2014. Vol.5, No.2, 119-126
Published Online February 2014 in SciRes (http://www.scirp.org/journal/psych) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/psych.2014.52019
The Psychometric Properties of the Self-Talk Scale among
Iranian University Students
Mohammad Khodayarifard1, Thomas M. Brinthaupt2*,
Saeed Akbari Zardkhaneh3, Golrokh Ebadi Fard Azar4
1Faculty of Psychology and Education, University of Tehran,
2Department of Psychology, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesbo ro , USA
3Faculty of Psychology and Education, Allameh Tabatabaei University, Tehran, Iran
4Faculty of Foreign Languages and Literatures, University of Tehran,
Email: email@example.com, *firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
Received December 16th, 2013; revised January 17th, 2014; accepted February 15th, 2014
Copyright © 2014 Mohammad Khodayarifard et al. Thi s is an o pen access article d istributed un der the Creative
Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited. In accordance of the Creative Commons Attribution License all
Copyrights © 2014 ar e reserved for SCIRP and the owner of the intellectual property Mohammad Khodayarifard
et al. All Copyright © 2014 are guarded by law and by SCIRP as a guardian.
The present study investigated the psychometric properties of the Self-Talk Scale (STS) among Iranian
university students. Six hundred eight university students completed the STS and one of six self- and
cognitive-related measures. The results of exploratory factor analysis showed the same four factors (i.e.,
self-reinforcement, s e lf-management, self-criticism, and social-assessment) in the STS-Iranian version.
Item analysis and internal consistency coefficients demonstrated that the items and factors were satisfac-
tory. Confirmatory factor analysis also supported a four-factor model. Self-talk frequency scores were
associated with personality measures in theoretically meaningful ways. The results indicate that the STS
is acceptable for measuring self-talk frequency among Iranian adults.
Keywords: Self-Talk Scale (STS); Test Adaptation; Psychometric Properties; Factor Analysis;
The Psychometric Properties of the Self-Talk
Scale among Iranian University Students
Many terms have been used to refer to individuals talking to
themselves. These terms include internal monologues, auditory
imagery, private speech, and self-talk. Among these terms,
self-talk seems to be the most suitable because it is simpler and
more generic than the others and can include both overt and
covert conversations (Brinthaupt, Hein, & Kramer, 2009). Self-
talk is a common human experience (Fields, 2002; Vygotsky,
1934). This experience has attracted the attention of a broad
range of psychologists and philosophers (e.g., Jaynes , 1976;
Lyons, 1986; Mead, 1962). It is through self-talk that people
interpret their feelings and perceptions, alter and regulate their
assessments and b eliefs, and engage in other kinds of self-regu-
lation (Hackfort & Schwenkmezger, 1993).
Psychological theory and research (e.g., Diaz & Berk, 1992;
Hardy , 2006) support the proposition that self-conversations
serve important regulatory and cognitive functions. Researchers
have investigated both the facilitating and inhibiting effects of
self-talk in sports and physical activities (Hardy, 2006), clinical
problems like depression and anxiety (Kendel & Hollon, 1989;
Schwartz & Garamoni, 1889), controlling aggressive or other
inappropriate behaviors and coping with fear (Meichenbaum,
1977), and improving writing skills (Breiter & Scardamalia,
1982). How people talk to themselves is also a central concept
in cognitive-behavioral interventions (Conroy & Metzler, 2004).
In summary, theory and research highlight the importance of
self-talk in everyday life. Proper assessment of self-talk is
therefore a crucial aspect of psychological research in this
realm. Toward this end, measures have been developed to as-
sess various elements of self-talk (Calvete et al., 2005; Duncan
& Cheyne, 1999; Kendall & Hollon, 1989; Siegrist, 1995).
Among the available measures, the Sel f-T alk Scale (STS; Brin-
thaupt et a l., 2009) seems to be the most acceptable instrument.
The STS assesses several self-regulatory functions (both posi-
tive and negative) served by self-talk.
In the development and initial validation of the STS with
American samples, Brint haupt et al. (2009) identified four self-
talk factors: social assessmen t, self-reinforcement, self -manage-
ment, and self-criticism. They reported acceptable test-retest
and internal consistency of the STS and evidence for its crite-
rion and concurrent validity. Brinthaupt and Kang (in press)
found good STS model-data fit that supported the proper func-
tioning of the 5-category STS response format.
To date, there is very limited research on the external validity
of the STS. In this study, we examine the psychometric proper-
M. KHODAYARIFARD ET AL.
ties of the STS with Iranian students and examine how self-talk
frequency relates to a variety of other self-related variables.
Because of the general self-regulatory functions that are post-
ulated to be served by self-talk, we expected that the structure
and functioning of the STS would be similar to that found with
American samples. These predictions are supported by a variety
of studies with Iranian participants (e.g., Ghorbani, Wa tson, &
Hargis, 2008; Khodayarifard, Spielberger, Gholamali Lavasani,
& Akbari Zardkhaneh, 2012) that support the assumption that
the adapted scales from other cultures showed similar relation-
ships with other measures.
