Available online at www.sciencedirect.
com
Behavior Therapy 42 (2011) 726 – 739
The Behavioral Activation for Depression Scale–Short Form:
Development and Validation
Rachel C. Manos
Jonathan W. Kanter
Wen Luo
University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee
Following a landmark component analysis of cognitive
therapy by Jacobson and colleagues (1996), there has been
renewed interest in behavioral activation (BA) treatments
for depression. The Behavioral Activation for Depression
Scale (BADS) was developed to measure when and how
clients become activated over the course of BA treatment.
Multiple studies have provided initial support for the BADS
but have also identified several potential problems. Four
studies were conducted in order to develop and provide
initial evaluation of a short form of the BADS that addresses
these concerns. In Study 1, an exploratory factor analysis
was conducted on existing data using the original BADS in
order to identify items to retain for the short form. In
Study 2, these items were administered to a new sample of
college students with elevated depressive symptoms and
were analyzed with exploratory and confirmatory factor
analyses. Study 3 examined the predictive validity of the
BADS-SF by examining the BADS-SF and depression scores
in relation to activity tracking and reward-value ratings over
the course of 1 week. Study 4 examined BADS-SF data over
the course of BA treatment for two clients using cross-lagged
panel correlations. With one client, changes in BADS-SF
scores led changes in depression scores by 1 week, whereas
with the other client changes in BADS-SF and depression
scores occurred concurrently. These studies resulted in a
nine-item scale that demonstrated good item characteristics
Address correspondence to Jonathan W. Kanter, University of
Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Department of Psychology, PO Box 413,
Milwaukee, WI 53201; e-mail: jkanter@uwm.edu.
0005-7894/xx/xxx-xxx/$1.00/0
© 2011 Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies. Published by
Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.elsevier.com/locate/bt
as well as acceptable internal consistency reliability,
construct validity, and predictive validity.
Keywords: behavioral activation; measurement; depression
BEHAVIORAL ACTIVATION (BA) treatments have gained
in popularity and empirical support following
Jacobson and colleagues’ (1996) landmark compo-
nent analysis of cognitive therapy. Examination of
BA treatment studies over the past several decades,
including several meta-analyses (Cuijpers, van
Straten, & Warmerdam, 2007; Ekers, Richards,
& Gilbody, 2008; Mazzucchelli, Kane, & Rees,
2009), has resulted in the conclusion that BA qualifies
as being a “well-established empirically validated
treatment” (Chambless et al., 1998; Task Force on
Promotion and Dissemination of Psychological Pro-
cedures, 1995) with results equivalent to medication
treatment for severe depression (Dimidjian et al.,
2006). In addition to demonstrating empirical
support, BA benefits from straightforward techniques
focused on activating healthy client behavior that
may be easier to train and disseminate to clinicians.
Thus, BA holds great promise with respect to the
public health burden of depression.
The mechanism by which BA treatments work,
however, is much less clear. Although differences
exist between BA treatments, all focus on a
mechanism of change whereby provision of BA
techniques leads to increased activation (and
decreased avoidance) that in turn produces in-
creased contact with positive reinforcement for
nondepressed behaviors and increased positive
 the bads-sf: development and validation
mood; over time (and numerous repetitions of this
cycle) this process will lead to decreased depressive
symptoms (Manos, Kanter, & Busch, 2010). In
order to examine this proposed mechanism of
change, measurement tools to assess each feature
of the model are needed. Of current interest is
measurement of changes in client activation consis-
tent with BA treatments that are presumed to
provide increased contact with positive reinforce-
ment.
Few measures of activation exist. The most widely
used measure has been the Pleasant Events Schedule
(PES; MacPhillamy & Lewinsohn, 1982), which is
meant to approximate response-contingent positive
reinforcement (RCPR), but there are several prob-
lems with the PES. First, the PES was primarily
developed as a measure of reinforcement, but scores
are based on responses to a set of 320 events that are
confounded with mood and may not represent the
key functional activities of any particular client.
Second, the PES does not differentiate between
positively and negatively reinforcing events that
have important implications for BA treatments.
Finally, the PES is lengthy, making it difficult to
give on a regular basis if the interest is change over
the course of weekly treatment sessions.
The Environmental Reward Observation Scale
(EROS; Armento & Hopko, 2007) was also
developed to assess RCPR. Unlike the PES, the
EROS is not based on a list of specific activities but
rather assesses for general contact with rewarding
activities. Scores on the EROS therefore do not
represent changes in activation specifically but
capture changes in satisfaction and reward experi-
enced with activities over time. The EROS was
developed in a series of three studies, the third of
which is relevant to the current series of studies.
College students completed daily diary activity
monitoring over the course of a week and completed
the EROS and a depression measure at the beginning
and end of the week. EROS scores significantly
predicted engagement in low reward value and high
reward value activities above and beyond depression.
Recently, the Reward Probability Index (RPI;
Carvalho et al., 2011) was developed to improve
upon the EROS. The RPI assesses the probability of
experiencing RCPR. Both the EROS and the RPI are
based on a reference period of the past several
months and focus on measurement of reinforcement
rather than activation.
The Behavioral Activation for Depression Scale
(BADS; Kanter, Mulick, Busch, Berlin, & Martell,
2006) was created to measure changes in activation
consistent with BA theory and separate from
contact with reinforcement (i.e., the EROS or
RPI). The BADS consists of 25 items across four
727
empirically derived subscales: activation, avoidance/
rumination, work/school impairment, and social
impairment. Examination of the BADS within an
undergraduate sample (Kanter et al., 2006) and a
community sample with elevated depressive symp-
toms (Kanter, Rusch, Busch, & Sedivy, 2009) found
that, in general, the BADS demonstrated acceptable
psychometric properties, including internal consis-
tency and convergent and discriminant validity.
Some limitations to the BADS were also identified.
First, Item 6 performed somewhat poorly and
required further investigation to determine whether
it should be removed. Second, the activation subscale
seemed less related to depression than the other
subscales or the BADS total score. Third, the
confirmatory model fit of the BADS in Kanter et al.
(2009) was adequate but could be improved. Fourth,
the BADS subscales were derived empirically without
an a priori theoretical basis, leading to subscales
measuring specific domains of activation (essentially
social and occupational) rather than subscales
representing key theoretical constructs. Finally, it
may be advantageous to create a shorter version of
the BADS to be administered on a weekly basis at
therapy sessions, often along with other measures.
The purpose of the current studies was to develop
and evaluate a short form of the BADS that would
have better psychometric properties and provide a
better fit with the theoretical model of BA while
also accomplishing the goal of being shorter in
length. Although several variations of BA exist (e.g.,
Lejuez, Hopko, & Hopko, 2002; Martell, Addis, &
Jacobson, 2001), the theoretical basis for each
remains very similar. All variations of BA include a
focus on decreasing avoidance and increasing
activation over the course of treatment. Activation
may include activation in terms of goal-directed
behaviors or pleasant behaviors. Thus, the BADS-
Short Form (BADS-SF) was created to measure
these aspects of avoidance and activation.
Study 1
The first study selected the best items for inclusion
in the BADS-SF and examined internal reliability of
these items. The original version and short form of
the BADS were compared in this study by
examining the short form items embedded within
the original form.
method
Participants and Procedure
Existing data were used for Study 1. Individuals
with self-reported depressed mood were recruited
by advertisements in the Milwaukee community
and through undergraduate psychology courses at
728 manos et al.
the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Commu-
nity members received $20 for participation,
whereas undergraduates received course extra
credit. Participants chose whether to complete the
survey packet online or complete a paper-and-
pencil version. The paper-and-pencil version was
either provided during recruitment at the psychol-
ogy courses and then returned to a drop box in the
psychology department, or was mailed to the
participant and returned by mail. There were no
differences in BADS total scores or in depression
scores based on online versus paper administration,
either within the undergraduate sample or within
the community sample.
The sample consisted of 242 community members
and 171 undergraduates (N = 413). The mean age of
the community members was 39.02 (SD = 13.78,
range 18–79), and 69% of the sample was female.
Regarding ethnicity of the community sample,
63.6% were Caucasian, 23.1% African American,
3.3% Mexican American, 2.1% Native American,
1.2% Asian American, 0.4% Middle Eastern, and
1.7% other (4.5% did not respond). Most partici-
pants in the community sample (92.7%) indicated a
history of depression, with 68.8% indicating that
they were currently depressed. The mean age of
undergraduate participants was 21.04 (SD = 3.45,
range 18–42) years and 75.3% of the undergraduate
sample was female. Regarding ethnicity of the
undergraduate sample, 77.2% were Caucasian,
4.1% African American, 5.8% Mexican American,
2.3% Native American, 8.2% Asian American, and
0.6% other (1.8% did not reply). Most participants
in the undergraduate sample (77.6%) indicated a
history of depression, with 28.4% indicating that
they were currently depressed.
There were significant differences between sam-
ples in depression scores based on the Center for
Epidemiologic Studies–Depression Scale (CES-D;
Radloff, 1977) and total BADS scores. While both
samples demonstrated elevated levels of depression,
community members reported significantly higher
depression scores (M = 27.61, SD = 10.02) than did
undergraduates (M = 22.54, SD = 7.75), t(369) =
5.260, p b .001. Community members reported
significantly lower BADS total scores, indicating
lower activation (M = 76.15, SD = 24.14) than
the undergraduate sample (M = 86.58, SD = 25.20),
t(366) = −4.016, p b .001.
measures
Behavioral Activation for Depression Scale
The 25-item BADS is described above (Kanter et al.,
2006, 2009). Instructions state, “Please read each
statement carefully and then circle the number which
best describes how much the statement was true for
you during the past week, including today.” Each
item is rated using a 7-point scale ranging from 0 (not
at all) to 6 (completely), with the midpoint falling
between “a little” and “a lot.” High scores on the
total scales and the subscales indicate that the
individual scored high on the area of interest.
Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale
The CES-D (Radloff, 1977) is a well-validated 20-
item self-report measure of the severity of depres-
sive symptoms in the general population. Higher
scores indicate greater impairment (scores of 16 or
higher indicate possible depression; Eaton, Smith,
Ybarra, Muntaner, & Tien, 2004).
results
As a first step, several experts in BA treatments (Drs.
Sona Dimidjian, Derek Hopko, and Carl Lejuez) and
the first and second authors examined the items on
the original BADS to locate items that best fit the
theoretical model and to eliminate less fitting items.
Recommendations included focusing on two sub-
scales (activation and avoidance), rewording several
items in order to increase understanding (i.e., Items 4
and 24 on the original BADS), and adding a new item
(“I did things that were enjoyable”). Changes in
wording as well as adding this item were noted for
Study 2. Twelve items from the original BADS (Items
2–5, 7, 8, 12–14, 18, 22, and 24) were rationally
chosen for the short form. These 12 items were
subjected to three separate factor analyses: one
examining the community sample only, one exam-
ining undergraduates only, and one examining the
combined sample. For all factor analyses, items were
retained if they had a pattern matrix loading of ≥.50
on any factor, with secondary loadings of ≤.40 on
any other factors.
Community Sample
Analyses revealed that the tentative 12-item scale
had adequate internal consistency (α = .816), but
that this would improve with the deletion of Item
12. The corrected item-total correlation was also
low for Item 12 (r = .202). Principal Axis Factoring
using Promax Rotation revealed a two-factor
solution (see Table 1). The first factor consisted of
Items 2, 8, 13, 14, 18, 22, and 24 and seemed to
represent the concept of avoidance (including
rumination). This factor also had adequate internal
consistency (α = .816), which would not improve
with deletion of any items. The second factor
consisted of Items 3, 4, 5, 7, and 12, and seemed to
represent the concept of activation. Internal consis-
tency for this factor was good (α = .805), although
removal of Item 12 would improve Cronbach's α to
 the bads-sf: development and validation
.817. The two factors significantly negatively
correlated with one another (r = −.297, p b .001).
The CES-D correlated negatively and significantly
with this 12-item BADS (r = −.595, p b .001), and
activation (r = − .242, p b .001). The CES-D corre-
lated significantly and positively with avoidance
(r = .682, p b .001).
Undergraduate Sample
Analyses revealed that the 12-item scale had
adequate internal consistency (α = .881), which
would not improve with deletion of any items.
Principal Axis Factoring using Promax rotation
revealed a three-factor solution (see Table 1) that
was similar to the two-factor solution above, except
that Factor 1 seemed to represent the concept of
activation (Items 3–5, 7, and 12), Factor 2 seemed to
represent the concept of avoidance (Items 2, 8, 18,
and 24), and Factor 3 seemed to represent the
concept of rumination (Items 13 and 14).
Because behavioral activation treatments concep-
tualize rumination as a form of avoidance, a forced
two-factor solution was examined (see Table 1).
This replicated the pattern found in the community
sample (although the factors were reversed in
order), with Factor 1 consisting of Items 3–5, 7,
and 12 (conceptually tied to activation), and
Factor 2 consisting of Items 2, 8, 13, 14, 18, and
24 (conceptually tied to avoidance), with Item 22
requiring deletion because it loaded highly on both
Table 1
Factor Loadings on the Pattern Matrix of the 12 Items From Study 1
Undergraduate Sample
Undergraduate Sample (Forced Two-Factor Solution)
Community Sample
2. There were certain things I needed to do that I didn't do.
3. I am content with the amount and types of things I did.
4. I engaged in a wide and diverse array of activities.
5. I made good decisions about what type of activities and/or
situations I put myself in.
7. I was an active person and accomplished the goals I set out to do.
8. Most of what I did was to escape from or avoid something unpleasant.
12. I did something that was hard to do but it was worth it.
13. I spent a long time thinking over and over about my problems.
14. I kept trying to think of ways to solve a problem but never tried
any of the solutions.
18. I was not social, even though I had opportunities to be.
22. My work/schoolwork/chores/
responsibilities suffered because I was not as active as I needed to be.
24. I only engaged in activities that would distract me from feeling bad.
Note. Results from Principal Axis Factoring with Promax with Kaiser Normalization Rotation. Factor loadings in bold indicate in which factor/
subscale the item was included. AV = avoidance, ACT = activation, RUM = rumination.
729
factors (pattern matrix loadings = −.427 on Factor 1
and .386 on Factor 2). Internal consistency was
acceptable for both Factor 1 (α = .844) and Factor 2
(α = .809) and would not improve with deletion of
any items on either factor. The two factors were
significantly negatively correlated (r = − .537,
p = b.001). Activation (r = −.491, p b .001) and avoid-
ance (r = .571, p b .001) significantly correlated with
CES-D scores in expected directions. The CES-D
correlated negatively and significantly with the
12-item BADS (r = −.615, p b .001).
summary
The Study 1 community sample found an activation
and an avoidance factor (which included rumina-
tion) and the Study 1 undergraduate sample found
activation, avoidance, and rumination factors.
When forced into two factors the undergraduate
sample replicated the community sample in that the
rumination items factored with the avoidance items
in the forced two-factor solution. Furthermore, all
rumination and avoidance items in the three-factor
solution in the undergraduate sample except Item
22 loaded on avoidance in the community sample.
Theoretically this merging of avoidance and rumi-
nation in both samples makes sense as BA posits
that rumination is a form of avoidance. Thus,
Study 1 pointed to a two-factor solution to the scale
entirely consistent with BA theory.
F1 F2 F3
(ACT) (AV) (RUM)
F1 F2
(ACT) (AV)
F1 F2
(AV) (ACT)
.530 – .275 –.238 .549 –.213 .596 .000
.012 .701 .781 .009 .768 – .190 .234
–.008 .661 .713 .092 .722 .192 –.135
.026 .743 .665 – .046 .652 – .035 –.042
–.089 .741 .814 – .016 .787 – .071 .028
.652 .004 –.014 .718 .006 .728 .044
.218 .581 .698 .094 .710 .204 –.144
.592 .099 –.022 .516 –.022 .053 .710
.647 – .010 –.127 .517 –.146 .141 .542
.691 .059 .137 .660 .114 .446 .285
.625 – .105 –.427 .386 –.410 .383 –.049
.584 .197 .133 .802 .169 .848 .025
730 manos et al.
Based on these results, Items 12 and 22 were not
included in the BADS-SF for use in Study 2. Item 14
also was not included due to concerns with wording
and similarities with Item 13. Internal consistency
of this nine-item measure was acceptable for both
the community sample (α = .776) and the under-
graduate sample (α = .844). In addition, this nine-
item version correlated with the CES-D in both the
community sample (r = −.583, p b .001) and in the
undergraduate sample (r = −.612, p b .001), with
each of these correlations strengthening after
correcting for attenuation due to unreliability of
measures (community sample r = −.715; undergrad-
uate sample r = − .769). In the Kanter et al.
(2009) sample, the original BADS and the CES-D
were also significantly correlated (r = −.72, p b .01,
n = 193).
Study 2
For Study 2, Items 2–5, 7, 8, 13, 18, and 24 of the
original scale were included, and changes in wording
recommended by the consultants were implemented.
The additional item suggested by the consultants (“I
did things that were enjoyable”) was added, and was
expected to load on activation. Using exploratory
and confirmatory factor analysis, Study 2 examined
the factor structure, reliability, and construct validity
of this 10-item version of the BADS.
method
Participants and Procedure
Participants were recruited through psychology
classes at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
and received extra credit for participation. Partic-
ipants who reported feeling sad, down, or blue, or
that they thought they might be depressed, were
recruited. Participants completed the BADS-SF, a
demographic information form, and various other
measures (see below). Surveys were administered
online using Survey Monkey (www.surveymonkey.
com).
A total of 471 participants completed the study
measures. The sample had an average age of
21.40 years (SD = 4.09) and 80.7% of the sample
were female. Regarding ethnicity, the majority
(78.3%) of the sample reported being European
American, followed by African American (7.0%),
Asian American (6.2%), Hispanic (3.8%), biracial/
multiracial/other (4.2%), and Native American
(0.4%). On average, participants had attended
roughly 2.5 years of post-high school education
(M = 14.46, SD = 1.50), worked an average of 14.65
(SD = 12.84) hours for income per week, and had an
average approximate annual income of $23,771
(SD = $65,873). The majority of participants
(91.3%) were full-time students. Regarding current
depression, 42.7% of the sample reported that
they thought they were currently depressed. The
majority of the sample (86.6%) was not in
current treatment for depression. On the CES-D,
participants had an average score of 21.18 (SD =
12.31) and 61.6% of the sample scored 16 or
higher, indicating possible depression (Eaton et al.,
2004).
measures
Acceptance and Action Questionnaire
The Acceptance and Action Questionnaire (AAQ;
Hayes et al., 2004) measures experiential avoidance
as per acceptance and commitment therapy (Hayes,
Strosahl, & Wilson, 1999), with higher scores
indicating higher levels of experiential avoidance.
Hayes and colleagues found evidence for the AAQ's
reliability and validity across multiple samples.
Automatic Thoughts Questionnaire
The Automatic Thoughts Questionnaire (ATQ;
Hollon & Kendall, 1980) measures the frequency
of negative automatic thoughts over the course of
the previous week, with higher scores indicating
more frequent negative cognitions. Hollon and
Kendall reported high internal consistent and good
convergent validity.
Beck Anxiety Inventory
The Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI; Beck, Epstein,
Brown, & Steer, 1988) is a validated measure of
anxiety symptoms, with higher scores indicating
higher levels of anxiety.
Behavioral Inhibition Systems/Behavioral
Activation Systems Scale
The Behavioral Inhibition Systems/Behavioral Acti-
vation Systems Scale (BIS/BAS; Carver & White,
1994) is a self-report measure of two general
motivational systems thought to underlie behavior
and affect: the BIS and the BAS, respectively (Gray,
1981, 1982). The BIS and BAS have been linked to
neural pathways in the brain and are generally
thought to either inhibit (BIS) or promote (BAS)
activation toward goals. The BAS is divided into
reward responsiveness, drive, and fun seeking, with
higher scores reflecting greater responsiveness to
reward, pursuit of goals, and pursuit of fun and
exciting activities. Carver and White provided
evidence of validity.
Cognitive Behavioral Avoidance Scale
The Cognitive Behavioral Avoidance Scale (CBAS;
Ottenbreit & Dobson, 2004) measures cognitive/
behavioral and social/nonsocial avoidance, with
 the bads-sf: development and validation
higher scores on the total score indicating greater
avoidance. The CBAS has demonstrated good
construct validity and internal consistency.
COPE
The COPE (Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989)
assesses ways of coping with difficult or stressful
events. Two of the COPE's 13 scales were used in the
current study (active coping and behavioral disen-
gagement), with higher scores indicating greater
active coping and greater behavioral disengagement.
The active coping and behavioral disengagement
scales had adequate internal consistency.
Environmental Reward Observation Scale
The EROS (Armento & Hopko, 2007), described
above, measures three aspects of RCPR, called
environmental reward, according to Lewinsohn
(1974): the number of potentially reinforcing events,
the availability of reinforcement in the environment,
and the ability to obtain the available reinforcement.
High scores indicate high levels of environmental
reward. The EROS demonstrated good internal
consistency, test–retest reliability, and construct
and predictive validity.
Pleasant Events Schedule
The PES (MacPhillamy & Lewinsohn, 1982),
described above, measures RCPR. When completing
the PES, respondents are to rate each of 320 items
twice, first rating frequency of occurrence in the past
month and then rating the subjective enjoyability of
that event during that past month. We report on the
cross-product score meant as an indicator of RCPR,
obtained by taking the cross product of the frequency
and subjective pleasure rating for each item, and then
averaging the cross products. MacPhillamy and
Lewinsohn reported on the reliability and validity
of the PES.
Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction
Questionnaire
The Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction
Questionnaire (Q-LES-Q; Endicott, Nee, Harrison,
& Blumenthal, 1993) measures quality of life across
several domains. We employed the general activities
scale, which assesses overall satisfaction with all of
the domains measures, with higher scores indicat-
ing a higher degree of enjoyment/satisfaction. The
Q-LES-Q has demonstrated sufficient reliability
and validity.
Response Styles Questionnaire–Rumination
Subscale
The Rumination Subscale of the Response Styles
Questionnaire (RSQ; Nolen-Hoeksema & Morrow,
1991) assesses how often individuals ruminate in
731
response to depressive feelings, with higher scores
indicating greater rumination. The RSQ-RUM has
demonstrated good internal consistency and validity
(Nolen-Hoeksema & Morrow).
results
The total sample of 471 participants was randomly
split into two separate samples for the exploratory
(n = 234) and confirmatory factor (n = 237) analyses.
No significant differences between the two samples
were found with respect to gender, ethnicity, age,
depression, depression treatment, scores on study
measures, or individual BADS-SF items.
Exploratory Factor Analysis
Procedures for exploratory factor analysis followed
those from Study 1. Examination of item charac-
teristics revealed acceptable skewness (coefficient of
skewness b 2; M = .287, SD = 0.159, range = −0.113
to 0.790) and kurtosis (coefficient of kurtosis b 5;
M = − 0.694, SD = 0.317, range = −1.073 to −0.092).
All items demonstrated acceptable dispersion of
responses. Factor analysis revealed a three-factor
solution (see Table 2). The first factor contained
four items, accounted for 35.66% of variance, and
based on inspection of items was termed “focused
activation.” The second factor contained three
items, accounted for 11.57% of variance, and was
termed “avoidance” (including rumination). The
third factor contained two items, accounted for
7.44% of the variance, and was termed “general
activation.” Item 8 was not included in any factor.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
A three-factor model first was tested with the
second half of the sample using Mplus 4.0 (Muthén
& Muthén, 2004) as the model-fitting program.
Because there were no missing data and the
assumption of multivariate normality was tenable,
we used the maximum likelihood estimation method.
The fit of the model was poor, χ 2(24) =74.29,
p b .001; RMSEA = .094 with 90% CI (070, .119);
CFI = .938; SRMR = .056, but was significantly
improved, Δχ 2(1) = 11.80, p b .001; RMSEA = .085
with 90% CI (.060, .111); CFI = .951; SRMR = .043,
by cross-loading Item 1 on the avoidance factor
based on BA theory and evaluation of modification
indices.
Due to the high correlation between focused
activation and general activation in the three-factor
model (.924), the original suggestions of BA experts
favoring a two-factor model of activation and
avoidance, and the results of Study 1, which
suggested a two-factor model, we examined an
alternative two-factor model in which focused
activation and general activation were collapsed
732 manos et al.

