ArticleInternational journal of clinical and health psychology : IJCHP
Should we worry about how we measure worry? Insights from an updated version of the Italian Penn State Worry Questionnaire.
Article in International journal of clinical and health psychology : IJCHP. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Uncertainty in Illness Questionnaire (UIQ): development and validation of a clinically oriented measure for patients and caregivers.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2026Article
- Validation of the Penn State Worry Questionnaire in a sample of Afghan students.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Research indicates a rise in self-reported worry, highlighting the need for updated psychometric tools. The Penn State Worry Questionnaire (PSWQ) assesses excessive worry and there is debate over whether only its 11 positively worded items should be used. This study aimed to clarify the factor structure and psychometric properties of the PSWQ and to explore worry features in two diverse Italian community samples from the 2010s and 2020s. Methods: The 2020s sample included 674 participants (44.5 % female; Mage = 29.44 ± 13.20), while the 2010s sample comprised 411 individuals (61.6 % female; Mage = 36.64 ± 13.73). Methods from Classical Test Theory (CTT) were used to compare alternative PSWQ factor structures, assess the best-fitting model's reliability and validity, and evaluate measurement invariance (MI) across sexes in the 2020s sample. Item Response Theory (IRT) was applied to refine and confirm the best-fitting factor structure and to compare item and individual locations across samples. Results: The 11-item one-factor model was the best fit and it showed excellent reliability and concurrent validity. MI across sexes was supported. IRT analyses suggested that items were slightly more difficult for the 2010s sample. Conclusions: The PSWQ-11 is a valid and reliable tool for assessing worry in the Italian community. The findings suggest that societal issues as well as socio-demographic characteristics may contribute shaping differences in worry features across diverse historical contexts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.