The Cognitive Failures Questionnaire

Abstract

The Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (CFQ) is a widely utilized self-report questionnaire designed to measure the frequency of minor, everyday slips and errors in perception, memory, and motor function. Developed by Broadbent, Cooper, FitzGerald, and Parkes in 1982, the scale consists of 25 items intended to assess how often these cognitive lapses occur in an individual’s daily life, typically assessed over the preceding six months. High scores on the CFQ are generally indicative of a greater propensity for experiencing attentional difficulties and memory failures, and the instrument is frequently employed in studies linking cognitive inefficiency to factors such as stress, fatigue, and various psychological disorders.

Keywords

Cognitive Failures Questionnaire, CFQ, cognitive failures, attention, memory lapses, motor function, everyday errors, psychological assessment, self-report.

Authors

Donald E. Broadbent, P. F. Cooper, P. FitzGerald, K. R. Parkes.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the CFQ is to provide a quantitative measure of individual differences in the tendency to commit minor, non-pathological cognitive errors, often referred to as “slips of action” or “absentmindedness.” The scale aims to capture variance in everyday cognitive functioning, which may not be apparent in traditional laboratory tests of cognition. By focusing on mundane, real-world examples—such as forgetting appointments or failing to notice road signs—the CFQ offers a ecologically valid assessment of an individual’s propensity toward attentional and memory lapses.

The scale is instrumental in research across occupational psychology, clinical psychology, and cognitive science, helping researchers investigate the relationship between cognitive inefficiency and environmental or internal factors like stress, sleep deprivation, and working memory load. It is widely used as a baseline measure for assessing general cognitive vulnerability.

Construct

The CFQ measures the construct of Cognitive Failures, defined as momentary lapses in cognitive processing that lead to minor errors in perception, memory, or action execution. These failures are generally considered normal human variance but can be exacerbated by psychological or physiological states. The 25 items of the CFQ capture three broad domains of cognitive functioning:

• Memory Failures: Forgetting names, appointments, or where items were placed.
• Attentional Failures (Distractibility): Daydreaming, failing to notice environmental cues (e.g., signposts), or losing track of reading material.
• Motor/Action Blunders: Dropping objects or performing unintended actions (e.g., throwing away the wrong item).

The overall score is interpreted as a reflection of general cognitive efficiency, with higher scores indicating poorer overall performance in maintaining focused attention and accurate memory retrieval in daily tasks.

Validity

The CFQ has demonstrated significant psychometric properties, particularly in terms of concurrent and predictive validity. Studies have consistently shown that CFQ scores correlate positively with self-reported measures of anxiety, depression, and stress, suggesting good concurrent validity with emotional and mental health constructs. Furthermore, the CFQ exhibits predictive validity, as high scores often predict poorer performance in real-world tasks requiring sustained attention, such as driving safety and complex manual operations.

The measure is considered a valid index of general attentional control, distinguishing individuals who are prone to distraction and forgetfulness from those who maintain high levels of cognitive vigilance. Its validity is further supported by numerous cross-cultural adaptations and validation studies across diverse populations, confirming its relevance in assessing non-clinical cognitive inefficiency.

Reliability

The CFQ generally demonstrates high internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients typically ranging between .80 and .90 in clinical and non-clinical samples, indicating that the 25 items measure a cohesive underlying construct. Test-retest reliability is also reported as acceptable to high, confirming that the measure yields stable scores over time for individuals. For instance, the original 1982 validation study reported strong consistency measures, confirming the scale’s utility for reliable measurement of habitual cognitive tendencies rather than transient states.

Factor Analysis

While the initial development of the CFQ proposed that the scale measures a single, unitary factor of general cognitive failure, subsequent factor analysis studies have sometimes suggested the existence of multiple correlated sub-factors. Common findings suggest at least two or three primary components:

1. Memory and Retrieval Slips: Items related to forgetting locations or names.
2. Distractibility and Attentional Lapses: Items related to failing to notice stimuli or daydreaming.
3. Motor Function Errors: Items related to dropping or bumping into things (often less stable across studies).

Despite these potential sub-factors, the CFQ is most often utilized and scored as a unidimensional measure, reflecting a general susceptibility to cognitive error. The strong inter-item correlation supports the use of a single total score as the primary index of cognitive failure.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report questionnaire / Paper-and-pencil assessment

Format: 25 items, scored on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (Never) to 4 (Very often).

Language Available: English (Original), widely translated and validated in numerous languages including Spanish, German, French, and Japanese.

Population Group: General adult population, often used with university students and occupational groups (e.g., pilots, drivers) where attentional lapses are critical.

Age Group: Adolescents (16+) and adults.

Population Details: Originally validated on a sample of students and employees in the United Kingdom.

Test Methodology: Respondents are asked to report the frequency with which they experienced each minor cognitive mistake over the past six months. Scores are summed, yielding a total score ranging from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating higher levels of cognitive failure.

Keywords

Psychological instruments, self-assessment, memory measurement, attentional control, cognitive psychology, psychological screening, Broadbent.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not provided in source content.

Affiliation Email addresses: For correspondence regarding the scale material: [email protected] (Ronald Okada, York University).

Correspondence Address: Ronald Okada, Professor of Psychology, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Health, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M3J 1P.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The CFQ was initially published in 1982. Reproduction of the scale items requires permission, often granted by the British Psychological Society, which publishes the journal where the original article appeared. The source content explicitly states that the items are “Reproduced by permission from the British Journal of Clinical Psychology.” Users should contact the copyright holder or the corresponding author for formal authorization regarding use in research or clinical settings. There is no explicit fee information provided in the original source, though licensing terms may apply.

Reference’s

• Broadbent, D.E., Cooper, P.F., FitzGerald, P., & Parkes, K.R. (1982). The Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (CFQ) and its correlates. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 21, 1-16.

Items of the The Cognitive Failures Questionnaire

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.