessive-compulsive and narcissistic
personality disorder patients would endorse beliefs such as
these. Alternatively, relatively strong endorsement of paranoid
beliefs by patients with narcissistic personality disorder is
rather surprising. Perhaps such beliefs (e.g., "People will
take advantage of me if I give them the chance", and "Other

Beliefs 20
people will deliberately try to demean me") reflect narcissists'
perceived vulnerability to threats to their grandiose self-
image.
The inter-correlations among many of the PBQ scales were
moderate-to-strong. Some of the belief sets may not be as
conceptually distinct as proposed by cognitive theory.
Alternatively, some shared variance between the belief sets may
be due to a general distress factor. To the degree that this is
the case, it is noteworthy that our discriminant validity
findings were obtained despite this extraneous variable.
Limitations of the Study
Certain methodological limitations should be kept in mind
when interpreting the study results. While we eliminated from
analysis any PBQ beliefs that were synonymous with SCID-II
“belief” items, some DSM criteria assessed by the SCID-II appear
to suggest underlying beliefs in their wording (e.g., “has a
sense of entitlement” or “feels helpless when alone”). Thus,
despite our efforts, it is likely that there remained some small
degree of measurement overlap between the PBQ and SCID-II.
A second study limitation involves the lack of subjects in
certain groups. Unfortunately, we did not have sufficient
numbers of histrionic, antisocial, schizoid, and schizotypal
patients to test the PBQ on these diagnoses (all n's < 10).
Thus, the validity of the PBQ scales for these diagnoses is yet
Beliefs 21
to be determined. Moreover, our data do not address the ability
of the five PBQ scales we did investigate to discriminate
between their criterion populations and patients with these
alternative diagnoses. The validity of PBQ profiles in terms of
accurately reflecting a patient's personality belief structure
must await further research.
Some general limitations of the PBQ should be noted. The
instrument is vulnerable to shortcomings common to all self-
report questionnaires, such as individual differences in how the
same items are interpreted, the effect of patients' affective
state on responses, and the influence of impression management
efforts by patients. Secondly, the PBQ is not designed to
provide a definitive diagnosis for a patient, although it may
serve as one important source of data for this purpose. Indeed,
it is crucial that multiple sources of data be considered when
assessing patients' dysfunctional beliefs and that this process
be ongoing throughout therapy (Beck, 1996). Patients'
developmental histories, current problems and symptoms, and
interview behaviors all provide clues to a patient's
dysfunctional beliefs. The therapeutic relationship itself may
provide a useful context for assessing some key dysfunctional
beliefs.
Clinical Implications
With the above caveats in mind, the findings from this

Beliefs 22
study suggest that the five PBQ scales we tested have unique
therapeutic value as assessment tools. The identification early
in therapy of the key beliefs assessed by the PBQ can help the
therapist focus treatment more efficiently. PBQ responses can
be reviewed with patients to explore several important areas:
for example, how certain beliefs are currently impacting their
emotions and behavior and how these beliefs may have been
learned and maintained, even in the face of significant
contradictory data. Patients can also be guided to assess the
relative advantages and disadvantages of holding these beliefs
Implications for Future Research
Future research is needed to examine the treatment
responsiveness of PBQ scores and the PBQ's ability to predict
patients' response to cognitive therapy. Preliminary data from
a small sample of our patients (n = 15) suggest that meaningful
reductions in PBQ scores may require more than eight sessions of
cognitive therapy. This is not surprising given that the
beliefs assessed by the PBQ are presumed to be personality-
based. Future research is needed to test the responsiveness of
PBQ scales to the longer term treatment recommended for
personality disordered patients (Beck and Freeman, 1990). If
such changes are obtained and correspond to actual changes in
related Axis II behavioral criteria, the PBQ may prove useful as

Beliefs 23
a therapy outcome measure. Additional studies that investigate
the validity of the PBQ with other personality disorders are
needed.
Conclusions
The cognitive theory of personality disorders states that
each personality disorder has a characteristic set of
dysfunctional beliefs and that these beliefs are reflected in
corresponding personality disorder behaviors. The findings of
this study provide general support for this contention. The
ability to assess the relative strengths of beliefs associated
with a variety of personality disorders may be particularly
appealing to clinicians and researchers who prefer a dimensional
approach to understanding personality dysfunction (cf. Clark,
Livesley, & Morey, 1997; Widiger & Sanderson, 1995). While
further research is needed, our findings suggest that the PBQ
has promise as a measure of personality disorder beliefs.

Beliefs 24
Footnotes
1
No scale was developed for borderline personality disorder since
there was not a strong theoretical basis for designating
uniquely borderline beliefs. In fact, our clinical impression
was that borderline patients strongly endorse beliefs associated
with many personality disorders. Thus, we decided to do a
separate study to derive borderline beliefs empirically rather
than theoretically. Such a study has recently been carried out
and cross-validated (Brown, Beck, Grisham & Butler, 2000).

2
The only difference between the two versions is the scaling.
The early seven-point Likert scale was later reduced to a five-
point Likert scale.

3
We analyzed our data with and without these items from the
Avoidant and Narcissistic PBQ scales. The outcomes of
statistical tests were identical.

4
A discriminant function analysis is typically a more appropriate
statistical technique than multiple ANOVA’s for the type of
between-group hypotheses we were testing. However, this
technique was not feasible in this study due to low cell sizes
in the narcissistic and paranoid groups.

