Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 12

Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy; An International Quarterly, Volume 13, Number 2, 1999

The Child and Adolescent Scale of Irrationality: Validation Data and Mental Health Correlates
Michael E. Bernard Felicity Cronan
Department of Educational Psychology Administration and Counselling California State University, Long Beach
A revised Child and Adolescent Scale of Irrationality (Bernard & Laws, 1988) was administered to 567 children and adolescents to determine the construct validity of Albert Ellis's theory of rational-emotive behavior therapy (REBT) as applied to childhood irrational thought. Participants also completed Spielberger's Trait Anxiety, Anger and Curiosity scales in order to be able to examine the relationships among childhood irrational thought, emotionality and to establish convergent/divergent validity. Teachers rated each participating student on the dimensions of emotional problems, low effort' (in school work), and behavior problems. A principal components analysis with varimax rotation produced a four-factor solution ("Self-downing," "Intolerance of Frustrating Rules," "Intolerance of Work Frustration," and "Demands for Fairness"), Significant correlations were obtained among Total Irrationality and the four irrational subscales with trait anxiety, anger, as well as with teacher ratings of students. Aspects of Ellis' s theory were confirmed while the emergence of two forms of low frustration tolerance and the primacy of self-downing may require a reconceptualization of the nature of irrational thought in the childhood period. Rational-emotive behavior therapy (REBT) is now recognized as an important therapy with children and adolescents who experience emotional and behavioral problems (e.g., Bernard & DiGiuseppe, 1990; 1994; Bernard & Joyce, 1993; Ellis & Bernard, 1983). In spite of its widespread popularity with practitioners as well as research which supports its effectiveness with a wide range of childhood problems (Hajzler & Bernard, 1991; Morris, 1993). there is a lack of a psychometrically sound © 1999 Springer Publishing Company



Bernard and Cronan

and theoretically valid instrument for assessing the irrational beliefs of children and adolescents. REBT proposes that (1) irrational beliefs are concomitant with and help to create emotional problems (e.g., high anxiety, rage, depression) in younger populations (e.g., Bernard & Joyce, 1984), and (2) modifying irrational beliefs improves childhood psychological functioning (e.g., Bernard, 1990b). Three REBT-oriented psychometric instruments have been designed for use with younger populations: The Ideas Inventory (Kassinove, Crisci, & Tiegerman, 1977), Children's Survey of Rational Beliefs (Knaus, 1974), and Shorkey and Saski's (1983) adaptation of the adult-level Rational Behavior Inventory (Shorkey & Whiteman, 1977). Of these instruments, only the Ideas Inventory has reported any reliability and validity data. A problem with all of these instruments relates to the issue raised by Smith (1982) and Zurawski and Smith (1987) of including items in scales of irrationality which are behavioral and emotional in content rather than exclusively cognitive. All of the aforementioned instruments include noncognitively worded items, thereby artificially inflating the reported correlations between cognition, emotion, and behavior. Another major weakness of the current measures of childhood irrationality is that they do not reflect recent developments in Ellis's conceptualization of irrationality (e.g., Ellis & Dryden, 1987). Ellis has modified his original list of 11major irrational beliefs (Ellis & Harper, 1975) to three core irrational beliefs: (a) I must do well and win approval, or else I rate as a rotten person; (b) Others must treat me considerately and kindly and in precisely the way I want them to treat me; if they don't society and the universe should severely blame, damn, and punish them for their inconsiderateness; (c) Conditions under which I live must be arranged so that I get practically all that I want comfortably, quickly, and easily and get virtually nothing that I don't want (Ellis & Bernard, 1985). The currently available instruments were designed to assess Ellis's original 11 irrational beliefs. Ellis has also emphasized in his recent writirigs that "demandingness" (e.g., shoulds, oughts, musts, demands) is the core irrational thinking process and that the following three irrational thinking processes are all derivative: (a) "awfulizing" (e.g., "It is awful, terrible or horrible that I am not doing as I must."); (b) "I can't stand-it-itis" or"low frustration tolerance" (e.g., "I can't stand, can't bearthatthings that are happening to me are things that must not happen"); (c) "global rating and blaming of self, others, or world" (e.g., "The world is a hopeless place when things do not occur as they must."). There is considerable debate within the cognitive-behavioral and REBT community of scholars concerning the primacy of "absolutizing" ("shoulds," "demands") (e.g., O'Kelly, Joyce, & Greaves, 1998), and whether the content of irrational beliefs (approval, achievement, fairnesslkindness/consideration and comfort) is more important than the core irrational thinking processes (demandingness, awfulizing, I can't stand-it-itis, global rating). DiGiuseppe, Leaf Robin, and Exner (1988) found that low frustration tolerance and "awfulizing" predicted emotionality

