Sullivan and D'Eon (1990) concluded that catastrophizing and depression were conceptually and operationally confounded. I argue that (a) the procedures they used to study confounding were suboptimal because multiple measures of depression and catastrophizing were not employed and (b) the distinctiveness of constructs might better be regarded as a continuous rather than all-or-none (having adequate discriminant validity versus being confounded) concept.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
David A. F. Haaga (1992) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: