CFI: Cognitive Flexibility Inventory

Reviewed by: Constantin Rezlescu | Associate Professor | UCL Psychology

Introduction

The Cognitive Flexibility Inventory (CFI) is a 20-item self-report measure designed to assess the type of cognitive flexibility necessary for individuals to successfully challenge and replace maladaptive thoughts with more balanced and adaptive thinking. Developed by Dennis and Vander Wal (2010), this inventory was specifically created to measure cognitive flexibility relevant to cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and adaptive coping with life stressors.

Unlike the Cognitive Flexibility Scale (CFS), which focuses on communication competence (Martin & Rubin, 1995), or performance-based measures like the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test, the CFI was designed to measure aspects of cognitive flexibility that enable individuals to think adaptively rather than maladaptively when encountering stressful life events (Dennis & Vander Wal, 2010). The CFI has a validated two-factor structure with distinct subscales, making it particularly useful for understanding different aspects of cognitive flexibility related to problem-solving and perceived control.

Understanding Cognitive Flexibility for Adaptive Coping

A fundamental principle of cognitive-behavioral therapy is that depression and other psychological difficulties are most effectively treated with interventions geared toward breaking down automatic maladaptive cognitions and replacing them with more realistic, adaptive cognitions (Young et al., 2001). Dennis and Vander Wal (2010) argue that the mechanism through which CBT achieves this change involves increasing cognitive flexibility – the ability to adaptively adjust one’s thinking in response to changing environmental demands.

Why this type of cognitive flexibility matters:

Therapeutic effectiveness: The ability to challenge and restructure maladaptive thoughts is central to CBT’s effectiveness in treating depression and anxiety (Dennis & Vander Wal, 2010).

Adaptive coping: Cognitive flexibility enables more effective coping responses to difficult life situations, reducing psychological distress (Dennis & Vander Wal, 2010).

Problem-solving: Generating and considering multiple explanations and solutions leads to more effective problem resolution in real-world contexts.

Depression prevention: Research has linked cognitive flexibility to reduced depressive symptoms, with rigid thinking styles characteristic of depression (Moore, 1996; Teasdale et al., 1995).

Stress management: Flexible thinking enables reframing of stressful situations and generation of adaptive response strategies.

Research has demonstrated that higher cognitive flexibility on the CFI is associated with lower depressive symptoms, more adaptive coping strategies, and better stress management (Dennis & Vander Wal, 2010).

Theoretical Foundation

The CFI is grounded in cognitive-behavioral theory and stress-coping frameworks. Dennis and Vander Wal (2010) originally hypothesized that three aspects of cognitive flexibility are necessary for proficiency with cognitive-behavioral thought-challenging techniques:

(a) The tendency to perceive difficult situations as controllable

(b) The ability to perceive multiple alternative explanations for life occurrences and human behavior

(c) The ability to generate multiple alternative solutions to difficult situations

However, empirical testing through exploratory factor analysis revealed that aspects (b) and (c) represent a unified construct, resulting in the CFI’s validated two-factor structure (Dennis & Vander Wal, 2010).

The two validated factors:

1. Alternatives subscale (13 items)

This subscale measures the ability to perceive multiple alternative explanations for life events and human behavior, and the ability to generate multiple alternative solutions to difficult situations. High scorers:

• Consider multiple options before making decisions
• Look at difficult situations from many different angles
• Think about things from another person’s point of view
• Seek additional information before attributing causes to behavior
• Recognize that there are many ways to resolve difficult situations

2. Control subscale (7 items)

This subscale measures the tendency to perceive difficult situations as controllable and one’s confidence in overcoming difficulties. High scorers:

• Feel capable of overcoming life difficulties
• Maintain a sense of control in difficult situations
• Can think clearly about solutions when stressed
• Have confidence in their problem-solving abilities
• Believe they have power to change things in difficult situations

These two subscales work together but assess distinct aspects of cognitive flexibility with different relationships to coping strategies and psychological outcomes (Dennis & Vander Wal, 2010).

🧠 CBT Mechanism: Increasing cognitive flexibility may be a key mechanism through which CBT brings about positive change in depression by reducing the cognitive rigidity that reinforces depressed states (Dennis & Vander Wal, 2010; Moore, 1996; Teasdale et al., 1995).