Parti cipa nts
Students from the University of Tehr an were recr uited through a
stratified random sampling process. First, all the University
colleges were divided into educational groups of human sci-
ences, technology, engineering, basic sciences, and arts. Then,
within each college, faculty members were randomly selected
to include their students in the study.
The final sample consisted of 608 students (306 men, 301
women). The average age of these students was 21.92 years
(SD = 2.89). The majority of the students were single
(94.2%), with their birth place being urban (95.7%) rather
Self-Talk Scale (STS). The STS (Brinthaupt et al., 2009) is a
16-item self-report measure rated on a 6-point scale (1 = never,
6 = always). Each item is rated according to the common sen-
tence stem of “I talk to myself when...” Four STS subscales
measure self-talk, including social assessment (e.g., “I want to
replay something I’ve said to another person”), self-reinforce-
ment (e.g., “I am really happy for myself”), self-management
(e.g., “I need to figure out what I should do or say”), and self-
criticism (e.g., “I am really upset with myself”). Each subscale
has four items and subscales scores can range from 4 - 24.
Higher scores denote more frequent self-talk.
Brinthaupt et al. (2009) report internal consistency values for
the subscales ranging between 0.79 and 0.89, with a test-retest
value of 0.69 over a 3-month period. All participants completed
the STS. For the current sample, internal consistency data are
presented in the Results section. In addition, participants com-
pleted one of six other instruments (randomly assigned) re-
presenting a variety of self-related attributes.
Integrative Self-Knowledge Scal e (ISKS). The ISKS is 1 2-
item Persian measure of the integration of experiential and
reflective self-knowledge across time and the distinction of self
from non-self (Ghorbani et al., 2008). Respondents rate the
ISKS items using a 5-point scale (0 = largely untrue, 4 =
largely true). Items assess the extent to which respondents at-
tempt to understand their past experiences, maintain awareness
of self in the present, and move toward desired future goals. An
example item was “What I have learned about myself in the
past has helped me to respond better to difficult situations.”
Higher scores indicate higher levels of self-knowledge integra-
tion. Cross-cultural investigations in Iran and America (Ghor-
bani et al., 2008) support the reliability and validity of this
Self-Esteem Scale (SES). The 10-item SES (Rosenberg,
1965) measures a person’s general feelings of self-worth. This
scale measures the amount of respondents’ overall life satisfac-
tion and feelings about themselves. Respondents rate each item
using a 4-point scale (1 = strongly agree, 4 = strongly disagree).
Higher scores denote higher levels of global self-esteem. The
SES is a frequently used measure and has been extensively
validated in the research literature (e.g., Robinson, Shaver, &
Wrightsman, 1991). For the current sample, internal consisten-
cy was acceptab le, α = 0.77.
Self-Regulation Inventory, short form (SRI-S). The 25-
item SRI-S (Ibanez, Ruiperz, Moya, Marques, & Ortet, 2005)
measures self-regulation in five subscales: positive actions,
controllability, expression of feelings and needs, assertiveness,
and well-being seeking. Respondents use a 5-point rating scale
(1 = very rarely, 5 = always). Higher scores indicate higher
levels of self-regulation tendencies. The psychometric proper-
ties of the SRI-S have been confirmed (e.g., Grossat-Maticek &
Eysenck, 1995; Ibanez et al., 2005). The Persian version of the
SRI-S with a sample of 676 students showed Cronbach alphas
for the subscales ranging from 0.90 to 0.97 and factor analysis
results of the SRI confirmed the five factors (Beshārat, Baz-
zāziān, & Poor Bohlul, in press; Beshārat, Bazzāziān, Azizi,
Abd-al-Manāfi, & Larijāni, in Pr e ss ). For the current sample,
internal consistency was acceptable, with subscale coefficients
ranging from 0.87 to 0.94.
Obsessive-Compulsive Inventory-Revised (OCI-R). The
18-item OCI-R was developed by Foa et al. (2002). This meas-
ure includes six subscales (washing, obse ssi n g, hoarding, or-
dering, checking, and mental neutralizing) each of which con-
sists of three items. Items are rated using a 5-point scale (0 =
not at all, 4 = extremely). Higher scores indicate higher levels
of OC tendencies. The alpha coefficients for these subscales
have been reported in the ranges from 0.50 to 0.72. Moreover,
the 6-factor structure of the Persian version of this measure has
been confirmed (Mohammadi, Zamāni, & Fatā, 2008). For the
current sample, internal consistency was acceptable, with subs-
cale coeffi c ients ranging from 0.49 to 0.72.
Irrational Beliefs Test (IBT). The 100-item IBT was de-
veloped by Jones (1968) and is a frequently used measure of
irrational beliefs. It has ten subscales (e.g., demand for approval,
blame proneness, anxious over-concern, and perfectionism) that
are measured by ten items each. Respondents rate the items
using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly agree, 5 = strongly
disagree). Higher scores denote lower levels of irrational be-
liefs. Jones (1968) reported test-retest coefficients for the total
scale as 0.92 and for the subscales as ranging between 0.66 and
0.80. In the Persian version of the measure, the internal con-
sistency for the total scale was found to be 0.86 (Shirazi, 2006).
For the current sample, internal consistency was acceptable,
with subscale coefficients ranging from 0.60 to 0.71.
Depression Anxiety Stress Scale (DASS). The DASS (Lo-
vibond & Lovibond, 1995) is a 42-item self-report measure of
three negative emotional states. Respondents rate the items
using a 4-point scale (0 = did not apply to me at all, 3 = applied
to me very much, or most of the time) reflecting the frequency
or severity of the experiences over the past week. Higher scores
denote more frequent experiences of each of the negative states.
For a Persian version of the DASS, acceptable alpha coeffi-
cients have been reported, along with evidence of criterion
validity (Sāhebi, Asghari, & Salari , 2006). For the current sam-
ple, internal consistency was acceptable, with subscale coeffi-
cients ranging from 0.60 to 0.90.
M. KHODAYARIFARD ET AL.
Prior to data collection and based of the method recom-
mended by Tanzer and Sim (1999), the Self-Talk Scale (STS)
was translated from English to Persian to be used with Iranian
participants. This version was assessed for clarity by six pro-
fessors in the faculty of psychology at the University of Tehran.
The STS was then back-translated by three specialized English
teachers. Finally, the developer of the instrument resolved any
difficulties or inconsistencies. This version (see Appendix) was
then used to create the final translation, which was completed
by 60 B. A. and M.A. students in the University of Tehran, who
rated the clarity and meaningfulness of the overall measure and
Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social
Sciences (Version 18; SPSS Corporation, 2009) as well as the
Linear Structural Relations (LISREL Version 8.5; Joreskog &
Sorbom, 1996). After the data were entered, extensive explora-
tory data analysis (Howell, 2007; Tukey, 1977) was conducted:
1) Approximately 5% of the completed surveys were randomly
chosen and compared with the data entered in the file; 2) The
observed ranges for each instrument were compared to their
possible ranges; 3) We made use of demographic features of the
sample group with the characteristics of the items. Because the
amount of missing data, on average, was below 1% for each of
the items and no orderly relation was observed, these data were
replaced by using the linear interpolation method (see Marsh &
Perry , 2005); 4) We examined all participants, using a percen-
tage bar graph to check for random response styles. Participants
with any suspicious responses were deleted; 5) The 16 STS
items showed approximately normal distribution. Calculating
Mahalanobi’s Distance (Tabachnick & Fi de l, 2007) also con-
firmed these results.
Following these exploratory data analysis steps, the total sam-
ple was randomly divided into two equal calibration and valida-
tion groups. The calibration sample was used for the extraction
of factor structure information, by applying item analysis and
exploratory factor analysis. The validation sample was used for
cross-validation of the factor structure by applying confirmato-
ry methods and checking the relations between STS scores and
the other constructs pertaining to it.
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) of the
Calibration Samp l e Data
Based on previous research with the STS, for the exploratory
factor analysis we used the method of Principal Axial Factoring,
with Direct Oblimin rotation, limiting the number of factors to
four, and setting the minimal factor loading value to 0.35. The
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy (Kaiser,
1974) was in the acceptable range, 0.84 (Tabachnick & Fidell,
The resulting factor analysis found four eigenvalue factors
over 1.0, explaining approximately 59 percent of the variance
of the total scale (see Table 1). In order to finalize the number
of factors, the scre en plot was used. As Table 2 shows, 14 out of
the 16 STS items had suitable loading on t heir respective factors .
Only 2 items (1 and 6) did not have the maximum loading
Factors and eigenvalues resulting from EFA of the STS.
Factors Ei gen
of Variance Cumulative Percent
1 5.69 35.54 35.54
2 1.52 9.50 45.04
3 1.15 7.19 52.23
4 1. 01 6.33 58.56
on suitable theoretical factors. The data indicate that each sub-
scale showed acceptable internal consistency coefficients.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis of th e Val idation
Sample Da ta
In order to check the validity of the exploratory factor struc-
ture, we ran a confirmatory factor analysis on the validation
sample, using the Maximum Likelihood method. In this process,
three factor structures were tested: 1) the original factor struc-
ture of the scale (Brinthaupt et al., 2009); 2) the factor structure
resulting from the EFA of the calibration sample data reported
earlier; and 3) the original factor structure without item num-
ber 1 (because of its failure to load on any of the EFA factors).
In testing model fit, we used the following indexes: Chi-
square statistic (χ2), Comparative fit index (CFI; Bentler, 1990),
Non-normed fit index (NNFI, Bentler, & Bonnet, 1980), Root-
mean square error of approximation (RMSEA; Stieger, 1990),
Confidence interval, (CI; Hu & Bentler, 1999), and Standard
Root-Mean Square Residual (SRMR; Hu & Bentler, 1998).