5
Cell means and standard deviations for specific comparisons
differ slightly from those shown in Table 2. Due to space
considerations these means and standard deviations are not
reported here, but are available from the authors on request.

Beliefs 25
References
American Psychiatric Association (1987). Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (3rd ed.). Washington,
DC: Author
Beck, A. T., & Beck, J. S. (1991). The Personality
Belief Questionnaire. Unpublished assessment instrument. The
Beck Institute for Cognitive Therapy and Research, Bala
Cynwyd, Pennsylvania.
Beck, A. T., Freeman, A. and Associates (1990).
Cognitive Therapy of Personality Disorders. New York:
Guilford Press.
Beck, J. S. (1995). Cognitive Therapy: Basics and
Beyond. New York: Guilford Press.
Beck, J. S. (1996). Cognitive therapy of personality
disorders. In P. A. Salkovskis (Ed.), Frontiers of Cognitive
Therapy (pp. 165-181). New York: Guilford Press.
Beck, J. S. (1998). Complex cognitive therapy treatment
for personality disorder patients. Bulletin of the Menninger
Clinic, 62(2), 170-194.
Benjamin, L. S. (1996). An interpersonal theory of
personality disorders. In J. F. Clarkin and M. F. Lenzenweger
(Eds.), Major Theories of Personality Disorder (pp. 141-220).

Beliefs 26
Brown, G. K., Beck, A. T., Grisham, J. R., & Butler, A.
C. (2000). Dysfunctional Beliefs in Borderline Personality
Disorder. Unpublished manuscript, University of Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia, PA.
Clark, L. A., Livesley, W. J., & Morey, L. (1997).
Personality disorder assessment: The challenge of construct
validity. Journal of Personality Disorders, 11(3), 205-231.
Cloninger, C. R. (1987). A systematic method for
clinical description and classification of personality
variants. Archives of General Psychiatry, 44, 573-588.
Depue, R. A. (1996). A neurobiological framework for the
structure of personality and emotion: Implications for
First, M. B., Spitzer, R. L., Gibbon, M., & Williams, J.
B. W. (1995). The Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-III-R
Personality Disorders (SCID-II). Part I: Description.
Journal of Personality Disorders, 9, 83-91.
Hyler, S. E., Skodol, A. E., Oldham, J. M., Kellman, H.
D., & Doidge, N. (1992). Validity of the Personality
Diagnostic Questionnaire-Revised: A replication in an
outpatient sample. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 33, 73-77.

Beliefs 27
Kernberg, O. F. (1996). A psychoanalytic theory of
Loranger, A. W., Susman, V. L., Oldham, J. M., & Russakoff,
L. M. (1987). The Personality Disorder Examination: A
preliminary report. Journal of Personality Disorders, 1, 1-13.
Millon, T., & Davis, R. (1996a). An evolutionary theory of
Millon, T., & Davis, R. (1996b). Disorders of Personality:
DSM-IV and Beyond, Second Edition. New York: John Wiley &
Sons.
Millon, T., Millon, C., & Davis, R. D. (1994). Millon
Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III. Minneapolis: National
Computer Systems.
Morey, L. C., Waugh, M. H., & Blashfield, R. K. (1985).
MMPI scores for the DSM-III personality disorders: Their
derivation and correlates. Journal of Personality Assessment,
49, 245-251.
Pfohl, B., Blum, N., & Zimmerman, M. (1997). Structured
Interview for DSM-III-R Personality (SIDP-R). Washington, D.C.:
American Psychiatric Press.

Beliefs 28
Pretzer, J. L., & Beck, A. T. (1996). A cognitive theory
of personality disorders. In J. F. Clarkin and M. F.
Lenzenweger (Eds.), Major Theories of Personality Disorder (pp.
36-105). New York: Guilford Press.
Spitzer, R. L., Williams, J. B. W., Gibbon, M., & First, M.
B. (1992). The Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-III-R
(SCID), I: History, rationale and description. Archives of
General Psychiatry, 49, 624-629.
Trull, T. J., Goodwin, A. H., Schopp, L.H., Hillenbrand,
T.L., & Schuster, T. (1993). Psychometric properties of a
cognitive measure of personality disorders. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 61(3), 536-546.
Weissman, A. N., & Beck, A. T. (1978, November).
Development and validation of the Dysfunctional Attitude Scale:
A prelimary investigation. Paper presented at the meeting of
the Association for the Advancement of Behavior Therapy,
Chicago.
Widiger, T. A., & Sanderson, C. (1995). Toward a
dimensional model of personality disorder in DSM-IV and DSM-IV.
In W. J. Livesley (Ed.), The DSM-IV Personality Disorders. New
York: Guilford.
Beliefs 29
Figure 1. Group Means on Personality Belief Questionnaire
Scales for Five Personality Disorders. Z-score transformations
were calculated using a sample of 756 patients of mixed
diagnoses prior to computing group means.