Key Features

Assessment Characteristics

• 20 items total (13 Alternatives + 7 Control)
• 5-7 minutes administration time
• Adults (validated with undergraduate students)
• 7-point Likert scale for nuanced response options
• Two-factor structure with validated subscales
• Self-report format assessing perceived flexibility and controllability
• Available for research with proper attribution

Cognitive Dimensions Assessed

Alternatives subscale:

• Perception of multiple alternative explanations for events and behavior
• Ability to generate multiple alternative solutions to problems
• Tendency to consider situations from multiple perspectives
• Willingness to seek additional information before drawing conclusions

Control subscale:

• Tendency to perceive difficult situations as controllable
• Confidence in ability to overcome difficulties
• Belief in personal capacity to resolve problems
• Absence of helplessness when facing challenges

Research and Applied Applications

• Clinical psychology – CBT process research, therapy outcome assessment, treatment planning
• Health psychology – Coping with medical conditions, stress management interventions
• Counseling – Assessment of cognitive flexibility for therapy planning and monitoring
• Depression research – Understanding cognitive vulnerabilities, prevention program evaluation
• Stress and coping research – Examining mediators/moderators of stress-distress relationships

View Testable Demo

► Click here to try the Testable implementation

Assess your cognitive flexibility for adaptive coping across Alternatives and Control dimensions.

Scoring and Interpretation

Response Format

Participants rate their agreement with each statement using a 7-point Likert scale:

• 1 = Strongly disagree
• 2 = Disagree
• 3 = Somewhat disagree
• 4 = Neutral
• 5 = Somewhat agree
• 6 = Agree
• 7 = Strongly agree

CFI Items

Alternatives Subscale (Items 1-13):

1. I am good at “sizing up” situations.
2. I consider multiple options before making a decision.
3. I like to look at difficult situations from many different angles.
4. I seek additional information not immediately available before attributing causes to behavior.
5. I try to think about things from another person’s point of view.
6. I am good at putting myself in others’ shoes.
7. It is important to look at difficult situations from many angles.
8. When in difficult situations, I consider multiple options before deciding how to behave.
9. I often look at a situation from different viewpoints.
10. I consider all the available facts and information when attributing causes to behavior.
11. When I encounter difficult situations, I stop and try to think of several ways to resolve it.
12. I can think of more than one way to resolve a difficult situation I’m confronted with.
13. I consider multiple options before responding to difficult situations.

Control Subscale (Items 14-20):

1. I have a hard time making decisions when faced with difficult situations. (R)
2. When I encounter difficult situations, I feel like I am losing control. (R)
3. When encountering difficult situations, I become so stressed that I cannot think of a way to resolve the situation. (R)
4. I find it troublesome that there are so many different ways to deal with difficult situations. (R)
5. When I encounter difficult situations, I just don’t know what to do. (R)
6. I am capable of overcoming the difficulties in life that I face.
7. I feel I have no power to change things in difficult situations. (R)

Note: Items marked (R) are reverse-scored.

Scoring Procedure

1. Reverse score items marked (R): reverse score = 8 – original score
2. Calculate subscale scores:
   • Alternatives subscale: Sum items 1-13 (range: 13-91)
   • Control subscale: Sum items 14-20 (range: 7-49)
3. Calculate total CFI score: Sum all 20 items (range: 20-140)
4. Higher scores indicate greater cognitive flexibility

Score Interpretation

Research norms (Dennis & Vander Wal, 2010):

Time 1 (N=196 undergraduate students):

• Total CFI: M = 102.98, SD = 13.91
• Alternatives subscale: M = 67.59, SD = 9.41
• Control subscale: M = 35.36, SD = 7.02

Time 2 – 7 weeks later (N=152):

• Total CFI: M = 105.38, SD = 13.84
• Alternatives subscale: M = 69.41, SD = 9.40
• Control subscale: M = 35.92, SD = 6.77

General interpretation:

Higher CFI scores (greater cognitive flexibility) are associated with:

• More adaptive coping strategies (problem-focused coping, seeking social support, focusing on positive)
• Lower depressive symptoms
• Greater perceived control over difficult situations
• Enhanced problem-solving and perspective-taking abilities

Lower CFI scores (greater cognitive rigidity) are associated with:

• More maladaptive coping strategies (wishful thinking, detachment, keeping to self)
• Higher depressive symptoms
• Greater sense of helplessness in difficult situations
• Difficulty generating alternative explanations and solutions

Subscale-specific patterns:

• High Alternatives, Low Control: Can see multiple perspectives and solutions but feels helpless to act on them
• Low Alternatives, High Control: Feels capable but limited in generating alternatives or perspective-taking
• High on both: Optimal cognitive flexibility for adaptive coping
• Low on both: Greatest risk for maladaptive coping and psychological distress

Research Evidence and Psychometric Properties

Reliability Evidence

Internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) – Dennis & Vander Wal (2010):

• Total CFI: α = 0.90 (Time 1), α = 0.91 (Time 2) – Excellent
• Alternatives subscale: α = 0.91 (both time points) – Excellent
• Control subscale: α = 0.86 (Time 1), α = 0.84 (Time 2) – Good

Test-retest reliability (7-week interval) – Dennis & Vander Wal (2010):

• Total CFI: r = 0.81
• Alternatives subscale: r = 0.75
• Control subscale: r = 0.77

All demonstrating good to excellent temporal stability.