Table 3 presents the results of these analyses. As the table in-
dicates, model 3 (the original factor structure without item 1)
showed the best fit.
For comparison of the relative fit of the three nested models,
test was used. Comparison of model 1 and model
2 indicated that omission of item 1 and considering item 6 in
Self-Management resulted in a significant improvement of fit
(14) = 84.10, p < 0.001). Comparison of model 1 and 3,
which differed only in the omission of item 1 from the original
structure, revealed significant improvement of fit,
85.55, p < 0.001. Finally, the comparison of model 2 and 3,
with displacement of item 6 from the Self-Management factor
to the Social-Assessment factor, did not result in an improve-
ment of data fit. Therefore results suggested that model 3 was
the most parsimonious, since it contained the least amount of
parameters while retaining the best model fit (see Table 4 de-
Convergent and Discriminant Validity of the STS
In order to assess the convergent validity of the STS items,
we used the method of standard path coefficient (Standard
Lambda, Raines-Eudy, 2000). As Table 5 shows, these coeffi-
cients indicated that the items loaded strongly on the related
latent variables (factors). All of the coefficients were statisti-
To assess discriminant validity of subscales, we used the
fixed and free solution method (Bagazzi & Yi, 1988). This
method indicates whether the one-dimensional model can ex-
plain the correlations in variables observed in every pair of
factors or if these factors measure each dimension separately
M. KHODAYARIFARD ET AL.
Descriptive statistics for the EFA of the calibration sample.
Factor Item # Mean SD
Cronbach’s Alpha if
0.65 0.72 0.56
Fitness statistics for 3 models of self-talk.
Model χ2 df CFI NNFI RMSEA RMSEA (90% CI) SRMR
1 318.59 98 0.91 0.90 0.093 (0.08, 0.10) 0.07
2 234.43 84 0.93 0.92 0.083 (0.07, 0.10) 0.06
3 233.04 84 0.94 0.93 0.080 (0.07, 0.10) 0.04
Descriptive statistics for the CFA of the validation sample.
Factor It em M ean SD
Cronbach’s Alpha if
Standard path and error coefficients and t-statistic for STS items.
Factor It em Standard Path Coefficient Standard Error Coefficient t Statistic
M. KHODAYARIFARD ET AL.
(Torkzādeh, Koufteros, & Pflughoeft, 2003). We compared the
fit indices for two models: the four factorial (dimensional)
model (model 3 in Table 3) and the one factorial model that
consisted of 15 STS items (without item 1). Table 6 shows that
the Free Model has better fit statistics. This supports the notion
that the STS has a multi-factorial structure.
Relations of the STS Factors to Self-Related
After demonstrating that the Persian version of the STS pos-
sessed acceptable psychometric properties, we next examined
how the 4 STS factors related to a variety of self-related con-
structs. Table 7 shows that integrated self-knowledge was sig-
nificantly and positively correlated with the STS factors of
self-criticism, self-management, and social-assessment as well
as with and the STS total score. Self-esteem was significantly
and positively correlated with the self-management factor only.
Self-regulation was significantly and positively correlated with
self-reinforcement and the total STS score.
Relations of the STS Fact ors to Cognitive Co n structs
We also examined how the STS factors correlated with cog-
nitive constructs. As the Table 8 shows, obsessiv e -compulsive
tendencies were significantly and positively correlated with
each of the STS factors except self-management, as well as
with total STS scores. Irrational beliefs scores were signifi-
cantly and positively associated with self-reinforcement and
total self-talk frequency scores. Depression scores were nega-
tively correlated with self-reinforcing self-talk and positively
correlated with social-assessing self-talk. Anxiety scores were
positively correlated with self-critical, social-assessing, and
overall self-talk frequency. Finally, stress scores were nega-
tively correlated with self-managing self-talk.
The principal purpose of the present research was to investi-
gate the psychometric properties of the Self-Talk Scale (Brin-
thaupt et al., 2009) using an Iranian sample. The results provide
strong support for the validity and cross-cultural generalization
of the STS. In particular, the psychometric data show that the
Persian STS adequately replicated the original scale’s factor
structure. Additionally, the data correlating self-talk frequency
with a variety of self- and cognitive-related constructs confirm
that the STS is related to these measures in theoretically mea-
In the confirmatory analysis process, the strongest support
emerged for the original factor structure without one scale item.
The results indicated that a self-critical self-talk item (“I should
have done something differently”) was problematic in the
translated STS. This item showed several cross loadings in the
exploratory factor analysis and the calculation of Cronbach’s
alpha improved when it was deleted. Further research is needed
The correlational data provided convergent and discriminant
validity evidence for the Persian STS. First, the results showed
that the STS factors of self-criticism, self-management, and
social-assessment as well as total self-talk frequency scores
were significantly related to integrative self-knowledge. This
construct represents a temporally integrated understanding of
both experiential and reflective self-relevant processes (Ghor-
bani et a l., 2008). The results are consistent with other research
Statistics of goodness of fit indices for the estimated free and fixed models.