Beliefs 30
Table 1.
Inter-correlations, Reliability Estimates, Means, and Standard Deviations for
All PBQ Scales in a Mixed Diagnosis Sample
Scale 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Avoidant .89
2. Dependent .69 .90
3. Obsessive- .52 .48 .90
Compulsive
4. Narcissistic .27 .29 .41 .84
5. Paranoid .57 .46 .53 .44 .93
6. Histrionic .53 .54 .52 .64 .50 .87
7. Passive- .52 .44 .51 .52 .55 .59 .88
Aggressive
8. Schizoid .25 .04 .38 .39 .51 .32 .46 .81
9. Antisocial .33 .32 .48 .60 .55 .56 .54 .48 .81
Mean 18.80 18.00 22.69 10.02 14.62 13.96 19.28 16.29 9.31
SD 10.92 11.82 11.48 7.60 11.33 9.26 10.47 8.55 6.81
Note. N = 496. Coefficients in bold on the diagonal are reliability estimates
(Cronbach’s alpha). With the exception of the correlation between the
Dependent and Schizoid scales, all coefficients are statistically significant
at p < .05.
Beliefs 31
Table 2.
Personality Disorder Means and Standard Deviations on Five Corresponding PBQ
Scales
PBQ Scale
Personality Obsessive-
Disorder n Avoidant Dependent Compulsive Narcissistic Paranoid
Avoidant 130 25.58 20.26 23.92 9.36 16.25
(9.51) (11.78) (11.69) (7.35) (11.44)
Dependent 38 22.16 27.84 22.21 10.54 13.39
(10.17) (12.11) (9.52) (7.79) (9.93)
Obsessive- 94 15.72 15.51 26.28 10.24 13.55
Compulsive (9.37) (9.94) (11.58) (7.20) (10.00)
Narcissistic 20 16.30 15.57 24.32 18.35 16.10
(9.97) (9.85) (12.24) (9.20) (12.27)
Paranoid 17 17.29 14.08 19.41 9.18 20.35
(9.03) (11.10) (14.12) (7.36) (14.60)
No 111 11.30 11.86 16.86 7.16 8.44
Personality (8.14) (9.41) (9.24) (5.46) (8.91)
Disorder
The n's represent the number of patients with the corresponding personality
disorder who do not also have any of the alternative personality disorders.
Borderline Personality 1
Running Head: BORDERLINE PERSONALITY
Assessment of Dysfunctional Beliefs in Borderline Personality
Disorder
Andrew C. Butler, Gregory K. Brown, Aaron T. Beck and Jessica R.
Grisham
University of Pennsylvania
This research was supported by Grant 2 P30 MH45178-06A2-
0014 from the National Institute of Mental Health to Dr. Brown.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed
to Andrew C. Butler, One Belmont Avenue, Suite 700, Bala Cynwyd,
PA 19004. Email: Butler2@mail.med.upenn.edu.

Abstract
This study had two aims: to test the hypothesis that
borderline personality disorder (BPD) patients hold numerous
dysfunctional beliefs associated with a variety of Axis II
disorders, and to construct a BPD belief scale which captures
these beliefs. Beliefs were measured using the Personality
Belief Questionnaire (PBQ; Beck & Beck, 1991) which is designed
to assess beliefs associated with various personality disorders,
although not specifically BPD. Eighty-four BPD patients and 204
patients with other personality disorders (OPD) were randomly
split into two study samples. Fourteen PBQ items were found to
discriminate BPD from OPD patients in both samples. These items
came from the PBQ Dependent, Paranoid, Avoidant, and Histrionic
scales and reflect themes of dependency, helplessness, distrust,
fears of rejection/abandonment/losing emotional control, and
extreme attention-seeking behavior. A BPD beliefs scale
constructed from these items showed good internal consistency
and diagnostic validity among the 288 study patients. The scale
may be used to assist in diagnosis and cognitive therapy of BPD.

Assessment of Dysfunctional Beliefs in Borderline Personality
Disorder
In the past decade, cognitive therapy (CT) has been
expanded to treat a variety of personality disorders (Beck,
Freeman et al., 1990; Young, 1990), including Borderline
Personality Disorder (BPD; Layden, Newman, Freeman & Morse,
1993). This adaptation of cognitive therapy has focused on the
role of core dysfunctional beliefs for patients with personality
disorders. These beliefs influence the organization of a
patient's perception of the world, the self, and the future, and
his or her ability to adapt to life’s challenges. In addition,
the core dysfunctional beliefs of patients with personality
disorders have been hypothesized to be over-generalized,
inflexible, imperative and resistant to change (Beck et al.,
1990).
Core dysfunctional beliefs are self-maintaining because
they structure patients’ perception and interpretation of
environmental stimuli and cause them to habitually react in ways
that confirm their beliefs. For example, an individual with a
core belief that people are hostile towards him may act in an
aggressive or defensive manner, thereby evoking actual hostile
reactions from others.
Beck et al. (1990) published a list of dysfunctional
beliefs that were associated with specific personality
disorders. These beliefs were derived from individualized

conceptualizations of patient problems and the generation,
implementation, and evaluation of treatment strategies based on
these case conceptualizations. A set of generalized
(prototypic) beliefs was obtained by reviewing similarities
across patients with the same personality disorders. This
approach led to separate lists of beliefs for most of the Axis
II disorders. These lists, with the exception of beliefs for
BPD, were published in the appendix of Beck et al. (1990). Beck
and colleagues noted that the beliefs of BPD patients seemed to
transcend the categorization of the other personality disorders.
Other clinician-scientists have proposed that there are
specific cognitive themes or assumptions that are characteristic
of BPD (Arntz, Dietzel, & Dreessen, 1999; Schmidt, Joiner,
Young, & Telch, 1995; Young 1990). Young and his colleagues
conceptualize personality pathology in terms of various
combinations of 16 different “early maladaptive schemas”
(Schmidt et al., 1995). Early maladaptive schemas refer to
broad patterns of dysfunctional cognition, affect, behavior, and
motivation. Young has observed that several maladaptive schemas
are apparent in BPD patients, including: abandonment/loss,
unlovability, dependence, subjugation/lack of individuation,
mistrust, inadequate self-discipline, fear of losing emotional
control, guilt/punishment, and emotional deprivation (see Table
9.3, Beck et al., 1990). To our knowledge, this model of BPD
schemas has yet to be tested empirically.

Arntz and colleagues developed a list of twenty BPD
assumptions based on the writings of Beck and Freeman (1990)
combined with their own clinical experience with this population
(Arntz, et al., 1999). Similar to the themes proposed by Young
and colleagues, the BPD assumptions Arntz et al. (1999) proposed
reflected themes of aloneness (e.g., “I will always be alone”),
dependency (e.g., “I can’t manage it by myself, I need someone I
can fall back on”), unlovability (e.g., “If others get to know
me, they will find me rejectable and will not be able to love
me”), emptiness (e.g., “I don’t really know what I want”), lack
of personal control (e.g., “I can’t discipline myself”), badness
(e.g., “I am an evil person and I need to be punished for it”),
interpersonal distrust (e.g., “Other people are evil and abuse
you”) and vulnerability (e.g., “I’m powerless and vulnerable and
I can’t protect myself”). Many of the assumptions included in
the Personality Disorder Belief Questionnaire (PDBQ) by Arntz et
al. (1999) were drawn with permission directly from the list of
beliefs in the appendix of Beck et al. (1990). However, they
also included some additional assumptions that they observed in
BPD patients. Arntz et al. (1999) found that patients with BPD
scored higher on the PDBQ than patients with cluster-C
personality disorders or normal controls.
The current study takes an empirical approach to
identifying dysfunctional beliefs held by PBD patients using the
Personality Belief Questionnaire (PBQ; Beck & Beck, 1991; A.

Beck, Butler, Brown, Dahlsgaard, Newman, and J. Beck, 2001). By
identifying the specific maladaptive beliefs associated with BPD
we hoped to create a BPD belief scale that would aid in the
development of cognitive case conceptualizations and
interventions for BPD.
The PBQ was developed as a clinical measure of the beliefs
associated with personality disorders, as proposed by Beck et
al. (1990). The PBQ is composed of 126 items and nine scales
(with 14 items per scale) that assess the following personality
disorders: Avoidant, Dependent, Obsessive Compulsive,
Histrionic, Passive-Aggressive, Narcissistic, Paranoid, Schizoid
and Antisocial. Beck et al. (2001) found that patients
diagnosed with Avoidant, Dependent, Obsessive Compulsive,
Narcissistic or Paranoid Personality Disorder scored higher on
their respective PBQ scales than on PBQ scales designed to
assess the beliefs of other personality disorders. In addition,
patients with Avoidant, Dependent, Narcissistic and Paranoid
personality disorders scored higher on their corresponding PBQ
scale than patients with other diagnoses scored on those scales.
Method
Subjects
Subjects were psychiatric outpatients who sought treatment
at the Center for Cognitive Therapy at the University of
Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry,

during the years 1995 to 2000. All patients were routinely
asked to complete the PBQ as part of their intake evaluation
process. From an initial pool of 756 patients, 288 subjects
were selected for inclusion of their PBQ data in this study.
Eighty-four of these patients had been diagnosed with BPD and
204 had been diagnosed with an alternative Axis II disorder. We
referred to the latter group as “other personality disorder”
(OPD) patients. Since our research questions address
differences between BPD patients and patients with conceptually
distinct alternative personality disorders, we excluded from the
OPD group patients with a diagnosis of Personality Disorder Not
Otherwise Specified or with multiple Axis II diagnoses.
These patients were randomly and evenly split into two
separate samples (A and B), each containing 42 BPD and 102 OPD
patients, and each matched on number of females and males (see
Table 1). The two samples were used to cross-validate PBQ items
that discriminate BPD from OPD controls.
Table 1 shows the demographic and psychiatric history data
for the BPD and OPD patients in samples A and B. In both
samples, compared to OPD patients, BPD patients were
significantly younger, more likely to be female, and less likely
to have obtained an advanced degree. They were also more likely
to have a primary Axis I diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder,
to have higher intake scores on the Beck Depression Inventory—II
and the Beck Anxiety Inventory, and to have been hospitalized in

the past for psychiatric reasons. There were no significant
differences between BPD and OPD patients in either sample on
race, marital status, employment status, extent of
psychotherapy, extent of pharmacotherapy, or family history of
mental illness. In Sample A only, BPD patients were more likely
than OPD patients to have a family history of suicide attempts
and less likely than OPD patients to have a comorbid anxiety
disorder.
_________________________
Insert Table 1 about here
_________________________
Procedure
Patients were diagnosed for Axis I and Axis II disorders
according to the Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM-III-R
(SCID, Spitzer, Williams, Gibbon and First, 1990), or, for those
diagnostic evaluations that occurred in 1996, according to the
Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM-IV (First, Spitzer,
Gibbon, and Williams, 1995; First, Spitzer, Gibbon, Williams,
and Benjamin, 1995). The PBQ was administered to patients as
part of the packet of questionnaires routinely completed during
the intake procedure.
Measures
Personality Belief Questionnaire. The PBQ (Beck & Beck,
1991) is a 126-item self-report measure developed to assess the