Subscale correlation (Dennis & Vander Wal, 2010):

• Alternatives and Control subscales: r = 0.41 (Time 1), r = 0.45 (Time 2)

This moderate correlation indicates the subscales assess related but distinct constructs.

Validity Evidence

Factor structure (Dennis & Vander Wal, 2010):

Exploratory factor analyses at two time points (7 weeks apart) consistently revealed a stable two-factor solution accounting for 39% of total variance. The same 20 items loaded on the same two factors at both time points, with factor loadings ranging from .47 to .85 (M = .64).

Convergent validity – Cognitive Flexibility Scale (Dennis & Vander Wal, 2010):

• CFI total: r = 0.73 (Time 1), r = 0.75 (Time 2)
• Alternatives subscale: r = 0.58 (Time 1), r = 0.62 (Time 2)
• Control subscale: r = 0.65 (Time 1), r = 0.66 (Time 2)

These moderate to strong correlations support convergent validity while indicating the CFI measures related but distinct aspects of cognitive flexibility compared to the CFS.

Concurrent criterion validity – Depression (Dennis & Vander Wal, 2010):

Beck Depression Inventory-II correlations:

• CFI total: r = -0.39 (Time 1), r = -0.35 (Time 2), both p < .001
• Alternatives subscale: r = -0.19 (Time 1), r = -0.20 (Time 2), both p < .01
• Control subscale: r = -0.50 (Time 1), r = -0.44 (Time 2), both p < .001

Higher cognitive flexibility associated with lower depressive symptoms, with the Control subscale showing particularly strong inverse relationships with depression.

Convergent validity – Adaptive coping (Dennis & Vander Wal, 2010):

Ways of Coping Checklist-Revised – CFI total scores positively correlated with adaptive coping:

• Problem-Focused Coping: r = 0.48 (Time 1), r = 0.49 (Time 2), both p < .001
• Seeking Social Support: r = 0.32 (both time points), p < .001
• Focusing on the Positive: r = 0.39 (Time 1), r = 0.32 (Time 2), both p < .001

Discriminant validity – Maladaptive coping (Dennis & Vander Wal, 2010):

CFI total scores negatively correlated with maladaptive coping:

• Keep to Self: r = -0.33 (Time 1), r = -0.34 (Time 2), both p < .001
• Wishful Thinking: r = -0.15 (Time 1, p < .05), r = -0.24 (Time 2, p < .001)
• Detachment: r = -0.23 (Time 1), r = -0.30 (Time 2), both p < .001

Differential validity of subscales (Dennis & Vander Wal, 2010):

The Alternatives and Control subscales showed distinct patterns:

Control subscale uniquely associated with:

• Lower self-blame: r = -0.22 (Time 1), r = -0.30 (Time 2), both p < .01
• Lower wishful thinking: r = -0.35 (both time points), p < .001

Alternatives subscale uniquely associated with:

• Greater seeking of social support: r = 0.37 (Time 1), r = 0.39 (Time 2), both p < .001

This differential validity supports the clinical utility of the two-factor structure.

Development Sample

Study 2 (Dennis & Vander Wal, 2010):

• Time 1: N = 196 undergraduate students, M age = 20.20 ± 1.05 years, 75% female, 81% Caucasian
• Time 2 (7-week follow-up): N = 152 (78% retention rate), M age = 20.36 ± 0.96 years, 74% female, 81% Caucasian
• Setting: Private Midwestern university

Usage Guidelines and Applications

Primary Research Applications

• Clinical psychology – CBT process research, therapy outcome assessment, measuring mechanisms of change
• Health psychology – Coping with chronic illness, stress management, health behavior change
• Counseling – Treatment planning based on flexibility profile, monitoring therapeutic progress
• Depression research – Understanding cognitive vulnerabilities, evaluating prevention programs
• Stress and coping research – Examining mediators and moderators of stress-distress relationships

Clinical Assessment Applications

Therapy planning:

• Assess client’s cognitive flexibility for challenging maladaptive thoughts
• Identify specific deficits (alternatives generation vs. perceived control)
• Tailor cognitive interventions to flexibility profile
• Predict potential engagement with CBT techniques

Treatment monitoring:

