FACTOR STRUCTURE OF THE BECK HOPELESSNESS SCALE

JAMIE A. DYCE
University of Alberta

The factor structure of the Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS; Beck & Steer, 1988)
was examined among 41 1 outpatients (male = 132, female = 272, unknown =
7). Varimax-rotated principal-componentsanalysis extracted three factors greater
than unity that accounted for 40.4%, 6.9%, and 5.6% of the variance. Because
the structure was invariant across factor rotations and levels of hopelessness
severity, it is concluded that the BHS consists of three factors (Expectations of
Success, Expectations of Failure, and Future Uncertainty).0 1996 John Wiley
& Sons, Inc.

The Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS; Beck & Steer, 1988) is a 20-item true-false instru-
ment designed to assess one of the core characteristics of depression. The psychometric
characteristics of the BHS were first examined among 294 patients who had attempted
suicide (Beck, Weissman, Lester, & Trexler, 1974). Beck et al. (1974) found the BHS to be
reliable (.93), and when the items were subject to principal-components factor analysis with
varimax rotation, three factors emerged. The first factor (Feelings About the Future) was
defined by items 1, 6, 13, 15, and 19 and accounted for 41.7% of the variance. The second
factor (Loss of Motivation), was defined by items 2,3,9,11, 12, 16, 17 and 20 and accounted
for 6.2%of the variance. The third factor (Future Expectations) was defined by items 4, 7,
8, 14 and 18 and accounted for 5.6% of the variance.
Mendonca, Holden, Mazmanian, and Dolan (1983) studied the influence of response
style to the BHS among 78 patients. These authors argued that eigenvalues greater than
unity are not sufficient grounds for retaining a factor. Using Horn’s (1965) parallel analysis
criterion, the authors concluded that there was support for a one-factor solution (Mendonca
et al., 1983). Similar findings were reported by Young, Halper, Clark, and Scheftner (1992),
although they also acknowledge that their findings were consistent with Beck et al. (1974).
Nekanda-Trepka, Bishop, and Blackburn (1983) examined the factor structure of the BHS
among 86 psychiatric outpatients with depression. “Varimax-rotated principal components
factor analysis without iteration produced five factors with eigenvalues greater than unity”
(p. 53), accounting for 61.2% of the variance. Findings from Mendonca et al. (1983) and
Nekanda-Trepka et al. (1983) are questionable because . . as a general rule of thumb, it is
‘I.

comforting to have at least five cases for each observed variable” (Tabachnick & Fidell,
1989, p. 603). In other words, because the BHS has 20 items, at least 100 participants are
required for factor analysis.
Ward and Thomas (1985) examined the relationship between Locus of Control (LOC)
dimensions and the BHS among 197 college students. When the BHS and three measures of
LOC were factor analyzed and subject to oblique rotations, three factors emerged with
eigenvalues greater than unity. Because the first factor in this study accounted for the major-
ity of the variance, and the remaining factors were small, Ward and Thomas (1985) con-
cluded that the BHS was unidimensional. The strength of this study was that dimensions of
LOC and the BHS were factor analyzed for common content. On the other hand, the findings

The author thanks Linda Chorney and the anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions regarding
earlier versions of this article. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jamie A. Dyce,
Department of Educational Psychology, University of Alberta-Edmonton,Alberta, T6G 2G5.

Journal of Clinical Psychology, Vol. 52(5) 555-558 (1996)

0 1996 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0021 -9762/96/050555-04

555
556 Journal of Clinical Psychology, September 1996, Val. 52, No. 5

from this study are not directly comparable to other studies as the response format was
altered (i.e., from true-false to a 5-choice scale) and oblique rotations were used. It will be
recalled that Beck et al. (1974) used principal-components factor analysis with varimax
rotation. Furthermore, it is questionable whether the structure of the BHS is the same for
clinical and nonclinical populations (i.e., students). The purpose of the present study is to
examine the factor structure of the BHS using different types of rotations and different levels
of severity.

METHOD

Subjects and Procedure

The data for this study were obtained from 41 1 patients (male = 132, female = 272,
unknown = 7) who were surveyed at an outpatient clinic in Northern Ontario. The patients
had a mean age of 34 (range 13 to 77) and had sought the services of the clinic between 1988
and 1993. Twenty-nine percent of this sample did not indicate their marital status, 29% were
single, 25% were married, and the remainder were either divorced, separated, or widowed.
The BHS was completed as part of the intake process.

RESULTS

The BHS had a mean of 8.36 (SD = 5.68) and was found to be internally consistent by
means of the alpha coefficient ( r = .92). Because there were more than five cases for each
observed variable, factor analysis was appropriate (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1989). Principal-
components analysis with varimax rotation was performed using SPSSx for the BHS items.
Three factors with eigenvalues greater than unity were extracted and accounted for 53.1% of
the variance. Factor one (Expectations of Success) accounted for the largest proportion of
variance (40.4%) and consisted of items 1 , 2 , 3 , 5 , 6 , 10, 13, 15, and 19. Factor two (Expec-
tations of Failure) accounted for 6.9% of the variance and consisted of items 9, 11, 16, 17,
and 20. Factor three (Future Uncertainty) accounted for 5.6% of the variance and consisted
of items 4, 7, 8, 12, 14, and 18. With the exception of slight differences in item loadings,
findings were virtually identical for principal-components analysis using oblique rotations.
Item loadings are reported in Table 1.
To test the hypothesis that the factor structure of the BHS varies according to level of
severity participants were divided into two groups based on the median score. When the
responses from the high scoring group (n = 228) were analyzed, seven factors greater than
unity were extracted. However, only three of these factors were interpretable (i.e., three or
more items). When the responses from the low group (n = 183) were analyzed, nine factors
greater than unity were extracted. However, only three of these factors were interpretable.
Factor items, percents of variances, eigenvalues, and alpha coefficients are reported in
Table 2.