Table 2
Factor Loadings on the Pattern Matrix of the 10 Items From Study 2
Factor
1 2 3
1. There were certain things I needed to do that I didn't do. –.541 .287 .151
2. I am content with the amount and types of things I did. .580 –.040 .147
3. I engaged in many different activities. .236 .008 .589
4. I made good decisions about what type of activities and/or situations I put myself in. .624 .008 .205
5. I was an active person and accomplished the goals I set out to do. .896 .081 .076
6. Most of what I did was to escape from or avoid something unpleasant. –.001 .709 – .057
7. I spent a long time thinking over and over about my problems. .089 .748 – .171
8. I was not social, even though I had opportunities to be. .109 .429 – .401
9. I engaged in activities that would distract me from feeling bad. –.182 .672 .276
10. I did things that were enjoyable. .098 .057 .690
Note. Results from Principal Axis Factoring with Promax with Kaiser Normalization Rotation. Factor loadings in bold indicate in which factor/
subscale the item was included. The final BADS-SF includes all items but Item 8 with the instructions, “Please read each statement carefully
and then circle the number which best describes how much the statement was true for you DURING THE PAST WEEK, INCLUDING
TODAY.” Items are coded on a 0–6 scale with 0 (not at all), 2 (a little), 4 (a lot), and 6 (completely).