beliefs endorsed by patients with personality disorders, as
outlined by Beck et al. (1990). This measure is intended to
assist therapists in eliciting and focusing on the dysfunctional
beliefs that contribute to the patient’s symptom severity and
functional impairment. The item content of the PBQ was based on
beliefs endorsed by patients with DSM-III-R personality
disorders. Patients are asked to rate their endorsement of each
belief on a “0” to “4” Likert-type scale (0 = “I don’t believe
it at all”; 4 = “I believe it totally”). The validity and
reliability of five of the PBQ scales has already been reported
(Beck et al., 2001).
Results
A square-root transformation was computed and a t-test was
conducted for each of the 126 PBQ items using a Bonferroni
correction to control for Type I error. In Sample A, visual
inspection indicated that BPD patients had higher mean scores
than OPD patients on 115 of the 126 PBQ items. Their scores
were significantly higher than OPD patients’ at the p < .001
level on 26 of these items. Inspection of item means in Sample
B showed that BPD patients had higher mean scores than OPD
patients on 105 items. Their scores on 17 of these items were
significantly higher (p < .001) than the scores of OPD patients.
For cross-validation purposes, we deemed an item valid if
it was a significant discriminator of BPD and OPD patients at
the p < .001 level in one sample and at the p < .05 level in the
alternative sample. Table 2 presents the mean scores and
associated t values for the 12 PBQ items that met these
criteria. We also include in the table two items that narrowly
missed the criteria (numbers 119 and 126). We included these
items because the beliefs are consistent with BPD, and to match
the number of items (14) in the other PBQ scales. As indicated
by the content of these items, BPD patients preferentially
endorsed beliefs associated with dependency, helplessness,
distrust, rejection/abandonment fears, fear of losing emotional
control, and histrionic behavior.
_________________________________
Insert Table 2 about here
_________________________________
A composite scale was constructed from the 14 items. The
internal reliability of the 14 items for the 84 BPD patients was
moderately high (alpha = .89). Group means and standard
deviations of this new PBQ scale, the Borderline scale, and six
PBQ scales corresponding to the Axis II diagnoses present in our
OPD sample are presented in Table 3. Given the directional
hypotheses that BPD patients will score higher on the Borderline
scale than patients with alternative Axis II diagnoses,
independent one-tailed t-tests were conducted using Bonferroni
correction for Type I error. As shown in Table 3, the results
indicated that BPD patients scored significantly higher than
each of the other Axis II diagnostic groups on the Borderline

scale.
We also tested the hypothesis that BPD patients would score
higher on the Borderline scale than they would score on other
PBQ scales. Since the means varied considerably across scales,
Z-score transformations were conducted on the raw PBQ scales.
The mean scores and standard deviations of these transformed PBQ
scales are displayed in Table 4. Results of paired t-tests on
the transformed means showed that BPD patients scored
significantly higher on the Borderline scale than on any other
PBQ scale.1
_____________________________________
Insert Tables 3 and 4 about here
_____________________________________
Discussion
The results of the current study supported our clinical
observation that patients with borderline personality disorder
hold a variety of dysfunctional beliefs associated with many
different Axis II disorders. Specifically, they scored
significantly higher than patients with other personality
disorders on 14 PBQ items reflecting themes of dependency,
helplessness, distrust, rejection/abandonment fears, fear of
losing emotional control, and histrionic behavior. These themes
are quite consistent with the pattern of psychopathology
described in borderline personality disorder (Beck et al., 1990;
Gunderson, 2001; Young, 1990). Indeed, when the 14 beliefs are

combined to form a BPD scale, the scale showed good internal
consistency and BPD patients scored significantly higher on this
scale than patients with avoidant, dependent, obsessive-
compulsive, antisocial, narcissistic or paranoid personality
disorder. BPD patients also scored significantly higher on the
BPD scale than on other PBQ scales associated with other
personality disorders.
Our findings are also consistent with formulations of BPD
by Young (2002) and Arntz et al. (1999). Specifically, Young’s
hypotheses were supported regarding certain maladaptive schemas
in BPD including abandonment, unlovability, dependence,
mistrust, and fear of losing emotional control. Assumptions
related to these themes were included by Arntz et al. (1999) in
their PDBQ. However, both Young and Arntz have identified
additional themes that characterize BPD according to their
clinical observations. For instance, subjugation, inadequate
self-discipline, guilt/punishment, and emotional deprivation are
additional aspects in the schema profile of BPD patients
according to early hypotheses by Young (see Beck et al., 1990).
Subjugation may be tapped by beliefs regarding dependence on
others. Arntz et al. (1999) added assumptions related to
emptiness, lack of personal control, and badness in their
conceptualization and measurement of BPD. Hence, when assessing
BPD patients, it may be important to assess beliefs concerning
deprivation, lack of self-discipline, and self-punishment in