• Track increases in cognitive flexibility throughout therapy (Dennis & Vander Wal, 2010)
• Evaluate effectiveness of cognitive restructuring interventions
• Measure progress in thought-challenging skills development
• Identify areas needing additional therapeutic focus

Case conceptualization:

• Understand client’s problem-solving and coping approaches
• Recognize cognitive rigidity as potential maintaining factor
• Identify flexibility as protective resource or treatment strength
• Guide selection of appropriate CBT interventions

Educational and Counseling Applications

Student mental health:

• Screen for students at risk for depression or poor stress management
• Identify those who may benefit from cognitive skills training
• Evaluate effectiveness of stress management interventions
• Guide referrals for counseling services

Coping skills programs:

• Assess baseline cognitive flexibility before intervention
• Target flexibility training for students showing rigidity
• Measure program outcomes and skill development
• Track long-term maintenance of flexibility gains

Research Design Considerations

Strengths:

• Brief administration (5-7 minutes) suitable for repeated measurement
• Two validated subscales assess distinct flexibility aspects
• Strong psychometric properties with excellent reliability
• Specific to cognitive flexibility relevant for CBT and adaptive coping
• Sensitive to individual differences in adaptive thinking

Limitations and Cautions:

Self-report bias: May not fully reflect actual cognitive performance or behavioral flexibility (Dennis & Vander Wal, 2010)

Population specificity: Validated primarily with undergraduate students; additional research needed with clinical populations (Dennis & Vander Wal, 2010)

Not performance-based: Assesses beliefs about flexibility rather than actual cognitive switching ability measured by neuropsychological tests

Clinical norms needed: No established clinical cutoffs; interpretation based on relative scores from undergraduate sample

Potential response biases: Face valid measure may be susceptible to socially desirable responding; further research needed (Dennis & Vander Wal, 2010)

Recommended applications:

• Measuring perceived cognitive flexibility in stress/coping contexts
• Assessing CBT-relevant thinking patterns
• Evaluating cognitive flexibility as therapy outcome
• Research on cognitive vulnerabilities to depression
• Repeated measurement in intervention studies

Not recommended as:

• Neuropsychological assessment of executive function
• Diagnosis of cognitive impairment
• Assessment of performance-based set-shifting
• Substitute for clinical interview or diagnosis

Import & Customize Testable Template

► Import scale to your Testable account – Add this scale. Modify instructions, edit questions, adjust presentation. Test anyone (including yourself)

► Try Testable version – View the full implementation of this scale in Testable.

► View detailed implementation guide in Testable – Step by step instructions for building and customising scales, questionnaires, and forms

► Browse other tests and scales in Testable Library – The largest collection of ready-made psychological tests and scales.

Legal and Copyright Information

Copyright and Usage Responsibility: Check that you have the proper rights and permissions to use this assessment tool in your research. This may include purchasing appropriate licenses, obtaining permissions from authors/copyright holders, or ensuring your usage falls within fair use guidelines.

The Cognitive Flexibility Inventory is available for research use with proper attribution to the original authors.

Proper Attribution: When using or referencing this inventory, cite the original development:

• Dennis, J. P., & Vander Wal, J. S. (2010). The Cognitive Flexibility Inventory: Instrument development and estimates of reliability and validity. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 34(3), 241-253.

External Links and Resources

• Cognitive Flexibility – Wikipedia
• Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Research
• Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies
• Academy of Cognitive Therapy

References

Primary Development Citation:

• Dennis, J. P., & Vander Wal, J. S. (2010). The Cognitive Flexibility Inventory: Instrument development and estimates of reliability and validity. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 34(3), 241-253.

Related Measures:

• Martin, M. M., & Rubin, R. B. (1995). A new measure of cognitive flexibility. Psychological Reports, 76(2), 623-626.

Theoretical Foundation:

• Moore, R. G. (1996). It’s the thought that counts: The role of intentions and meta-awareness in cognitive therapy. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy: An International Quarterly, 10, 255-269.
• Teasdale, J. D., Segal, Z. V., & Williams, J. M. G. (1995). How does cognitive therapy prevent depressive relapse and why should attentional control (mindfulness) training help? Behaviour Research and Therapy, 33, 225-239.
• Young, J. E., Weinberger, A. D., & Beck, A. T. (2001). Cognitive therapy for depression. In D. H. Barlow (Ed.), Clinical handbook of psychological disorders: A step-by-step treatment manual (3rd ed., pp. 264-308). New York: Guilford Press.

Validation Research:

• Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Brown, G. K. (1996). Beck Depression Inventory-Second Edition manual. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
• Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1985). If it changes it must be a process: Study of emotion and coping during three stages of a college examination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 150-170.