into one factor. In the statistical model, the
correlation between focused activation and general
activation was fixed at 1.0 so that the two- and
three-factor models were nested and a chi-square
difference test was conducted to compare the fit of
the two models. The chi-square difference test
showed that the two models had similar fit,
Δχ 2 = 1.475, Δdf = 1, p = .225, and the parameter
estimates of the two- and three-factor models were
comparable (see Table 3). We further examined an
alternative one-factor model and found that the
two-factor model had significantly better fit than
the one-factor model, Δχ 2 = 169.415, Δdf = 2,
p b .001. The one-factor model had a poor model
fit with RMSEA = .183 and CFI = .745.
Internal Consistency and Construct Validity
Overall, the nine-item scale demonstrated good
internal consistency (α = .819), which would not
improve with deletion of any items. The correla-
tions between other measures and BADS-SF scores
are reported in Table 4. In line with predictions, all
correlations were significant with the exception
of the RSQ rumination subscale and the BIS/BAS
fun-seeking scale. As expected, the BADS-SF
negatively correlated with the AAQ, ATQ, BAI,
BIS, CES-D, CBAS, and behavioral disengagement,
indicating an inverse relationship between activation
and experiential avoidance, negative automatic
thoughts, anxiety, behavioral inhibition, cognitive
and behavioral avoidance, and behavioral disen-
gagement. The BADS-SF positively correlated with
BIS/BAS drive and reward responsiveness, measures
of RCPR (the EROS and the PES), as well as the Q-
LES-Q, which assessed quality of life and satisfac-
tion. In general, the subscales correlated significantly
with these measures as well. Exceptions to this were
that the avoidance subscale did not significantly
correlate with the BIS/BAS drive or reward respon-
siveness scales or the PES cross product.
Comparison With 25-Item BADS
In order to compare the construct validity of the
BADS-SF with the original BADS, z-score tests of
independent correlations were computed according
to procedures indicated in Preacher (2002) com-
paring current Study 2 correlations with those of
previous BADS studies (Kanter et al., 2006, 2009).
The strength of correlations between the BADS-SF
in the current study was significantly higher than
correlations between the BADS in Kanter et al.
(2006) for the following measures: AAQ, BAI, and
CBAS. No significant differences between strength
of correlations were found for the ATQ in the
current study and in Kanter et al. (2006) and for the
CBAS and CESD in the current study and in Kanter
et al. (2009). Finally, the correlation between the
BADS and the RSQ-RUM in Kanter et al. (2009)
was significantly stronger in Kanter et al. (2009)
than in the current study.
summary
Results of Study 2 support a nine-item version of
the BADS-SF with two subscales: activation and
avoidance. In addition, correlations between the
BADS-SF total scores and other measures of interest
were for the most part as expected, further
supporting this version of the BADS-SF, and
construct validity appeared as good, if not better,
than that of the original BADS, with the exception
of the relationship with rumination. Results from
 the bads-sf: development and validation 733