addition to those identified in our study.
Several of the beliefs associated with BPD patients appear
to be not only dysfunctional, but contradictory as well. This
internal dissonance may further contribute to the maladaptive
behavior and distressed affective state exhibited by many BPD
patients. For example, a patient with BPD may feel extremely
helpless, resulting in a variety of dependent behaviors, while
simultaneously experiencing distrust, particularly in close or
intimate relationships.
According to the cognitive theory of BPD, these
diametrically opposing beliefs are latent until they are
activated by an external event. The patient then processes
information in a dichotomous way, which creates anxiety,
frustration, depression, or shame. In order to relieve this
internal tension temporarily, the patient may behave in an
extreme and self-destructive manner such as attempting suicide,
binge eating, self-mutilating, or engaging in substance abuse.
BPD patients also may act out against others in an attempt to
punish them for perceived betrayal or withholding of what is
needed. Self-punitive and other-punitive behaviors may occur in
close temporal proximity in BPD. Schema formulations of BPD
refer to this erratic alternating behavior as schema flipping
(Young, 2002)
An important objective of cognitive therapy of personality
disorders is teaching patients to identify their maladaptive

core beliefs and their belief-driven reactions to life-
stressors, and to attempt to normalize these dysfunctional
beliefs. Helping BPD patients to identify, assess, test and
modify their core beliefs provides them with a clear, systematic
framework to conceptualize their problems and a strategy to
develop alternative, more adaptive beliefs. Addressing the
beliefs that motivate the self-defeating and self-destructive
behaviors associated with BPD may indirectly modify these
behaviors.
Although this study demonstrates the possibility of
identifying borderline-specific beliefs, it has several
limitations. The scale was developed and cross-validated in a
clinic specializing in cognitive therapy. It needs to be
evaluated in other settings with different demographic
populations. In addition, further research is needed to test
for the specificity of these beliefs with other populations such
as non-psychiatric controls and patients without personality
disorders. Finally, as mentioned earlier, there may be
additional beliefs specific to BPD that should be assessed when
treating this population.

Footnotes
1
Since some of the other PBQ scales (Dependent, Avoidant,
Paranoid, and Histrionic) contained the items from which we
derived the BPD scale, the most liberal statistical approach
would be to exclude these items from the respective PBQ scales
in these analyses. However, we chose the more conservative
approach of leaving these items in, thus reducing the likelihood
of obtaining significant differences. Our rationale was that
the items cross diagnostic categories at a conceptual level and
thus our statistical approach should take this into account.

References
Arntz, A., Dietzel, R., & Dreessen, L. (1999). Assumptions
in borderline personality disorder: specificity, stability and
relationship with etiological factors. Behaviour Research and
Therapy, 37, 545-557.
Beck, A. T., Freeman, A., & Associates. (1990). Cognitive
therapy of personality disorders. New York: Guilford.
Beck, A. T., & Beck, J. S. (1991). The Personality Belief
Questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript, University of
Pennsylvania.
Beck, A. T., Butler, A. T., Brown, G. K., & Dahlsgaard, K.
K., Newman, C. F., & Beck, J. S. (2001). Dysfunctional beliefs
associated with specific personality disorders. Behavior
Research and Therapy, 39, 1213-1225.
Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Brown, G. K. (1996). Manual
for the Beck Depression Inventory-II. San Antonio, TX:
Psychological Corporation.
First, M. B., Spitzer, R. L., Gibbon, M. & Williams, J. B.
W. (1995). User's guide for the Structured Clinical Interview
for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders (SCID-I/P), (Version 2.0).
Unpublished manuscript, Biometrics Research Department, New York
State Psychiatric Institute.
First, M. B., Spitzer, R. L., Gibbon, M., Williams, J. B.
W., & Benjamin, L. (1995). User's guide for the Structured
Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II Disorders (SCID-II),