DISCUSSION

One explanation for the differences between studies regarding the factor structure of
the BHS is the method and criteria used to interpret factors. For example, Mendonca et al.
(1983) used Horn’s parallel analysis criterion, Young et al. (1992) used item-response mod-
els, Beck et al. (1974) used principal-components factor analysis with varimax rotation, and
Ward and Thomas (1985) used oblique rotations. Although the results of Young et al. (1992)
and Mendonca et al. (1983) were interpreted as support for a one-factor solution, a more
liberal interpretation would be consistent with Beck et al. (1974). Using liberal criteria,
results support a three-factor solution using principal-components analysis with both vari-
max and oblique rotations. These factors are interpreted as Expectations of Success, Expec-
 Factor Structure of the Beck Hopelessness Scale 557

Table 1
Principal-Components Factor Analysis of BHS Items Using Varimax Rotation
Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3
V06 .67
V15 .66 .42
V03 .65
V19 .62 .40
vo 1 .61 .39
V13 .58 .48
v10 .48
v02 .48 .44
V05 .43
v20 .80
V16 .78
V17 .43 .67
V09 .6 1 .42
v11 .38 .59 .35
V18 .32 .67
V04 .65
V14 .64
v12 .61
V08 .61
V07 .43 .36 .5 1
~ ~ ~ ~~

Note.-Varimax-rotated principal-components for 41 1 men and women. Loadings less than .3 are not reported.

tations of Failure and Future Uncertainty. In effect, the results of this study support the
findings of Beck et al. (1974); however, item loadings between studies are not identical. A
more conservative interpretation of the results from this study would support a one-factor
solution as the first factor accounted for the largest share of the variance.
The second purpose of this study was to examine the factor structure of the BHS for
different severity levels. It is likely that mean levels of hopelessness would be different for
students (Ward & Thomas, 1985) and clinical populations (Beck et al., 1974). and this may
have influenced the outcome of the respective studies. However, the results of this study
suggest that the structure of the BHS is relatively stable across low and high scoring groups.

Table 2
Factor Analysis with Varimax Rotation for High, Lou; und Total BHS Scores
Factor Items % of Variance" ICb
High Hopelessness (n = 228)
I 11, 13, 16, 17, 20 23.4 (4.7) .56
I1 I , 15, 18, 19 7.8 (1.6) .49
111 2, 3, 5, 6 7.1 (1.4) .64
Low Hopelessness ( n = 183)
I 10, 11, 18 9.4 ( 1.9) .53
I1 I , 2, 15 9.0 (1.8) .52
Iv' 9, 13, 16 7.4 ( I .5) .39
Total ( N = 411)
1 1, 2, 3 , 5, 6. 10, 13, 15, 19 40.5 (8.1) .84
I1 9, 1 1 , 16, 17, 20 7.0 ( 1.4) .85
I11 4, 7, 8, 12, 14, 18 5.6 (1.1) .79

Note.-OEigenvalues in parenthesis. 'IC = Internal Consistency (alpha coefficient). "Factor 111 for this analysis
was not interpretable.
558 Journal of Clinical Psychology, September 1996, Vol. 52, No. 5

It is interesting, however, that the factor solutions for these groups were somewhat different.
For example, the proportion of variance accounted for by the first factor in the high scoring
group was relatively high (23.4) compared to the low scoring group (9.4). Typically, the
proportion of variance accounted for by the first factor in principal-components factor anal-
ysis is relatively high compared to the second factor. This tendency held for the high scoring
group but not for the low scoring group (see Table 2). Perhaps the solution for the low
scoring group is an artifact.
One of the strengths of this study is the factorial examination of the BHS using a large
clinical population. Given the size of the population used in this study, one can be relatively
confident that the results are stable. One of the shortcomings of this study is that factorial
examinations represent one form of construct validity. In this study only the factorial valid-
ity of the BHS was examined. Convergent and discriminative studies are needed to further
establish the construct validity of the BHS.

REFERENCES

BECK,A.T., & STEER,R.A. (1988). Beck Hopelessness Scale manual. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological
Corporation.
BECK,A.T., WEISSMAN, A., LESTER,D., & TREXLER,L. (1974). The measure of pessimism: The hopelessness
scale. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 861-865.
HORN,J.L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30, 179-186.
MENDONCA, J.D., HOLDEN.R.R., MAZMANIAN, D.S., & DOLAN,J. (1983). The influence of response style on the
Beck Hopelessness Scale. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 15, 237-247.
NEKANDA-TREPKA, C.J., BISHOP,S., & BLACKBURN, I.M. ( 1983). Hopelessness and depression. British Journal
of Psychology. 22, 49-60.
TABACHNICK, B.G., & FIDELL,L.S. (1989). Using multivariate statistics. New York: Harper & Row.
WARD,C.L., & THOMAS, L.L. (1985). Interrelationships of locus of control content dimensions and hopelessness.
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 41, 517-520.
YOUNG,M.A., HALPER, I.S., CLARK,D.C., & SCHEFTNER, W.A. (1992). An item-response theory of evaluation of
the Beck Hopelessness Scale. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 16, 579-587.