Table 3
Parameter Estimates of the Three-, Two-, and One-Factor CFA Models
Parameters Three-Factor Two-Factor One-Factor
Unstandardized Standardized Unstandardized Standardized Unstandardized Standardized
Estimates (SE) Estimates Estimates (SE) Estimates Estimates (SE) Estimates
λ11 .694 (.107) .449 .686 (.107) .444 −3.165 (5.086) −2.045
λ12 .378 (.109) .244 .381 (.109) .247 4.095 (5.115) 2.646
λ21 .930 (.079) .706 .933 (.079) .708 .942 (.079) .713
λ31 1.221 (.087) .801 1.222 (.087) .801 1.217 (.087) .796
λ41 1.222 (.082) .837 1.215 (.082) .831 1.190 (.083) .812
λ52 1.323 (.104) .786 1.322 (.104) .785 .692 (.112) .410
λ62 1.254 (.110) .716 1.254 (.110) .715 .792 (.116) .452
λ72 1.404 (.117) .751 1.405 (.117) .752 .779 (.124) .417
λ83 1.088 (.105) .701 1.034 (.096) .666 1.007 (.096) .648
λ93 .939(.101) .621 .898 (.096) .593 .869 (.096) .573
ϕ12 .438 (.068) .438 .439 (.068) .439 1.0 (fixed) 1.0 (fixed)
ϕ23 .347 (.086) .347 .369 (.087) .369 1.0 (fixed) 1.0 (fixed)
ϕ13 .924 (.052) .924 1.0 (fixed) 1.0 (fixed) 1.0 (fixed) 1.0 (fixed)
θ1 1.534 (.151) .642 1.534 (.152) .646 1.270 (.803) .530
θ2 .870 (.094) .502 .867 (.094) .499 .857 (.093) .492
θ3 .833 (.106) .358 .833 (.105) .358 .859 (.107) .367
θ4 .639 (.092) .300 .659 (.092) .309 .733 (.095) .341
θ5 1.086 (.169) .383 1.087 (.169) .384 2.362 (.224) .832
θ6 1.500 (.187) .488 1.501 (.187) .488 2.452 (.234) .796
θ7 1.521 (.209) .435 1.519 (.209) .435 2.892 (.274) .827
θ8 1.224 (.169) .508 1.341 (.142) .557 1.404 (.145) .581
θ9 1.410 (.160) .615 1.488 (.150) .649 1.546 (.154) .672
χ 2 (df ) 62.492 (23) 63.967 (24) 233.382 (26)
CFI .951 .951 .745
RMSEA .085 .084 .183
SRMR .043 .043 .116

Study 2 are largely consistent with results from
Study 1 in terms of which items loaded on which
factors, with the exception that Item 1 loaded on
avoidance in Study 1 but loaded primarily on the
activation subscale in Study 2 (cross-loading on
avoidance to improve fit in the confirmatory
models). Given these positive results, in Study 3
the nine-item BADS-SF with two subscales was
further examined to determine the extent to which
BADS-SF scores predict the individual behavior.
Study 3
Study 3 examined test–retest reliability and predic-
tive validity by replicating the procedures Armento
and Hopko (2007) used to establish the predictive
validity of the EROS. In Armento and Hopko,
participants recorded their activities, and rated how
pleasant or rewarding (e.g., reinforcing) they found
those activities to be, on daily activity monitoring
forms over the course of 1 week. EROS scores,
which are construed as measuring changes in
RCPR, predicted engagement in rewarding activi-
ties over this time period. Because the BADS
measures changes in activation and avoidance that
should eventually lead to changes in RCPR,
the current study evaluated the degree to which
BADS-SF scores would also predict engagement in
rewarding activities over the course of 1 week.
method
Participants and Procedure
Students at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
who reported feeling sad, down, or blue, or thought
that they might be depressed were recruited through
fliers on campus and presented at psychology
courses. Students interested in the study contacted
the author and set up a time for a first meeting and a
second meeting 1 week after the first meeting. This
resulted in 28 participants who completed the first
meeting and 22 who completed both meetings.
On average, participants who attended both
meetings were 21.50 years of age (SD = 3.08) and
were approximately sophomores in college (M =
14.91 years of education, SD = 2.41). The sample
was primarily female (63.6%) and European Amer-
ican (68.2%; 18.2% were Asian American and
13.6% were biracial, multiracial, or other) with
734 manos et al.

Table 4
Correlations Between the BADS-SF and Other Measures From Study 2 and Comparison With Results From Earlier Studies Using
the Original BADS
Measure Correlation With Correlation With Correlation With Correlation With Z p
BADS-SF Total Score BADS-SF Activation BADS-SF Avoidance Original BADS
AAQ r = −.69** r = −.62** r = .52** r = −.51** a 3.92 b .001
(n = 471) (n = 471) (n = 471) (n = 319)
ATQ r = −.68** r = −.59** r = .55** r = −.62** a 1.43 .076, ns
(n = 471) (n = 471) (n = 471) (n = 319)
BAI r = −.49** r = −.37** r = .48** r = −.19* a 5.01 b .001
(n = 471) (n = 471) (n = 471) (n = 391)
BIS/BAS Drive r = .18** r = .22** r = −.05
(n = 368) (n = 368) (n = 368)
BIS/BAS Fun Seeking r = .04 r = .05 r = −.00
(n = 368) (n = 368) (n = 368)
BIS/BAS Reward r = .16** r = .18** r = −.08
Responsiveness (n = 368) (n = 368) (n = 368)
BIS/BAS BIS r = −.32** r = −.30** r = .22**
(n = 368) (n = 368) (n = 368)
CBAS r = −.66** r = −.58** r = .53** r = −.59** b 1.34 .091, ns
(n = 463) (n = 463) (n = 463) (n = 193)
CESD r = −.71** r = −.60** r = .58** r = −.72** b –.24 .406, ns
(n = 460) (n = 460) (n = 460) (n = 193)
COPE Active Coping r = .31** r = .35** r = −.12**
(n = 449) (n = 449) (n = 449)
COPE Disen-gagement r = −.54** r = −.47** r = .43**
(n = 449) (n = 449) (n = 449)
EROS r = .66** r = .64** r = −.43**
(n = 369) (n = 369) (n = 369)
PES Cross Product r = .28** r = .33** r = −.09
(n = 235) (n = 235) (n = 235)
QLESQ General Activities r = .50** r = .47** r = −.36**
(n = 341) (n = 341) (n = 341)
RSQ-RUM r = −.12 r = −.11 r = .09 r = −.56** a −5.38 b.001
(n = 173) (n = 173) (n = 173) (n = 319)
a
Kanter et al., 2006. bKanter et al., 2009.
* p b .05, ** p b .01.