(Version 2.0). Unpublished manuscript, Biometrics Research
Department, New York State Psychiatric Institute.
Layden, M. A., Newman, C. F., Freeman, A., Morse, S. B.
(1993). Cognitive therapy of borderline personality disorder.
Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Gunderson, J. G. (2001). Borderline personality disorder:
A clinical guide. Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Press.
Schmidt, N. B., Joiner, T. E., Young, J. E., & Telch, M. J.
(1995). The Schema Questionnaire: Investigation of psychometric
properties and the hierarchical structure of a measure of
maladaptive schemas. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 19(3),
295-321.
Spitzer, R. L., Williams, J. B. W., Gibbon, M. & First, M.
B. (1990). User's guide for the Structured Clinical Interview
for DSM-III-R. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association
Press.
Young, J. E. (1990). Schema-focused cognitive therapy for
personality disorders: A schema focused approach. Sarasota, FL:
Professional Resource Exchange.
Young, J. E. (1999). Schema-focused cognitive therapy for
personality disorders: A schema focused approach, 3rd Edition.
Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Exchange.
Young, J. E. (2002). Schema-focused therapy for borderline
personality disorder. [On-line] http://www.schematherapy.com/
borderline2000a_files/frame.htm
Table 1
Sample Characteristics
Sample A Sample B
Variable BPD OPD 2 (t) BPD OPD 2 (t)
na 42 102 42 102
Age 32.0 36.3 (2.42*) 30.1 35.9 (3.27**)
Sex 5.76* 5.76*
Male 12 50 12 50
Female 30 49 30 49
Raceb
White 39 79 30 85
African American 3 8 3 2
Hispanic 2 0 2 0
Asian 2 6 1 5
Other 0 0 2 1
Education 18.73** 12.91*
11th grade 0 2 1 2
High School Diploma 4 13 9 8
Some College 18 16 13 16
College Degree 12 26 12 38
Table 1 continues…
Table 1 continued.
Sample A Sample B
Graduate Degree 7 44 6 30
Marital Status 2.71 8.28
Single 23 45 31 56
Married 12 43 5 33
Divorced 5 10 5 8
Separated 1 1 1 2
Employment Status 5.43 3.29
Full-time 17 46 15 49
Part-time 1 6 3 6
Student 13 42 15 24
Unemployed 11 20 5 16
Psychiatric History
Prior Psychotherapy 32 74 0.00 34 73 2.00
Prior Pharmacotherapy 29 60 0.49 27 63 0.04
Prior Psychiatric Hospitalization 15 11 12.32** 14 16 5.57*
Table 1 continued.
Sample A Sample B
Family History of Mental Illness 24 62 0.52 26 54 0.37
Family History of Suicide 13 11 8.01** 4 13 0.38
Axis I Diagnosisc
Major Depression 25(25) 43(33) 8.87** 30(24) 46(35) 9.28**
Anxiety Disorder 23 (6) 63(35) 6.02* 22(10) 66(30) 2.53
Bipolar Disorder 3 (3) 1 (1) 1 (1) 4 (4)
Dysthymic Disorder 10 (2) 15(11) 7 (2) 18 (7)
Adjustment Disorder 0 (0) 7 (4) 1 (0) 9 (8)
Substance Abuse or Dependence 4 (0) 22 (5) 12 (1) 10 (2)
Other Axis I Diagnosis 5 (5) 8 (8) 4 (4) 13(13)
No Axis I Diagnosis 1 4 0 3
Axis II Diagnoses in OPD Groupsd
Paranoid 5 3
Obsessive-Compulsive 38 32
Histrionic 0 1
Dependent 13 14
Antisocial 4 4
Table 1 continued.
Sample A Sample B
Narcissistic 5 7
Avoidant 35 38
Beck Depression Inventory—II 30.5 18.3 (5.38***) 28.5 19.7 (3.76***)
Beck Anxiety Inventory 21.5 11.8 (4.14***) 18.6 12.1 (3.05**)
a
Cell sizes in the remainder of the table are not always reconcilable with these n’s due
to missing data on some variables.
b
Cell sizes were too small (n < 5) to yield valid nonparametric tests for race.
c
Numbers to the left represent all patients with the corresponding disorder, whether it
was their primary or secondary Axis I diagnosis. Numbers in parentheses represent
patients who had the corresponding disorder as their primary Axis I diagnosis.
Statistical tests were based on primary Axis I diagnosis. Since several cells had n’s < 5
the chi square analysis included only MDD and anxiety disorder diagnoses.
d
The distribution of Axis II disorders in samples A and B were not significantly
different, 2 (7) = 3.49, p > .10. There were no patients with schizoid or schizotypal
personality disorder in either sample.

Table 2.
Means and t-Tests for the Fourteen PBQ Items that Most Strongly Discriminate BPD from
Other PD Patients
Sample A Sample B
Item Content BPD Other PD t BPD Other PD t
4. If people get close to me, they will 2.12 1.28 3.27*** 2.00 1.60 2.10*
discover the “real” me and reject
me.
9. Unpleasant feelings will escalate 2.55 1.50 5.07*** 2.48 1.49 4.06***
and get out of control.
13. Any signs of tension in a 1.31 0.55 4.16*** 1.34 0.74 2.70**
relationship indicate the
relationship has gone bad;
therefore, I should cut it off.
15. I am needy and weak. 1.86 1.06 3.86*** 1.93 1.39 2.30*
16. I need somebody around available at 1.33 0.80 2.21* 1.69 0.78 3.65***
all times to help me to carry out
what I need to do or in case
something bad happens.
18. I am helpless when left on my own. 1.21 0.53 4.24*** 0.98 0.55 2.60**
27. I can’t cope as other people can. 2.43 1.51 4.11*** 2.31 1.58 2.98**
Table 2 continued.
Sample A Sample B
Item Content BPD Other PD t BPD Other PD t
60. People will get at me if I don’t get 0.93 0.37 3.35*** 0.86 0.46 2.42*
them first.
97. People will pay attention only if I 1.02 0.43 3.26** 1.14 0.43 3.60***
act in extreme ways.
113. I cannot trust other people. 1.90 0.90 5.11*** 1.83 0.95 3.65***
116. I have to be on guard at all times. 1.93 0.89 4.78*** 1.60 1.10 2.21*
119. People will take advantage of me if 1.57 0.78 3.17** 1.43 1.01 2.04*
I give them the chance.
125. People often say one thing and mean 2.12 1.37 2.78** 2.14 1.38 3.92***
something else.
126. A person whom I am close to could be 1.90 1.07 3.01** 1.98 1.26 2.60**
disloyal or unfaithful.
***p < .001. **p < .01. *p < .05. Both samples have identical cell sizes: BPD = 42, Other PD = 102.
Table 3
Means and Standard Deviations of the PBQ Borderline Scale by
Diagnosis
Personality Disorder N M SD
Borderline 84 24.76 10.65
Avoidant 82 16.52** 9.32
Antisocial 9 13.11* 14.70
Dependent 31 17.53** 10.15
Narcissistic 13 11.77** 7.80
Obsessive-Compulsive 74 11.81** 7.97
Paranoid 10 15.40* 9.64
*p < .01. **p < .001. All comparisons are made against the
Borderline mean using one-tailed t-tests.