Child and Adolescent Irrationality Scale


better than demandingness. In developing a scale to measure the irrational beliefs of teachers, Bernard (1988) found in his factor analysis that both core irrational beliefs (e.g., "self-downing") and content ("intolerance of work frustration") were important. Bernard's (1990a) factor analysis of DrGiuseppe's and associates' (1988) General Attitude and Belief Scale found that irrational beliefs of adults clustered around Ellis's core irrational processes including need for achievement, need for approval, demands for comfort and need for comfort. However, selfdowning and other-downing constituted separate factors. Bernard and Laws (1988) reported on the development of the Child and Adolescent Scale of Irrationality (CAS I) which was designed to measure the irrational beliefs of children and adolescents between the age of 10 and 18 years. The CASI was designed to overcome the above-mentioned problems associated with existing instruments measuring childhood irrationality and included the exclusive use of cognitively worded items and the inclusion of items reflecting Ellis's newer conception of irrationality. In the two studies reported by Bernard and Laws, factor analyses of the CASI with over 2,300 boys and girls in grades 4 - 12 resulted in six factors of irrationality (Self-downing, Nonconformity, Demands on Others, Dependence, Demands for Comfort, Low-Frustration Tolerance) and accounted for 43% of variance. Significant correlations were obtained between Total Irrationality (and subscales of irrationality) and measures of anxiety, anger, and self-concept. As well, students referred for discipline problems scored significantly higher on the Selfdowning and Nonconformity subscales than nonreferred students. Discriminant validity of the CASI was established by a higher correlation between the CAS I and another measure of childhood irrationality (Idea Inventory, .60), than between the CASI and measures of trait anxiety (.48) and trait anger (.38). The main problems which characterized the 1988 version of the CASI were: (a) The items on the Nonconformity scale had to be scored negatively as item wordings in the Nonconformity subscale reflected conformity: "People should always obey rules and behave well." Originally, this subscale had been conceptualized as a Conformity subscale with high scores anticipated to have been correlated with negatively emotionally. Instead, low scores correlated with the expression of anger and discipline problems; (b) The Low Frustration Tolerance subscale correlated negatively with discipline problems, and (c) the Dependence subscale, while factorially distinct, proved to have low convergent validity. The present study attempted to refine and revise the CAS!. Replacement items were written for the Nonconformity subscale. New items representing LowFrustration Tolerance were developed. The Dependency subscale was deleted from the CAS!. Specific research questions being addressed in this study were: (1) What is the factorial structure of the revised CAS I and how does it relate to Ellis's theory concerning the nature of childhood irrational thought (do core irrational processes or content dominate)?; (2) What is the relationship between irrational thought and childhood emotionality (extent of convergent validity)?


Bernard and Cronan

METHOD Subjects
Subjects were 567 children and adolescents (290 boys, 277 girls) who were recruited from two elementary schools (two classes of students in grades 4, 5 and 6) and two middle/senior high schools (three classes of students in grades 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11) in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Classes where randomly selected from the overall number of classes available for participation at anyone grade level. Students ranged in age from 10 to 17 years. The two upper-grade schools and one elementary school were predominantly middle class; the other elementary school was primarily working class.