most (86.4%) students attending college full-time.
When asked how active they were and how
rewarding they found their activities to be, 1 (not at
all), 3 (somewhat), 5 (extremely), participants rated
that on average they were slightly more than
somewhat active (M = 3.50, SD = .91) and that their
activities were slightly less than somewhat rewarding
(M = 3.86, SD = .56). When asked about current
depression, 38.1% reported thinking that they were
currently depressed and 18.2% reported that
they were currently receiving depression treatment.
CES-D scores also indicated elevated depression
levels (M = 24.50, SD = 9.09), with 86.5% scoring 16
or higher, indicating that they may meet criteria for
depression (Eaton et al., 2004).
At the initial assessment, conducted either by an
advanced undergraduate research assistant or by
an advanced graduate student, participants com-
pleted the BADS-SF and the CES-D (Time 1). The
research assistant next explained how to complete
the activity monitoring form, which consisted of a
grid with the hours of the day along the left column
and the days of the week along the top row.
Participants were told to write a brief description
of each hourly activity during the day along with a
rating from 1 to 4 for pleasure and reward value.
Ratings of 3 or 4 indicated that the activity was
either pleasurable, rewarding, or both (with a “4”
being more rewarding or pleasurable than a “3”),
and ratings of 1 or 2 indicated that the activity was
neither very rewarding nor very pleasurable (with a
rating of “1” being less rewarding or pleasurable
than a rating of “2”). Participants were encour-
aged to update the form twice per day for the next
week. Approximately 1 week after their initial
meeting, participants returned their forms and
again completed the BADS-SF and the CES-D
(Time 2).
 the bads-sf: development and validation 735

results depression scores negatively but not significantly

Table 5 presents participants’ BADS-SF and CESD associated with engagement in more high-reward
scores at Time 1 and Time 2. At Time 2, the BADS- activities, β = −.251, t = −1.161, p = .259. When the
SF correlated significantly with the CES-D (r = − .69, BADS-SF total score was added in the second step,
p b .01), time spent in high-reward activities (r = .48, the amount of variance accounted for increased
p b .05), and time spent in low-reward activities (r = to 24.6% [overall regression model: F(2, 21) =
−.59, p b .01). At Time 2, the BADS-SF activation 3.096, p = .069, effect size (f 2 ) = .326], with higher
scale significantly correlated with the CES-D (r = BADS-SF total scores positively and significantly
−.581, p b .01), time spent in high-reward activities associated with more time spent in high-reward
(r = .494, p b .05), and time spent in low-reward activities, β = .590, t = 2.145, p = .045. Change
activities (r = − .563, p b .01). Time 2 BADS-SF statistics indicated that adding the BADS-SF total
avoidance scale scores significantly correlated score to the prediction of time spent in high reward-
with the CES-D (r = .489, p b .05), but not with value activities was significant, F change (1, 19) =
time spent in high-reward activities (r = − .189, 4.600, p = .045. When the BADS-SF activation
p = .401), or time spent in low-reward activities score was added in the second step, the amount of
(r = .304, p = .170). The BADS-SF total score was variance accounted for increased to 24.5% [overall
significantly correlated with both the activation regression model: F(2, 21) = 3.090, p = .069, effect
score (r = .897, p b .001) and the avoidance score size (f 2 ) = .325], with higher BADS-SF activation
(r = −.614, p b .01); however, the activation and scores positively and significantly associated with
avoidance scores were not significantly correlated more time spent in high-reward activities, β = .525,
with one another (r = −.201, p = .369). Regarding t = 2.142, p = .045. Change statistics indicated that
test–retest reliability, BADS-SF total scores from adding the BADS-SF activation score to the
Time 1 and Time 2 were significantly correlated prediction of time spent in high-reward activities
(r = .451, p = .035), as were the activation (r = .608, was significant, F change (1, 19) = 4.590, p = .045.
p b .01) but not avoidance (r = .068, p = .762) scores. Given the lack of a significant correlation between
the BADS-SF avoidance score and time spent in
Hierarchical Linear Regressions high-reward activities, regression analyses were not
Hierarchical linear regressions were completed performed for avoidance.
in order to examine predictive validity for the
BADS-SF. Regressions were completed with de- Time Spent in Low-Reward Activities
pression scores from the CES-D entered in Step 1, For time spent in low-reward activities, the CES-D
and either the Time 2 BADS-SF total score or accounted for 11.3% of the variance, with
BADS-SF subscale score (activation or avoidance) increased depression scores positively but not
entered in Step 2. This was completed for the significantly associated with engagement in more
following dependent variables: the number of hours low-reward activities, β = .336, t = 1.595, p = .126.
spent in high-reward activities (Regression 1) and When the BADS-SF total score was added in the
the number of hours spent in low-reward activities second step, the amount of variance accounted for
(Regression 2). increased to 35.9% [overall regression model: F(2,
21) = 5.314, p = .015, effect size (f 2 ) = .560], with
Time Spent in High-Reward Activities
higher BADS-SF total scores negatively and signifi-
For time spent in high-reward activities, the CES-D
cantly associated with more time spent in low-reward
accounted for 6.3% of the variance, with increased
activities, β = −.684, t = −2.699, p = .014. Change
statistics indicated that adding the BADS-SF total
score to the prediction of time spent in low-reward
Table 5
activities was significant, F change (1, 19) =7.284,
Means and Standard Deviations on Measures From Meetings
p = .014. When the BADS-SF activation score was
1 and 2 in Study 3
added in the second step, the amount of variance
Measures Time 1 Time 2
accounted for increased to 31.7% [overall regres-
M SD M SD sion model: F(2, 21) = 4.411, p = .027, effect size (f 2) =
BADS-SF Total 25.68 8.21 24.68 7.23 .464], with higher BADS-SF activation scores nega-
BADS-SF Activation 18.50 5.64 16.91 5.83 tively and significantly associated with more time
BADS-SF Avoidance 10.82 4.03 10.23 3.26 spent in low-reward activities, β = −.555, t = −2.384,
CES-D 26.91 10.49 22.09 9.29 p = .028. Change statistics indicated that adding the
EROS 23.73 4.45 23.64 4.49 BADS-SF activation score to the prediction of time
High-Reward Time (Hours) 53.24 25.10 spent in low-reward activities was significant,
Low-Reward Time (Hours) 46.26 24.36 F change (1, 19) = 5.683, p = .028. Given the lack of
736 manos et al.
a significant correlation between the BADS-SF
avoidance score and time spent in low-reward
activities, regression analyses were not performed
for avoidance.
summary
Results of Study 3 provide initial evidence for the
predictive validity of the BADS-SF. Specifically,
according to the behavioral model of depression
upon which BA is based (Manos et al., 2010),
increased activation should predict increased con-
tact with positive reinforcement. In this study,
BADS-SF scores positively predicted time spent in
high-reward activities and time spent in low-reward
activities, over and above depression scores. When
examining the subscales, however, activation per-
formed well and added to predictions of time spent
in high- and low-reward behavior, whereas avoid-
ance did not. Effect sizes for the significant
regressions were large in nature (Cohen, 1988).
Study 4
In order to explore the ability of the BADS-SF to
track changes over the course of treatment, we
gathered data on two clients who received BA as
outpatient treatment for depression. Both clients
sought treatment at the University of Wisconsin-
Milwaukee Psychology Clinic and provided con-
sent for their data to be used for research purposes
but were not recruited for a specific study. Client 1
was a 43-year-old Caucasian single male diagnosed
at intake with major depressive disorder, recurrent
and social phobia, generalized. This client was seen
by the second author for 15 weekly treatment
sessions using the BA procedures outlined in
Kanter, Bowe, Baruch, and Busch (in press). Client 1
completed the BADS-SF and the Depression Anx-
iety Stress Scales (DASS; Lovibond & Lovibond,
1995) before every treatment session. The DASS
produces subscale scores for depression, anxiety,
and stress. For the current study, only the depres-
sion subscale scores are presented.
Client 2 was a 43-year-old African American
single female diagnosed with major depressive
disorder, single episode, and chronic migraine
headaches. This client was seen by an advanced
graduate student and supervised by the second
author in BA as per Kanter et al. (in press). Client 2
completed the BADS-SF and the BDI-II before every
treatment session.
results
For each client, cross-lagged correlations were
computed between the BADS-SF and depression
scores to investigate whether change in depression
was concurrent with, led, or lagged change in
BADS-SF total and subscale scores. We used
simulation modeling analysis (Borckardt et al.,
2008) to determine statistical significance account-
ing for autocorrelation in single-subject time series
data. All the significance tests of cross-correlations
in this study used Bonferroni corrected significance
level of .0167.
Data for each client are presented in Figures 1 and
2. Client 1 demonstrated an initial increase in
depression, followed by a steady decrease, with
BADS-SF total and activation scores paralleling the
depression scores each session with an initial de-
crease followed by a steady increase. The BADS-SF
avoidance score, however, did not demonstrate as
much sensitivity from session to session. There was a
statistically significant zero time-lag correlation
between BADS-SF total and DASS depression scores
(r = −.92, p b .001), as well as a +1 week-lag correla-
tion (r = −.67, p = .004). This indicated that BADS-SF
total scores and depression had a strong relationship
and changes in BADS-SF led changes in DASS
depression scores by 1 week. DASS depression had
statistically significant zero time-lag correlations
with both activation (r = −.87, p = .003) and avoid-
ance (r = .85, p = .001). Changes in activation led
DASS depression by 1 week (r = −.83, p = .005). The
evidence was not clear-cut as to whether changes in
avoidance led or lagged DASS depression because
the +1 week-lag correlation (r = .68, p = .016) was
very close to the −1 week-lag correlation (r = .65,
p = .018).
Client 2 demonstrated significant variability from
session to session (largely dependent on the presence
or absence of severe headaches according to her self-
report) but within that variability visual inspection
suggests a close inverse correlation session to session
between depression and BADS-SF total and activation
scores. For the BADS-SF total score, only the zero
time-lag correlation was statistically significant (r =
−.87, pb .001), indicating the synchrony of the BADS-
SF total scores and depression. This synchrony was
also found between BDI-II and the activation (r = −.83,
p b .001) and avoidance subscales (r = .63, pb .001).
summary
These two cases provide initial evidence that the
BADS-SF scores may be clinically relevant and
correlate meaningfully with depression over the
course of BA treatment. For Client 1, change in
activation as per BADS-SF scores predicted change in
depression with a 1-week lag consistent with the
hypothesized mechanism of action in BA (Manos
et al., 2010). For Client 2, only the concurrent
correlation between activation and depression was
significant, which makes sense given the client's
 the bads-sf: development and validation 737

40
BADS-SF
Total
35

30
BADS-SF
25 Activation

Scale Score
20

15 BADS-SF
Avoidance
10

5
DASS Dep
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Session

FIGURE 1 Client 1's data over the course of treatment.

report that both her mood and her ability to activate
were strongly under the influence of the presence or
absence of migraine headaches, which fluctuated
considerably across treatment.
General Discussion
This series of studies reported on the development
of a nine-item version of the BADS, called the
BADS-SF, with two subscales termed “activation”
and “avoidance.” Factor analyses of multiple
samples and theoretical considerations converged
on this two-factor solution. Consistent with the
focus of recent BA treatments, the factor structure
of the final model and number of items per subscale
indicate that the BADS-SF primarily measures
activation toward one's goals or values and general
activation toward pleasant events (the activation
factor), followed by avoidance behaviors, including
rumination (the avoidance factor). The total scale
score performed well, whereas in Studies 2, 3, and 4
the activation subscale performed well but the
avoidance subscale did not. This suggests that this
brief activation subscale may be useful independent
of the total scale, but other better measures of
avoidance exist (e.g., AAQ, CBAS) and should be
considered if measuring avoidance independent of
activation is a focus of interest for research. We
recommend only use of the total BADS-SF scale at
this point.
A series of correlations with measures of
interest supports and clarifies the construct
validity of the BADS-SF. The BADS-SF strongly

40 BADS-SF
Total
35

30
BADS-SF
Activation
Scale Score

25

20
BADS-SF
15 Avoidance

10

5 BDI-II

0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Session

FIGURE 2 Client 2's data over the course of treatment.

