

CAQ
Cognitive Avoidance Questionnaire (CAQ)
The Cognitive Avoidance Questionnaire (CAQ) is designed to assess an individual's tendency to use cognitive avoidance strategies to manage stressful thoughts or situations. It is a useful tool for psychologists seeking to understand avoidance mechanisms in their patients, which are often observed in anxiety and depressive disorders.
- Number of questions
- 25 questions
- Estimated duration
- 6 minutes
- Language
- English
- Original name
- Cognitive Avoidance Questionnaire
- Target audience
- Adults
- Authors
- Gosselin, P., Langlois, F., Freeston, M. H., Ladouceur, R., Dugas, M. J., & Pelletier (2002)
Preview of the 25 questions
Scoring & interpretation
Scoring
Total score: 70/125
Subscales:
- Thought substitution: 12/25
Tendency to replace an unwanted thought with another one judged more neutral or positive.
- Transformation of images into thoughts: 13/25
Recasting mental images as verbal thoughts to soften their emotional impact.
- Distraction: 16/25
Using mental or behavioral activities to turn attention away from anxious or disturbing thoughts.
- Avoidance of threatening stimuli: 18/25
Tendency to avoid situations, objects or memories tied to emotional content perceived as threatening.
- Thought suppression: 11/25
Deliberate effort to actively push certain thoughts out of awareness.
Each item is rated on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 means never and 5 always. A high score reflects a greater level of cognitive avoidance.
The questionnaire comprises 5 subscales:
- Thought substitution (items 4, 11, 17, 20, 25)
- Transformation of images into thoughts (items 3, 15, 19, 23, 24)
- Distraction (items 8, 10, 12, 13, 21)
- Avoidance of threatening stimuli (items 7, 9, 16, 18, 22)
- Thought suppression (items 1, 2, 5, 6, 14)
Similar tools
What psychologists think
No ratings yet. Be the first to rate this questionnaire.
Clarity and comprehension
—Are the test's instructions and questions easy for patients to understand?
Clinical relevance
—Does the test measure what it's meant to measure, and is it useful in a clinical setting?
Perceived reliability of the results
—Do the results seem reliable and consistent in their interpretation?