Table 4
Internal Consistency Estimates and Z-Score Means and Standard
Deviations of All PBQ Scales for BPD Patients.
PBQ Scale  M SD
Borderline .89 .72 1.02
Avoidant .87 .43*** 1.00
Dependent .88 .46*** 1.01
Passive-Aggressive .89 .34*** 1.09
Obsessive-Compulsive .88 .09*** 0.93
Antisocial .83 .42* 1.15
Narcissistic .85 .22*** 1.12
Histrionic .84 .43** 1.06
Schizoid .79 .14*** 1.01
Paranoid .94 .54* 1.15
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. BPD = Borderline personality
disorder.
Z-scores were calculated on the entire sample of Axis II
patients (N = 288). All comparisons were made against the
Borderline mean using one-tailed paired t-tests.

PBQ Full Documents 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PBQ Full Documents 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PBQ Full Documents 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GKB/ACB 8/15/97

PBQ Belief Questionnaire

Example HOW MUCH DO YOU BELIEVE IT?

1. I am socially inept and socially undesirable in 4 3 2 1 0

2. Other people are potentially critical, 4 3 2 1 0

3. I cannot tolerate unpleasant feelings. 4 3 2 1 0

4. If people get close to me, they will discover 4 3 2 1 0

5. Being exposed as inferior or inadequate will 4 3 2 1 0

6. I should avoid unpleasant situations at all 4 3 2 1 0

(c) 1995 by Aaron T. Beck, M.D. and Judith S. Beck, Ph.D.

10. If others criticize me, they must be right. 4 3 2 1 0

11. It is better not to do anything than to try 4 3 2 1 0

12. If I don’t think about a problem, I don’t have 4 3 2 1 0

13. Any signs of tension in a relationship indicate 4 3 2 1 0

14. If I ignore a problem, it will go away. 4 3 2 1 0

15. I am needy and weak. 4 3 2 1 0

16. I need somebody around available at all times 4 3 2 1 0

17. My helper can be nurturant, supportive, and 4 3 2 1 0

18. I am helpless when I’m left on my own. 4 3 2 1 0

19. I am basically alone -- unless I can attach 4 3 2 1 0

20. The worst possible thing would be to be 4 3 2 1 0

21. If I am not loved, I will always be unhappy. 4 3 2 1 0

22. I must do nothing to offend my supporter or 4 3 2 1 0

23. I must be subservient in order to maintain his 4 3 2 1 0

24. I must maintain access to him or her at all 4 3 2 1 0

25. I should cultivate as intimate a relationship as 4 3 2 1 0

26. I can’t make decisions on my own. 4 3 2 1 0

27. I can’t cope as other people can. 4 3 2 1 0

28. I need others to help me make decisions or tell 4 3 2 1 0

29. I am self-sufficient, but I do need others to 4 3 2 1 0

30. The only way I can preserve my self-respect 4 3 2 1 0

31. I like to be attached to people but I am 4 3 2 1 0

32. Authority figures tend to be intrusive, 4 3 2 1 0

33. I have to resist the domination of authorities 4 3 2 1 0

34. Being controlled or dominated by others is 4 3 2 1 0

35. I have to do things my own way. 4 3 2 1 0

36. Making deadlines, complying with demands, 4 3 2 1 0

37. If I follow the rules the way people expect, it 4 3 2 1 0

38. It is best not to express my anger directly but 4 3 2 1 0

39. I know what’s best for me and other 4 3 2 1 0

40. Rules are arbitrary and stifle me. 4 3 2 1 0

41. Other people are often too demanding. 4 3 2 1 0

42. If I regard people as too bossy, I have a right 4 3 2 1 0

43. I am fully responsible for myself and others. 4 3 2 1 0

44. I have to depend on myself to see that things 4 3 2 1 0

45. Others tend to be too casual, often 4 3 2 1 0

46. It is important to do a perfect job on 4 3 2 1 0

47. I need order, systems, and rules in order to get 4 3 2 1 0

48. If I don’t have systems, everything will fall 4 3 2 1 0

49. Any flaw or defect of performance may lead 4 3 2 1 0

50. It is necessary to stick to the highest standards 4 3 2 1 0

51. I need to be in complete control of my 4 3 2 1 0

52. People should do things my way. 4 3 2 1 0

53. If I don’t perform at the highest level, I will 4 3 2 1 0

54. Flaws, defects, or mistakes are 4 3 2 1 0

55. Details are extremely important. 4 3 2 1 0

56. My way of doing things is generally the best 4 3 2 1 0

57. I have to look out for myself. 4 3 2 1 0

58. Force or cunning is the best way to get things 4 3 2 1 0

59. We live in a jungle and the strong person is 4 3 2 1 0

Patient Name: __________________________ Date: