Perceptual arid Motor Skills, 1999,88, 199-210.

O Perceptual and Motor Skills 1999

THE WORK ADDICTION RISK TEST: DEVELOPMENT OF

A TENTATIVE MEASURE OF WORKAHOLISM

BRYAN E. ROBINSON
Departtnent of Counseling. Special Edz~cation,arrd Child Development
University of North Carolina, Charloite

Summary.-The development and analyses of the psychometric characteristics of

a tentative self-report measure of work addiction are reported. A total of 363 college
students completed a battery of tests including the Work Addiction Risk Test. Inter-
nal consistency of the scores was 3 8 . Also, these scores were compared with those on
the Type A Self-rating Scale and the Jenkins Activity Survey, which give self-reports
of Type A behavior and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. That scores on the work
addiction risk test were reliable and showed concurrent validity supported psychomer-
ric utility for research and clinical practice.

During the 1970s the term "workaholism" was coined by Wayne Oates
(1971) as an analogy to alcoholism because the two addictions were believed
to be similar in etiology and symptomatology. Only since the late 1980s,
however, has work addiction been identified as a serious and legitimate type
of compulsive disorder (Fassel, 1990; Pietropinto, 1986; Robinson, 1998;
Spruell, 1987). Social scientists have begun to study work addiction not only
in terms of its implications for career development (Naughton, 1987) but
also in terms of healthy family functioning (Robinson & Post, 1995b). Al-
though it has become a common word, "workaholism" has not been accept-
ed into the official psychiatric and psychological nomenclature (Pietropinto,
1986) and has led to many definitions and categorical types but no formal
means of assessment as a construct (Naughton, 1987; Seybold & Salomone,
1994; Spence & Robbins, 1992).
Type A Behavior and Work Addiction
Friedman and Rosenman (1974) described Type A individuals as hard
driven, competitive, hostile, and hurried. They invented the term to describe
a person with a personality that, compared to those showing Type B behav-
ior who are relaxed, easygoing, and not overly ambitious, is commonly hk-
ed to heart disease. The definitions of Type A personality and work addic-
tion syndrome overlap in many ways. Both describe the same high stress and

'This work was €unded in part by a grant From the Foundation of the University of North
Carolina and the State of North Carolina. The author thanks Dr. Robert Algozzine for his inv
$uable statisucal assistance and Dr. Richard Antonak for his helpful editorial comments.
Please address corres ondence to Dr. Bryan Robinson, Department of Counselin , Special
Education, and Child hevelopment, University of North Carolina ar Charlotte, ~ h a i o t t e .NC
28223.
200 B. E. ROBINSON

the frequently associated physical and health problems. Both depict a hard-
driving, urgent, and unpatient approach to Me. Despite these commonalities,
there are different behefs about the eriology and the treatment of Type A
behavior and work addiction.
Work addiction grew out of the literature in which the construct of
addiction is conceptuhzed as a symptom of a diseased family system. The
main perspective is that addictions are transmitted through the breakdown
of the family system, rendering it dysfunctional. Addictive behaviors are in-
tergenerational and are passed on to future generations through family dy-
namics, often changing form from generation to generation. Thus, through
the family operation-its rules, beliefs, and behavior patterns-addictive be-
haviors such as alcoholism, work addiction, and codependent relationships
can become an intergenerational cycle. From this model, work addiction is
viewed as a learned response to a dysfunctional family of origin and employs
a nonmedcal treatment model of recovery, e.g., 12 Step work, support sys-
tems, work on family of origin. In contrast, Type A behavior is viewed as a
biological type that is a natural response pattern for many people. It em-
ploys a medical model which emphasizes the health risks of such a behavior
pattern as opposed to the dynamic risks of a dysfunctional family. Treatment
includes a preventive model that entails stress reduction, behavior modifica-
tion, and behavioral medicine.
Parallels drawn from the research between factors characteristic of Type
A children and those of work-addicted adults are similar (Robinson, 1996).
Hosthty and anger are prominent in both Type A children (Matthews & An-
gulo, 1980) and adults defined as work addicts (Haymon, 1993). Interper-
sonal and social skills are truncated in Type A children (Uewer, 1991) and
in work-addicted adults (Robinson & Post, 1995a), and both populations
have difficulty establishing and maintaining relationships. Health risks are
high among Type A children (Visintainer & Macthews, 1987) and among
work-addicted adults (Spence & Robbins, 1992). There is a tendency among
both Type A children (Leiken, Firestone, & McGrath, 1988) and work-ad-
dicted adults (Matthew, Siegel, Kuller, Thompson, & Varat, 1983) to ig-
nore and underreport warning signs of physical symptoms. Hyperactivity
and overdoing are present among Type A children (Rckard & Woods-de-
Rael, 1987) and among workaholics (Robinson & Post, 1994). Type A chil-
dren, furthermore, have shorter reaction times than Type B children (Corri-
gan & Moskowitz, 1983). Impatience and aggression have been observed
among Type A children (Vega-Lahr & Field, 1986) and work-addicted
adults (Haymon, 1993; Robinson, 1998). Type A children exhibit stronger
efforts to excel (Matthews & Volkin, 1981) and tend to be more competitive
(Eagleston, Kirrnil-Gray, Thoresen, Wiedenfeld, Bracke, Heft, & Arrow,
1986) and hard driving (Yamasah, 19941, whereas workaholic adults tend to
 WORK A D D I C T I O N RISK TEST 201