The Child and Adolescent Scale of Irrationality (CASI). Items contained in the original CASI (Bernard & Laws, 1988) were based on a logical analysis of the values and concerns of children and adolescents as well as REBT theory. In the original scale, 14 irrational beliefs were identified that revolved around the need or demand for comfort, ease, fun, .fair behavior from others, control of others, autonomy from others, good behavior from others, safety, achievement, physical attractiveness, approval, dependence, fair behavior for oneself, and good behavior for self. In addition, the original CASI assessed the five irrational processes of demandingness, characterized by a "must;" "need" or "should" statement, awfulizing, characterized by "It's awful," "It's terrible," and "It's horrible" types of statements, low frustration tolerance characterized by "I can't stand it," "It's intolerable," or "It's more than I can take" statements, other global rating characterized by rating of others or the world, i.e., "The world is horrible," or "Others are worthless" types of statements and self-global rating characterized by "I'm worthless" or "I'm no good" types of statements. A factor analysis yielded a 44-item five-factor scale. The revised CAS I contained 49 items used in the present study and included most of the items from the 1988 CASI with the exception of the five items of the Dependency subscale which failed to correlate with any measure of childhood functioning. New items were written to measure low frustration tolerance, each of which focused on specific frustrating events associated with homework and chores (e.g., "It's awful to have lots of homework to do."). New "Nonconformity" items were rewritten so that agreement with the item reflected irrationality (e.g., "I shouldn't have to obey rules and behave well,") rather than in the earlier version of the CASI where disagreement with items on the Nonconformity subscale reflected nonconformity (e.g., "People should always obey rules and behave well."). The items on the CASI (see Table 1) were worded in the form of statements and subjects expressed the extent of their agreement or disagreement using a 5-point

."._.":5. -:..

Child and Adolescent Irrationality Scale


Table 1. Principal


Analysis of CAS I

Factor 1 Self-downing (eigenvalue

= 7.4)
.69 .66 .62 .61 .59 .59 .57 .46

People would act more fairly around me if I wasn't such a hopeless person. I'm a failure when I don't succeed. When things are boring, I think I'm a dull and uninteresting. person. I think I'm worthless, if someone disapproves or rejects me. If I wasn't so weak, things in my life would be easier. When I feel nervous, uncomfortable or tense, I think it just goes to show what a hopeless person I am. I think I'm a total fool when I fail at something important. I think I'm hopeless when people reject me. Factor 2 Intolerance of Frustrating Rules (eigenvalue

= 3.9)
.67 .65 .60 .54 .54 .54 .51

I can't stand having to behave weII and follow rules. I can't stand classmates who always follow the rules and behave well. I think it's horrible to behave well all the time. I shouldn't have to obey rules and behave well. Classmates who always follow rules and behave well are jerks. It's terrible to have to behave well all the time. People shouldn't always have to obey rules and behave well. Factor 3 Intolerance of Work Frustration (eigenvalue

= 2.0)
.56 .56 .50 .48 .43 .43 .42 .40

When I start getting tired doing homework, I think I shouldn't have to do anymore. When I get frustrated with homework which is hard, I think it's unfair and that I shouldn't have to do anymore. When it's time to get started with my homework, I think I need more time to get in the right mood. The worst thing in life is having to work on things that are boring. It's really awful to have lots of homework to do. What I find impossible to put up with is having to do chores around the house when I could be having fun. It's awful to have too much work to do and not enough time to do it. I need to be rested and relaxed before I can work hard. Factor 4 Demands for Fairness (eigenvalue

1.6) .54 .50 .40 .40 .40

It's really unfair to be picked on by a teacher. A teacher who unfairly picks on a student is totally rotten. I can't stand classmates who act inconsiderately. Teachers should really act fairly all the time. A parent who acts negatively or critically toward his or her kids is totally rotten.


Bernard and Cronan

Likert scale, from 1 to 5 (1 strongly disagree, 2 disagree, 3 not sure, 4 agree, 5 strongly agree) so that subjects could locate a response that was reasonably appropriate for them, to permit the generalization of a continuous distribution and allow for a factor analysis of the data to be undertaken (Comrey, 1988). Content validity of the CAS I was established by a review by Albert Ellis (personal communication, September, 1998) who wrote that "The items you list in your Child and Adolescent Scale of Irrationality largely have face validity." Ellis made suggestions concerning revisions of two items that will be undertaken in subsequent use of the CASI: "If! wasn't so weak, things in my life would be easier" and "When it's time to get started with my homework, I think I need more time to get into the right mood."

State-Trait Personality Index. The 30-item scale used in the present study consists of Spielberger's previously published 10-item Trait Anxiety Scale (Spielberger, Gorsuch, & Lushene, 1970), his 10-item Trait Curiosity Scale (Spielberger, Gorsuch, & Lushene, 1970) and his 1O-item Trait Anger Scale (Spielberger, Jacobs, Russell, & Crane, 1983). The Trait Curiosity Scale was employed as a measure of divergent validity. Teacher Ratings of Student Behaviors Scale. In order to obtain observational data for the purposes of establishing convergent validity, a brief rating scale was developed for this study. A behavioral measure was also included so that any obtained correlations could not be attributed to common method variance. One class or subject teacher completed a rating scale for all participating subjects in his/her class. Teachers received the following written instructions: "The following three statements describe student behaviors. Read each carefully and decide how accurately it describes each student's behavior in your grade." 1. The student lacks effort and is unmotivated (e.g., fails to complete homework by due date, fails to complete work set in class, does not submit assignments/homework for correction by date due, submits work of an inadequate standard, procrastinates). The student is a behavior problem (e.g., is disruptive in class, is talkative in class, is inattentive in class, is involved in misdemeanors in the school, fails to observe school rules, is argumentative or noncompliant in class/playground). Student exhibits signs of emotional difficulties (e.g., low self-esteem, shy, anxious or withdrawn, depressed, angry).



This rating scale consisted of three items rating students on the frequency of "Behavior Problems," "Lacks Effort," and "Emotional Problems." Teachers were asked to globally rate each student in the above three areas using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = student never acts in this way; 2 = student seldom acts in this way; 3 = student sometimes acts in this way; 4 = student frequently acts in this way; 5 student always acts in this way).

Child and Adolescent Irrationality Scale


Parental permission was obtained for participating subjects. Twelve students who did not wish to participate or whose parents had not given consent for them to complete the questionnaires were given an alternative activity by their class or subject teacher which they completed while their classmates completed the questionnaires. Prior to completing the questionnaires, subjects were informed that their responses would remain confidential and would not be made available to school personnel. While subjects completed the CASI and the Spielberger scales, their class or subject teacher completed the 3-item rating scales on each student. Teachers received no special training in the completion of the rating scale. All subjects were administered the scales by the second author of this study-an experienced psychologist. All scales were read aloud to students in grades 4, 5 and 6 and to one class of grade 7 students who had several poorly skilled readers. The scales were administered during class time with the CASI being administered first. When read aloud, the assessment .session took approximately 30 minutes.

A principal components analysis with varimax rotation was conducted. In line with the recommendations of Stevens (1986), two criteria were used to determine the number of factors and the number of items retained in the CASI: (1) factors had to have eigen values of 1.0 or greater; (2) factors were to be defined by a minimum of five items loading at least .40. Four interpretable factors were identified accounting for 39.9% of the variance (see Table 1). In order to arrive at names for the factors (subscales) that were consistent with Ellis's theory (and in line with the initial editorial review of this manuscript), the items composing each of the factors were submitted to Albert Ellis as well as Ray DiGiuseppe, Director or Professional Education, Albert Ellis Institute and Professor, St. John's University, Department of Psychology. Consensus concerning the names of the factors that were consistent with REBT was achieved as follows: Factor 1 accounting for 18.1% of the variance contained 9 items loading .40 or higher and was labeled "Self-downing." Factor 2 accounting for 9.7% of the variance contained 9 items loading .40 or higher and was labeled "Intolerance of Frustrating Rules." Factor 3 accounting for 8.0% of the variance contained 12 items loading .40 or higher and was labeled "Intolerance of Work Frustration." Factor 4 accounting for 4.1 % of the variance contained 5 items loading .40 or higher and was labeled "Demands for Fairness." Internal reliabilities (Cronbach alpha) for the CASI were as follows: Total Irrationality (.90), Self-downing (.84), Intolerance of Frustrating Rules (.82), Intolerance of Work Frustration (.72) and Demands for Fairness (.60). Table 2 presents the intercorrelations among the CAS I subscales. Correlations are also presented between the CASI and its four subscales with Trait Anxiety , Trait