Model χ2 df NC CFI NNFI RM SEA RMSEA (90% CI) SRMR
Free 233.04 84 216.78 0.94 0.93 0.08 (0.07, 0.10) 0.04
Fixed 444.34 95 359.59 0.85 0.82 0.11 (0.10, 0.12) 0.16
Correlation matrix of the STS factors with integrated self-knowledge, self-esteem, and self-management.
Scale N Self-Criticism Self-Reinforcement Self-Management Social-Assessment STS Total
Integrated self-Knowledge 85 0.32* 0.12 0.21* 0.44** 0.51**
Self-Est eem 78 −0.20 0.20 0.23* 0.09 −0.09
Self-Regulation 83 −0.17 0.32* 0.14 0.09 0.79**
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.
Correlation matrix of the STS factors with obsessive-compulsive, irrational beliefs, and depression/anxiety/stress measures.
Scale N Self-Criticism Self-Reinforcement Self-Managemen t Social-Assessment STS Total
Obsessive-Compulsive 88 0.34* 0.32* 0.03 0.33* 0.33*
Irrational Beliefs 82 0.17 0.36* 0.10 0.17 0.24*
Depression 90 0.09 −0.22* 0.14 0.24* 0.01
Anxiety 90 0.31* 0.21 −0.14 0.23* 0.24*
Stress 90 −0.14 −0.17 −0.24* −0.13 −0.19
*p < 0.05.
M. KHODAYARIFARD ET AL.
suggesting that self-talk serves a function in facilitating the
integration of self-knowledge (e.g., Morin, 2005). Future re-
search investigating the relationship between self-talk and inte-
grative self-knowledge appears to be warranted.
Overall STS scores were strongly correlated with self-regu-
lation scores. The SRI-S serves as a general assessment of
people’s tendencies to be autonomous and independent in re-
gulating their lives and health (Grossarth-Maticek & Eysenck,
1995). The results suggest that self-talk might serve an impor-
tant causal or supportive role in self-regulation, or it may simp-
ly be a reflection of people’s self-regulatory tendencies (e.g.,
The results comparing self-talk frequency to the cognitive
measures were also of theoretical and practical interest. Obses-
sive-compulsive tendencies were positively associated with
self-talk frequency. This finding complements the Brinthaupt et
al. (2009) study that showed that frequent self-talkers reported
higher levels of obsessive-compulsive propensities than did infre-
quent self-talkers. Consistent with other researc h (e.g., Schwartz &
Garamoni, 1989), depression scores were negatively correlated
with self-reinforcing self-talk. Depression scores were also
positively correlated with social-assessing self-talk, suggesting
that ruminating about one’s social interactions is related to
being in a depressed state (e.g., Watkins & Baracaia, 2002).
Higher levels of anxiety were associated with higher levels
of self-critical, social-assessing, and overall levels of self-talk
frequency. These results are consistent with other research
showing that anxiety manifests itself in self-talk in competitive
sport contexts (Conroy & Metzler , 2004) a nd t hat spe cific kinds
of self-talk are associated with anxiety disorders and emotional
distress (e.g., Ingram, Kendall, Smith, Donnell, & Ronan, 1987;
Kendall & Hollon, 1989).
In summary, the effective measurement of self-talk fre-
quency permits researchers to study a variety of self-regulatory
activities. The present research provides additional support for
the validity of the Self-Talk Scale. The Persian translation of
the STS shows good psychometric properties and can be used
with confidence in future research.
Acknowledgemen t s
This research was supported by the University of Tehran, re-
search design No. 2/1001. The authors would like to thank Dr.
Saeid Pournaghash Tehrani, Ali Azimi, and Valiollah Ramez-
ani for back translation and control translation; Ms. Shirin
Zeanali for her help with editing the paper; and Dr. Minsoo
Kang for his feedback on an earlier version of the paper.
Anderson, A. (1997). Learning strategies in physical education: Self-
talk, imagery, and goal-setting. Journal of Physical Education Re-
creation & Dance, 68, 30-35.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models.
Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and good-
ness-of-fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological
Bulletin, 88, 588-606. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588
Beshārat, M. A., Bazzāziān, S., & Poor Bohlul, S. (in Press). The psy-
chometric properties of self -regulation in Iranian Sample. Journal of
Beshart, M. A. (2 0 10 ). Psych o metric pro perties o f self -regulation scale-
short form in an Ir anian s ample. Clinical Psycho logy a nd Co unseling
Researches, 1, 53-70.
Brinthaupt, T. M., & Kang , M. (in Press ). Many-faceted R asch calibra-
tion: An example using the self-talk scale. Assessment.
Brinthaupt, T. M., Hein, M. B., & Kramer, T. E. (2009). The self talk
scale: Development, factor analysis and validation. Journal of Per-
sonality Assessment, 91, 82-92.
Calvete, E., Estevez, A., Landin, C., Martinez, Y., Cardenoso, O., Vil-
lardon, L., & Villa, A. (2005). Self-talk and affective problems in
college students: Valence of thinking and cognitive con tent specific-
ity. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 8, 56-67.
Conroy, D. E., & Metzler, J . N. (2004). Patterns of self-talk associated
with different forms of competitive anxiety. Journal of Sport and
Exercise Psychology, 26, 69-89.
Duncan, R. M., & Cheyne, J. A. (1999). Incidence and functions of
self-report private sp eech in young adults: A self -verbalization ques-
tionnaire. Canadian Journal of Be havioral Scie nce, 31, 133-136.
Fields, C. (2002). Why do we talk to ourselves? Journal of Experimen-
tal and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 14, 255-272.
Foa, E . B., Huppert, J. D., Leiberg, S., Langner, R., Kichic, R., Hajcak,
G., & Salkovskis, P. M. (2002). The obsessive-compulsive inventory:
Development and validation of a short version. Psychological As-
sessment, 14, 485-496. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1040-35188.8.131.525
Ghorbani, N., Watson, P. J., & Hargis, M. B. (2008). Integrative self-
knowledge: Correlations and incremental validity of a cross-cultural
scale developed in Iran an d the United States. Journal of Psycholol-
ogy, 142, 395-412. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JRPL.142.4.395-412
Grossarth-Maticek, R., & Eysenck, H. J. (1995). Self-regulation and
mortality from cancer, coronary heart disease, and other causes: A
prospective study. Personality and Individual Differences, 19, 781-
Hackfort, D., & Schwenkmezger, P. (1993). Anxiety. In R. N. Singer,
M. Murphey, & L. K. Tennant (Eds.), Handbook of research on sport
psychology (pp. 328-364). New York: Macmillan.
Howell, D. C. (2007). Statistical methods for psychology (6th ed.).
Belmont, California: Duxbury Press.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure
modeling: Sensitivity to under parameterized model misspecif icatio n.
Psychological Methods, 3, 424-453.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1 999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in cov a-
riance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alterna-
tives. Structural Equati on Modeling, 6, 1-55.
Ibanez, M. I., Ruiperez, M. A., Moya, J., Marques, M. J., & Ortet, G.
(2005). A short version of the self-regulation inventory (SRI-S). Per -
sonality and Individual Differences, 39, 1055-1059.
Ingram, R. E., Kendall, P. C. , Smith, T. W., Donnell, C., & Ronan, K.
(1987). Cognitive specificity in emotional distress. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 53, 734-742.
Jones, R. G. (1968). A factorial measure of Ellis’ irrational belief sys-
tem, with personality and maladjustment correl ates. Dissertation Ab-
stracts International, 29, 4379B-4380B.
Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: Users reference guide.
Chicago: Scientific Software Internat ion al.
Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psvchometrika,
Kendall, P. C., & Hollon, S. D. (1989). Anxious self-talk: Development
of the anxious self-statement questionnaire (ASSQ). C ognitive Ther-
apy and Research, 13, 81-93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01178491
Khodayarifard, M., Spielberger, C. D., Gholamali Lavasani, M., & A k-
bari Zardkhaneh, S. (2012). Psychometric properties of farsi version
of the Spielberger’s state-trait ang er exp ress ion inv ento ry-2 (FSTAXI-2).
Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 82, 325-329.
Lovibond, S. H., & Lovibond, P. F. (1995). Manual for the depression
anxiety stress scales (2nd ed.). Sydney: Psy chology Foundation.
M. KHODAYARIFARD ET AL.
Lyons, W. (1986). The disappearance of introspection. Cambridge, MA:
Marsh, H. W., & Perry, C . (2005). Does a positive self-concept co ntri-
bute to winning gold medals in elite swimming? The causal ordering
of elite athlete self-concept and championship performances. Journal
of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 27, 71-91.
Meichenbaum, D. H. (197 7). Cognitive behavior mod ification: An inte-
grative approac h. New York: Plenum.
Mohammadi, A., Zamāni, R., & Fatā, L. (2008). Validation of a Persian
version of the obsessive-compulsive inventory-revised in a student
sample . Psychological Research, 21, 66-77.
Morin, A. (2005). Possible links between self-awareness and inner speech:
Theoretical background, underlying mechanisms, and empirical evi-
dence. Journal of Conscious ness Studies, 12, 115-134.
Raines-Eudy, R. (2000). Using structural equation modeling to test for
differential reliability and validity: An empirical demonstration.
Structural Equation Modeling, 7, 124-141.