738 manos et al.
negatively correlated with depression, avoidance,
behavioral disengagement, and automatic depres-
sive thoughts, and strongly positively correlated
with the probability of reinforcement, quality of
life, and active coping. It significantly but less
strongly correlated with BIS/BAS subscales that
attempt to measure personality dispositions, with
the exception of fun seeking with which it did not
correlate at all. The lack of correlation with fun
seeking suggests that activation as measured by
the BADS-SF is primarily a function of focused
and valued activities rather than pleasant events.
The BADS-SF also did not correlate with rumina-
tion, which is more surprising given that past
studies have found a significant relationship
(Kanter et al., 2006). This suggests that rumina-
tion needs to be measured separately, although
factor analysis findings suggest that rumination
does play a role in the BADS-SF total scale score as
a component of avoidance. For the most part, the
BADS-SF demonstrated equal or improved con-
struct validity as compared to the original 25-item
BADS.
The BADS-SF performed strongly in the predic-
tive validity study, with the BADS-SF significantly
predicting both high- and low-reward activities
over the course of 1 week in college students
with self-reported elevated depressive symptoms.
Study 3 also found that BADS-SF scores were
significantly correlated over a 1-week period but
the correlation was not very strong (r b .600). This
may represent difficulty with temporal stability;
however, it should be noted that depression and
behavioral activation are viewed as state charac-
teristics rather than traits and therefore some
degree of change over time without any interven-
tion is expected. In addition, the activity monitor-
ing that occurred in this study can be viewed as an
intervention itself (e.g., Harmon, Nelson, &
Hayes, 1980). Thus, future studies may evaluate
the test–retest reliability of the BADS-SF without
any intervention occurring in the test–retest
period.
Finally, Study 4 presented two cases of de-
pressed clients treated with BA, suggesting that the
BADS-SF may be useful in tracking changes in
activation at the single-subject level and for future
process analyses. These two cases suggest a
hypothesis for future process studies that the
mechanism of BA as measured by the BADS-SF
may be observed in some (Client 1) but not all
(Client 2) cases, and it will be important to
measure alternative mechanisms as well. This is
consistent with other single-subject findings on BA
(Gaynor & Harris, 2008).
limitations and significance of
potential findings
An important limitation of the current studies is
that they mostly utilized undergraduate, nontreat-
ment-seeking samples, with the exception of
Study 4. However, Study 4, in presenting two
cases, suffers from a lack of external validity and
should be interpreted only as single-subject case
examples that provide hypotheses for future re-
search. It will be important to evaluate the BADS-SF
in community and clinical treatment-seeking samples
in the future, including analyses of the ability of the
BADS-SF to predict changes occurring over the
course of BA treatment in groups, and analyses
using item-response theory. Despite these limitations,
collectively these studies provide initial evidence for a
short form of the BADS that both improves the
psychometric properties of the BADS and reduces the
subject burden, increasing the feasibility with which
it may be used as a weekly measure during therapy,
when time spent completing questionnaires must be
minimized. The BADS-SF has demonstrated good
item characteristics, internal consistency, reliability,
construct validity, and predictive validity.
References
Armento, M. E. A., & Hopko, D. R. (2007). The Environmen-
tal Reward Observation Scale (EROS): Development,
validity, and reliability. Behavior Therapy, 38, 107–119.
Beck, A. T., Epstein, N., Brown, G., & Steer, R. A. (1988). An
inventory for measuring anxiety: Psychometric properties.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56,
893–897.
Borckardt, J. J., Nash, M. R., Murphy, M. D., Moore, M.,
Shaw, D., & O'Neil, P. (2008). Clinical practice as natural
laboratory for psychotherapy research: A guide to case-
based time-series analysis. American Psychologist, 63,
77–95.
Carvalho, J. P., Gawrysiak, M. J., Hellmuth, J. C., McNulty, J. K.,
Magidson, J. F., Lejuez, C. W., & Hopko, D. R. (2011). The
Reward Probability Index (RPI): Design and validation of a
scale measuring access to environmental reward. Behavior
Therapy, 42, 249–262.
Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989).
Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically based approach.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 267–283.
Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition,
behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending
reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS scales. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 319–333.
Chambless, D. L., Baker, M. J., Baucom, D. H., Beutler, L. E.,
Calhoun, K. S., Crits-Christoph, P., et al. (1998). Update on
empirically validated therapies, II. Clinical Psychologist, 51,
3–16.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral
sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cuijpers, P., van Straten, A., & Warmerdam, L. (2007).
Behavioral activation treatments of depression: A meta-
analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 27, 318–326.
 the bads-sf: development and validation
Dimidjian, S., Hollon, S. D., Dobson, K. S., Schmaling, K. B.,
Kohlenberg, R. J., Addis, M. E., et al. (2006). Randomized
trial of behavioral activation, cognitive therapy, and
antidepressant medication in the acute treatment of adults
with major depression. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 74, 658–670.
Eaton, W., Smith, C., Ybarra, M., Muntaner, C., & Tien, A.
(2004). Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale:
Review and revision (CESD and CESDR). In M. Maruish
(Ed.), The use of psychologicatl testing for treatment
planning and outcomes assessment: Volume 3: Instruments
for adults (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ekers, D., Richards, D., & Gilbody, S. (2008). A meta-analysis
of randomized trials of behavioural treatment of depression.
Psychological Medicine, 38, 611–623.
Endicott, J., Nee, J., Harrison, W., & Blumenthal, R. (1993).
Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire: A
new measure. Psychopharmacology Bulletin, 29, 321–326.
Gaynor, S. T., & Harris, A. (2008). Single-participant
assessment of treatment mediators: Strategy description
and examples from a behavioral activation intervention for
depressed adolescents. Behavior Modification, 32, 372–402.
Gray, J. A. (1981). A critique of Eysenck's theory of personality.
In H. J. Eysenck (Ed.). A model for personality
(pp. 246–276). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
Gray, J. A. (1982). The neuropsychology of anxiety: An
enquiry into the functions of the septo-hippocampal system.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Harmon, T. M., Nelson, R. O., & Hayes, S. C. (1980). Self-
monitoring of mood versus activity by depressed clients.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 48, 30–38.
Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K., & Wilson, K. (1999). Acceptance
and commitment therapy: An experiential approach to
behavior change. New York: Guilford Press.
Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K. D., Wilson, K. G., Bissett, R. T.,
Pistorello, J., Toarmino, D., et al. (2004). Measuring
experiential avoidance: A preliminary test of a working
model. Psychological Record, 54, 553–578.
Hollon, S. D., & Kendall, P. C. (1980). Cognitive self-statements
in depression: Development of an automatic thoughts
questionnaire. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 4, 383–395.
Jacobson, N. S., Dobson, K. S., Truax, P. A., Addis, M. E.,
Koerner, K., Gollan, J. K., et al. (1996). A component analysis
of cognitive behavioral treatment for depression. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 295–304.
Kanter, J. W., Bowe, W. M., Baruch, D. E., & Busch, A. M. (in
press). Behavioral activation. In D. W. Springer, C. Beevers,
& A. Rubin (Eds.), Treatment of Depression in Adults and
Adolescents. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Kanter, J. W., Mulick, P. S., Busch, A. M., Berlin, K. S., &
Martell, C. R. (2006). The Behavioral Activation for
Depression Scale (BADS): Psychometric properties and
factor structure. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavior-
al Assessment, 29, 191–202.
739
Kanter, J. W., Rusch, L. C., Busch, A. M., & Sedivy, S. K.
(2009). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Behavioral
Activation for Depression Scale (BADS) in a community
sample with elevated depressive symptoms. Journal of
Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 31, 36–42.
Lejuez, C. W., Hopko, D. R., & Hopko, S. D. (2002). The brief
Behavioral Activation Treatment for Depression (BATD): A
comprehensive patient guide. Boston: Pearson Custom
Publishing.
Lewinsohn, P. M. (1974). A behavioral approach to depression.
In R. J. Friedman & M. M. Katz (Eds.). The psychology
of depression: Contemporary theory and research
(pp. 157–178). Washington, DC: Winston-Wiley.
Lovibond, S. H., & Lovibond, P. F. (1995). Manual for the
Depression Anxiety Stress Scales. Sydney: Psychology
Foundation of Australia.
MacPhillamy, D. J., & Lewinsohn, P. M. (1982). The Pleasant
Events Schedule: Studies on reliability, validity, and scale
intercorrelation. Journal of Consulting and Clincal Psychol-
ogy, 50, 363–380.
Manos, R. C., Kanter, J. W., & Busch, A. M. (2010). Attempts to
measure activation as conceptualized within behavioral activa-
tion treatments. Clinical Psychology Review, 30, 547–561.
Martell, C. R., Addis, M. E., & Jacobson, N. S. (2001). De-
pression in context: Strategies for guided action. New York:
Norton.
Mazzucchelli, T., Kane, R., & Rees, C. (2009). Behavioral
activation treatments for adults: A meta-analysis and review.
Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 16, 383–411.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2004). Mplus user's guide.
Los Angeles: Author.
Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Morrow, J. (1991). A prospective
study of depression and posttraumatic stress symptoms
after a natural disaster: The 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61,
115–121.
Ottenbreit, N. D., & Dobson, K. S. (2004). Avoidance and
depression: The construction of the Cognitive–Behavioral
Avoidance Scale. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 42,
293–313.
Preacher, K. J. (2002). Calculation for the test of the difference
between two independent correlation coefficients [Computer
software]. Available at www.quantpsy.org.
Radloff, L. (1977). The CES-D Scale: A self-report depression
scale for research in the general population. Applied
Psychological Measurement, 1, 385–401.
Task Force on Promotion and Dissemination of Psychological
Procedures. (1995). Training in and dissemination of
empirically validated treatments: Report and recommenda-
tions. Clinical Psychologist, 48, 3–23.
R E C E I V E D : August 24, 2010
A C C E P T E D : April 3, 2011
Available online 1 June 2011