Bernard and Cronan

Table 2. Correlation Coefficients Among Factor Scores on the CASI, Measures of Personality, and Teacher Ratings of Students Intolerance of Frustrating Rules Intolerance of Work Frustration .72 .17 Demands for Fairness .52 .18

Total Irrationality Total Irrationality Self Downing Intolerance of Frustrating Ruler Intolerance of Work Frustration Demands for Fairness Trait Anxiety Trait Curiosity Trait Anger Behavior Problems* Low Effort* Emotional Problems* Note. Correlations Student. 1.00 .50

SelfDowning .50 1.00







.72 .52 .40 -.14 .43 .20 .24 .30

.17 .18 .55 -.09 .11 .03 .04 .20

.49 .25 .22 -.22 .38 .30 .32 .27

.24 .27 -.10 .36 .19 .22 .17

.24 1.00 .08 .13 .18 .04 -.03 .10


above .13 significant

at .001. *Teacher Ratings of

Curiosity, and Trait Anger as well as teacher ratings of students. In terms of Spielberger's personality scales, Total Irrationality correlated significantly with Trait Anxiety (r = .40) and Trait Anger (r = .43). Other significant correlations of relevance included the correlation of Self-downing with Trait Anxiety (r = .55), Demands for Fairness with Trait Anger (r = .27), Intolerance of Frustrating Rules with Trait Anger (r = 38), and Intolerance of Work Frustration with Trait Anger (r= .36). Minimal correlations were obtained between Trait Curiosity and measures of irrationality with, perhaps, the small negative correlation (r = -.23), with Intolerance of Frustrating Rules having some significance.


Child and Adolescent Irrationality Scale


Partly due to the relatively large sample size, a large number of significant correlations were found among the CASI and the teacher ratings of students. Of note was the significant correlation found between Total Irrationality and "Emotional Problems" (r= 30). "Intolerance of Frustrating Rules" correlated with "Low Effort" (r= .32), "Behavior Problems" (r= .30) and "Emotional Problems" (r= .27).

The aim of this research was to confirm the factor structure of the revised CASI, to determine its relationship to Ellis's theory of irrational thought, and to examine the extent to which irrational thought of children and adolescents is associated with different indices of childhood emotionality and problem behavior. The four subscales of the CASI which resulted from the factor analysis appear to have adequate internal reliability although in future validation on new samples, new items might need to be added to the Demands for Fairness subscale to increase its internal consistency and convergent validity. The factors themselves correspond to some but not all of Ellis's theory. In particular, Ellis proposes that self-demands for achievement and approval are primary with self-downing being derivative. In this study-as was found in Bernard and Laws (1988)-self-downing appeared primary to self-demands. That is, a dominant dimension of irrational thought for children and adolescents appears to be self-downing which can be regarded as an irrational thought process which does not, as Ellis argues (e.g., Ellis & Dryden, 1987), appear to derive psychologically from absolutistic shoulds, oughts, and musts. The tendency to take one negative aspect of oneself and overgeneralize to global judgments of self-worth appears to be a primary, nonderivative characteristic of childhood thought. It has been argued elsewhere (Bernard & Joyce, 1984) that self-downing can be equated to Piaget's developmental notion of conservation and reflects a cognitive inability to hold a positive value of oneself constant in the face of contradictory information (e.g., Piaget & Inhelder, 1958). Self-downing as a basic core of irrational thinking has now been obtained across a variety of scales of irrationality including the Teacher Irrational Beliefs Scale (Bernard, 1990a), the Parent BeliefInventory (Joyce, 1995), and the General Attitude and Belief Scale (1998). Ellis (Ellis & Dryden, 1987) has proposed that people who believe that they must not be frustrated and that they cannot stand frustration (referred to by Ellis as "low frustration tolerance") are likel y to experience high levels of anger when confronted with the hassles and difficulties of life. The results of this study indicate that in childhood, Low Frustration Tolerance separates into two forms: Intolerance of Frustrating Rules and Intolerance of Work Frustration. It bears further investigation to determine the extent to which this separation is reflected in socially and clinically meaningful differences in work-avoidant and rule-breaking behavior. The .49 correlation between these two forms of low frustration tolerance suggests that not all children who may procrastinate at their work (Intolerance of Work Frustration)


Bernard and Cronan

are likely to break rules (Intolerance of Frustrating Rules). Intolerance of Frustrating Rules has convergent validity with behavior problems and trait anger, confirming previous findings (Bernard & Laws, 1988). Weaker convergent validity was obtained between Intolerance of Work Frustration and trait anger and low effort. Ellis's theory proposes Demands for Fairness ("You must treat me well") as a core irrational belief. The factor structure of the CASI supports the construct validity of this belief in childhood. However, the weak correlations between this belief and trait anger and behavior problems indicate that convergent validity has not been established. The correlation of Total Irrationality with trait anger and trait anxiety suggests that not only does cognitive ideation occupy a prominent role in childhood emotion, but, more important, that the distinctive features of irrational thought as defined by Ellis are in evidence. Ellis proposes that while automatic thoughts (e.g., faulty interpretations of reality) play an important role in emotional difficulties, it is the way people evaluate their interpretations of reality (e.g., absolutizing, awfulizing, I can't stand-it-itis, global rating of self and others) which more directly determine the level and degree of emotional distress. In particular, "self-downing" appears to be a strong feature of childhood anxiety. The lower correlations of the CASI with the teacher ratings of student behavior than those correlations obtained with the Spielberger scales paralleled the findings obtained in the meta-analysis of Achenbach, McConaughy, and Howell (1987) . These investigators found low mean weighted correlations-typically in the order of .20-between untrained observer's rating and self-report measures of children's problem behavior. Weinrott and Jones (1984) found interobserver reliability to decline when observers were not informed that reliability data were being collected. Total Irrationality, Intolerance of Work Frustration and Self-Downing showed small to moderate correlations with different student problem behaviors. In the Bernard and Laws (1988) study, stronger correlations were obtained between Total Irrationality, Nonconformity (Intolerance of Frustrating Rules) and Demandingness (Demands for Fairness) with students referred for discipline problems as well as with objective measures of underachievement (discrepancy between student aptitude and grade point average). These earlier measures of convergent validity were more objective than those employed in the present study. Relatively weak correlations between trait curiosity and different subscales of irrationality provide evidence of divergent validity. Follow-up investigations with larger sample sizes are required to determine whether there are different factor structures for children and adolescents and for males and females. As well, the relationship between the different types of childhood irrationality obtained in this study that constitute the CASI and direct measures of childhood behavior (e.g., behavior problems, academic procrastination, low self-esteem) needs to be studied. The CASI was developed in the 1980s for use by child- and adolescent-oriented practitioners. While the present study's findings require further validation on larger






an atm-

Child and Adolescent Irrationality Scale



samples as well as the use of more objective, standardized measures, the results of this study provide support for the use of the CAS! as a research instrument measuring irrational thought in younger populations.

sa uct his las .sts on, by


Achenbach, T. M., McConaughy, S. H., & Howell, C. T. (1987). Child/adolescent behavioral and emotional problems: Implications of cross informant correlations for situational specificity. Psychological Bulletin, 101,213-232. Bernard, M. E. (l990a, July). Irrationality and teacher stress. Paper presented at the World Congress on Mental Health Counseling, Keystone, Colorado: Bernard, M. E. (I 990b). Rational-emotive therapy with children and adolescents: Treatment strategies. In M. E. Bernard & R. DiGiuseppe (Eds.), School Psychology Review (Mini-Series) Rational-Emotive Therapy and School Psychology, 19, 294-303. Bernard, M. E. (1998). Validation of the General Attitude and Belief Scale. Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 16, 184-196. Bernard, M. E. & DiGiuseppe, R. (Eds.) (1990). Rational-emotive therapy and school psychology. School Psychology Review (Mini-Series), 19, 267-321. Bernard, M. E., & DiGiuseppe, R. (Eds.) (1994). Rational-emotive consultation in applied settings. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaurn. Bernard, M. E., & Joyce, M. R. (1984). Rational-emotive therapy with children and adolescents: theory, treatment strategies, preventative methods. New York: John Wiley. Bernard, M. E., & Joyce, M. R. (1993). Rational-emotive therapy with children and adolescents. In T. R. Kratochwill & R. J. Morris (Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy with Children and Adolescents. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 221-246. Bernard, M. E., & Laws, W. (1988, August). Childhood irrationality and mental health. Paper presented at the 24th International Congress of Psychology, Sydney, Australia. Comrey, A. L. (1988). Factor analytic methods of scale development in personality and clinical psychology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 754-761. Ellis, A., & Bernard, M. E. (Eds.) (1983). Clinical applications of rational-emotive therapy. New York: Plenum Press. Ellis, A., & Bernard, M. E. (1985). What is rational-emotive therapy? In A. Ellis & M. E. Bernard (Eds.), Clinical applications of rational-emotive therapy (pp. 1-30). New York: Plenum Press. Ellis, A., & Dryden, W. (1987) The practice of rational-emotive therapy (RET). New York: Springer Publishing Co. Ellis, A., & Harper, R. (1975). A new guide to rational living. North Hollywood, CA: Wilshire Books. Hajzler, D., & Bernard, M. E. (1991). A review of rational-emotive education outcome studies. School Psychology Quarterly, 6, 27-49. Joyce, M. R. (1995). Emotional relieffor parents: Is rational-emotive parent education effective? Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 13, 55-75. Kassinove, H., Crisci, R., & Tiegerman, S. (1977). Developmental trends in rational thinking: Implications for rational-emotive school mental health programs. Journal of Community Psychology, 5, 266-274.


line s to {lor ngs 7). , .der en's y to ted. wed the 'otal ness II as ipti"ere relaevinine ifor .s of irect tina.nted arger
I •


Bernard and Cronan


Knaus, W. J. (1974). Rational-emotive education. A manual for elementary school teachers. New York: Institute for Rational Living. Morris, B. (1993). A rational-emotive treatment program with conduct-disordered and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder adolescents. Journal of Rational-Emotive and Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 11, 123-134. O'Kelly, M., Joyce, M. R., & Greaves, D. (1998). The primacy of the "shoulds": Where is the evidence? Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 16, 223-234 .. Piaget, J. & Inhelder, B. (1958). The growth of logical thinking. New York: Basic Books. Shorkey, C. T., & Saski, J. A. (1983). A low reading level version of the rational behavior inventory. Measurement and Evaluation in Guidance, 16, 95-99. Shorkey, C. T., & Whitman, V. L. (1977). Development of the rational behavior inventory: Initial validity and reliabilities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 37, 527-534. Smith, T. W. (1982). Irrational beliefs in the cause and treatment of emotional stress: A critical review of the rational-emotive model. Clinical Psychology Review, 2, 505-522. Spielberger, C. D., Gorusch, R. L., & Lushene, R. E. (1970). Manual for the Trait State Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Spielberger, C. D., Jacobs, G.A., Russell, S., & Crane, R. S. (1983). Assessment of anger: The state-trait anger scale. In J. N. Butcher & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Advances in personality assessment (Vol.2). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Stevens, J. (1986). Applied multivariate statisticsfor the social sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Weinrott, L., & Jones, B. (1984). Overt versus covert assessment of observer reliability. Child Development, 55, 1125-1137. Zurawski, R. M., & Smith, T. W. (1987). Assessing irrational beliefs and emotional distress: Evidence and implications of limited discriminant validity. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34, 224-227.

Offprints. Requests for offprints should be directed to either Michael E. Bernard, Department of Educational Psychology, Administration and Counselling, California State University, Long Beach, 1250 Bellflower Boulevard, Long Beach, CA 90840. Th soc in] (Jc
cal yo'