Robinson, J. P., Shaver, P. R., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1991). Measures
of personality and social psychological attitudes. San Diego: Aca-
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society a nd the adolescent self-image. Princeto n,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Sāhebi, A., Asghari, M., & Salari, R. (2006). Validation of depression
anxiety stress scale in Iranian population. Iranian Psychology, 4,
Schwartz, R. M., & Garamoni, G. L. (1989). Cognitive balance and
psychopathology: Evaluation of an information processing model of
positive and negative states of mind. Clinical Psycholog y Review, 9,
Shirazi, S. (2006). The role of self-concept in relationship between
depression and irrational thought among students. Masters Thesis,
Tehran: Department of Psychology , Shahid Beheshti University.
Siegrist, M. (1995). Inn er speech as a co gnitive process mediating self-
consciousness and inhibiting self-deception. Psychological Reports,
76, 259-265. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pr0.19184.108.40.2069
SPSS Inc. (2009). SPSS statistical algorithms. Chicago: SPSS Inc.
Tabachnick, B . G., & Fidell, L. S. (2 007). Using multivariate statistics
(4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Tanzer, N. K., & Sim, C. Q. E. (1999). Adapting instruments for use in
multiple languages and cultures: A review of the ITC guidelines for
test adaptations. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 15,
Torkzādeh, G., Koufteros, X., & Pflughoeft, K. (2003). Confirmatory
analysis of a computer self-efficacy instrument. Structural Equation
Modeling, 10, 263-275.
Tukey, J. W. (1977). Exploratory data analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-
Vygotsky, L. S. (1934). Thinking and language. Translated by Behruz
Azabdaftari (1998). Tehran: Nima Publication.
Watkins, E., & Baracaia, S. (2002). Rumination and social problem solv-
ing in depression. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 40, 1179-1189.
M. KHODAYARIFARD ET AL.
Iranian Version of the Self-Talk Scale
:مﺮﺘﺤﻣ هﺪﻨھﺪﺨﺳﺎﭘ ﺶھوﮋﭘهداد نﺎﺸﻧ ناﺮﮔ ﮫﻤھ ﮫﮐ ﺪﻧاداﺮﻓا -خﺮﺑ رد ﻞﻗاﺪﺣيﻊﻗﻮﻣ يخﺮﺑ ﺖﺤﺗ و ﺎﮭﺗيش اريط- نﺎﺷدﻮﺧ ﺎﺑ
م ﺖﺒﺤﺻيﺪﻨﻨﮐ . ﺮھ ي زا کتارﺎﺒﻋ ﺮﯾز ﮫﺑ طﻮﺑﺮﻣ ﻊﻗاﻮﻣي ﮫﮐ ﺪﻨﺘﺴھ ﺖﺳا ﻦﮑﻤﻣ شﺎﻣترﻮﺼﮭﺑ ﺎﯾ - ﺖﻣﺎﺻ
ﺎﯾياﺪﺻ ﺎﺑﺪﻨﻠﺑ نﺎﺗدﻮﺧ ﺎﺑ ﺎﮭﻧآ رد - ﺖﺒﺤﺻﺪﯿﺷﺎﺑ نﺎﺗدﻮﺧ ﺎﺑ ﻲﻧورد يﻮﮕﺘﻔﮔ لﺎﺣ رد ﺎﯾ ﺪﯿﻨﮐ.
تارﺎﺒﻋ زا ﮏﯾ ﺮھ ﻞﺑﺎﻘﻣ رد رﺪﺑﺮﺿ ﺖﻣﻼﻋ ﻦﺘﺷاﺬﮔ ﺎﺑﻦﮐ ﺺﺨﺸﻣي د ﺎﻤﺷ درﻮﻣ رد ﺎﮭﻧآ زا ﮏﯾ ﺮھ ﮫﮐ.ﺪﻨﮑﯿﻣ قﺪﺻﻦﮐ ضﺮﻓي ﺮھ دي زا کتارﺎﺒﻋا ﺎﺑ يدﻮﺷ عوﺮﺷ ﮫﻠﻤﺟ ن" ﮫﮐ ﻢﻨﮐ ﻲﻣ ﺖﺒﺤﺻ مدﻮﺧ ﺎﺑ ﻲﻧﺎﻣز ﻦﻣ ....." ﺪﯿﻨﮐ ﻞﺻﺎﺣ نﺎﻨﯿﻤﻃا ﮫﮐ درﻮﻣ رد ﮫﻤھ ترﺎﺒﻋ ﺪﯾﺎھدﺮﮐ ﺮﻈﻧ رﺎﮭﻇا. ﺎﻔﻄﻟ" ﺮھ درﻮﻣ رد ترﺎﺒﻋ ﻦﮐ ﺮﮑﻓ ﺖﻗد ﺎﺑي زا .ديﺎﮭﺑﺎﺨﺘﻧاز ياﺮﺑ ري ترﺎﺒﻋ ﺮھ درﻮﻣ رد ﺮﻈﻧ رﺎﮭﻇاﻦﮐ هدﺎﻔﺘﺳا ي.د
.... ﮫﮐ ﻢﻨﮐ ﻲﻣ ﺖﺒﺤﺻ مدﻮﺧ ﺎﺑ ﻲﻧﺎﻣز ﻦﻣ
دﻮﺧ) .ﻢھد مﺎﺠﻧا يﺮﮕﯾد ﻞﮑﺸﮭﺑ ار يرﺎﮐ مﻮﺷ رﻮﺒﺠﻣ
(ﻲﺘﯾﻮﻘﺗ دﻮﺧ) .ﺪﺷﺎﺑ هداد خر ﻢﯾاﺮﺑ ﻲﺑﻮﺧ قﺎﻔﺗا
،ﻢھد مﺎﺠﻧا ﺪﯾﺎﺑ ﮫﮐ ار ﻲﯾﺎھﺰﯿﭼ ﻢﺷﺎﺒﮭﺘﺷاد زﺎﯿﻧ
(ﻲﺘﯾﺮﯾﺪﻣدﻮﺧ) .ﻢﻨﮐ ﺺﺨﺸﻣ
د ﺦﺳﺎﭘ ﻲﮕﻧﻮﮕﭼ ﻢﺴﺠﺗ لﺎﺣ ردي .ﻢﺷﺎﺑ ﻢﯾﺎﮭﮭﺘﻔﮔ ﮫﺑ ناﺮﮔ( ﻲﻋﺎﻤﺘﺟا ﻲﺑﺎﯾزرا)
(ﻲﺘﯾﻮﻘﺗ دﻮﺧ) .ﻢﻨﮐ ﺖﯾﺎﺿر سﺎﺴﺣا مدﻮﺧ زا "ﺎﻌﻗاو
چ ﻢھاﻮﺨﺑييﺎھزﮫﮐ ار يخا ياﺮﺑ اري ،هدﺎﺘﻓا قﺎﻔﺗا م
ﻞﺤﺗ و ﮫﺑﺰﺠﺗي(ﻲﻋﺎﻤﺘﺟا ﻲﺑﺎﯾزرا) .ﻢﻨﮐ ل
رﺎﮐ زايگﺪﻨﻣﺮﺷ سﺎﺴﺣا ،مﺎھداد مﺎﺠﻧا ﮫﮐ ي دﻮﺧ) .ﻢﻨﮐ (يدﺎﻘﺘﻧا
دﻮﺧ) .ﻢﻨﮐ روﺮﻏ سﺎﺴﺣا ،مﺎھداد مﺎﺠﻧا ﮫﮐ يﺰﯿﭼ ﮫﺑ
ﺲﻣ ﻦﺘﻓﺎﯾ لﺎﺣ رد ﻲﻨھذ ترﻮﺼﺑي مﺎﺠﻧا ﻲﻟﺎﻤﺘﺣا يﺎھر
(ﻲﺘﯾﺮﯾﺪﻣدﻮﺧ ) .ﻢﺷﺎﺑ رﺎﮐ ﮏﯾ
دﺎﻘﺘﻧا دﻮﺧ ) .ﻢﺷﺎﺑ ﺖﺣارﺎﻧ مدﻮﺧ ﺖﺳد زا "ﺎﻌﻗاو
ﻊﺳيچ ﻢﻨﮐيزﻲﺴﮐ ﮫﮐ ار ي ﮫﻧﻮﮕﭼ ﻦﻣ و ﺖﻔﮔ ﺪھاﻮﺧ
پ ار داد ﻢھاﻮﺧ ﺦﺳﺎﭘ نآ ﮫﺑيب شيني
ﻮﺧ ﮫﺑ ﺖﮭﺟ نداد نﺎﺸﻧ و ﻞﻤﻌﻟارﻮﺘﺳد نداد لﺎﺣ رد
،ﻢھد مﺎﺠﻧا ﺎﯾ ﻢﯾﻮﮕﺑ ﺪﯾﺎﺑ ﮫﮐ ﻲﺋﺎھﺰﯿﭼ درﻮﻣ رد
ﻖﯾﻮﺸﺗ ار مدﻮﺧ يرﺎﮐ ﺖﺳرد مﺎﺠﻧا ﺮﻃﺎﺨﺑ ﻢھاﻮﺨﺑ
(ﻲﺘﯾﻮﻘﺗ دﻮﺧ) .ﻢﻨﮐ
ﺪﺑ قﺎﻔﺗاياﺮﺑ ي(يدﺎﻘﺘﻧا دﻮﺧ) .ﺪﺷﺎﺑ هداد خر م
ﮫﺑ ،مراد مﺎﺠﻧا ﮫﺑ زﺎﯿﻧ ﮫﮐ ار ﻲﺋﺎھرﺎﮐ ﻢھاﻮﺨﺑ
(ﻲﺘﯾﺮﯾﺪﻣدﻮﺧ) .ﻢﻨﮐ يروآدﺎﯾ مدﻮﺧ
چ زا ﻢھاﻮﺨﺑيزيد ﮫﺑ ﮫﮐ ي .ﻢﻨﮐ عﺎﻓد ،مﺎﮭﺘﻔﮔ يﺮﮔ