be more driven than nonworkaholics (Spence & Robbins, 1992). Type A

children are more anxious and stressed than non-Type
.. A children (Eagle-
ston, et af., 1986) as are work-addicted compared to nonwork-addicted
adults (Haymon, 1993; Spence & Robbins, 1992). Type A children have
more of a sense of urgency and perfectionism than Type B children (Visin-
tainer & Matthews, 1987) as do workaholic adults when compared to non-
workaholic adults (Robinson & Post, 1994; Spence & Robbins, 1992).
The Work Addiction Risk Test
Lack of a psychometrically sound measure for work addiction led to the
development of the Work Addiction Risk Test. The original test was devel-
oped as a self-administering device to screen for workaholic tendencies (Rob-
inson, 1998). Items contained in the 25-item self-report inventory, shown in
Table 1, were drawn from symptoms by clinicians in diagnosis of workaho-
TABLE 1
ITEMS ON m~ WORKADDICTIONRJSKTEST

1. I prefer to d o most things myself rather than ask for help.

2. I get impatient when I have to wait for someone else o r when something takes too
long, such as long, s l o w - m o ~Ing bnes.
3. I seem t o be in a hurry and raclnp .)gainst the clock.
4. I get irritated when I am interrupreJ while I am in the middle of something.
5 . I stay busy and keep many irons in the fire.
6. I Fiid myself doin two or three things at one time such as eating lunch and writing a
memo, while taking on the phone.
7. I overly commit myself by biting off more than I can chew.
8. I feel guilty when I am not worlung on something
9. It is important that I see the concrete results of what I do.
10. I am more interested in the final result of my work than in the process.
11. Things d o not seem t o move fast enough o r get done fast enough for me.
12. I lose my temper when things don'c go my way o r work our t o suit me.
13. I ask the same question over again, without realizing it, after I've already been given
the answer once.
14. I spend a lot of time mentally planning and thinking about future events while tuning
o u t the here and now.
15. I find myself continuing to work after my coworkers have called i t quits.
I get angry when ~ e o p l edon't meet my standards of perfection.
I get upset when I am in situations where I cannot be in control
I put myself under pressure with self-imposed deadlines when 1work.
It is hard for me to relax when I'm not working.
I spend more time working than o n socializing with friends, o n hobbies, o r o n leisure
activities.
I dive into projects to get a head start before all phases have been finalized.
I gec upsec with myself for making even the smallest mistake.
I put more thought, time, and energy into my work than I d o into my relationships
with friends and loved ones.
I forget, ignore, o r minimize birthdays, reunions, anniversaries, o r holidays.
25. I make important decisions before I have all the facts and have a chance t o think them
through thoroughly.
202 B. E. ROBINSON

lism as they worked with clients and families on the problem of work addic-
tion (Naughton, 1987; Oates, 1971; Pietropinto, 1986; Spruell, 1987; Woi-
titz, 1987). Respondents rate items on a 4-point summated rating scale with
anchors of Never True and Always True according to how well each item
describes their work habits. The total score is a sum of the item responses.
The higher the score, the more one is considered to be work addicted.
A study of test-retest reliabhty over a 2-wk. period (Robinson, Post, &
Khakee, 1992) with 151 respondents was .83 and the coefficient alpha for
the items was .85. A separate assessment of split-half reliability (Robinson &
Post, 1995a) employed three data sets: (a) 106 graduate counseling students
at the University of North Carolma at Charlotte, (b) 169 young adults i n
two undergraduate sociology classes at the University of North Carolina at
Charlotte, and ( c ) 194 respondents from Workaholics Anonymous, a
national 12-Step support group for work addiction and conference regis-
trants from national self-help conferences who signed their names and ad-
dresses on a mailing list to participate in the study. Based on complete data
sets from 442 respondents for halves of unequal length, a Spearman-Brown
split-half coefficient of .85 was obtained. Moreover, the 25 items measured
dstinctively different aspects of the construct of work addiction, as indi-
cated by a mean interitem coefficient of .26.
To assess face validity, 50 worlung adults were presented five of the
major symptoms of work addiction based on the literature from which the
test's 25 items were constructed: Overdoing, Self-worth, Control-Perfection-
ism, Intimacy, and Mental Preoccupation-Future Reference. Subjects were
asked to select the symptom that matched each of the 25 items. Findings
indicated that the test items have generally high face validity. Another study
included 32 psychotherapists randomly selected from the North Carolina Di-
rectory of Licensed Marriage and Family Therapists who were requested to
examine test items critically as they relate to work addicdon (Robinson &
P h a p s , 1995). Ten statements unrelated to work addiction were nested
throughout the test. Respondents were asked to identify the 25 items from a
list of 35 statements that they believed to be symptoms of work addiction. A
return rate of 63% was achieved, with 20 respondents completing and re-
turning the research materials. A percentage score of correctly identified
symptoms of work addiction was derived for each respondent by dividmg
the correct number of identifications by 25 (the total possible correct re-
sponses). The mean score of correctly identified symptoms for the sample of
20 was 89 out of a possible 100 and 90% of respondents scored 72 or high-
er.
The studies of the test to date have been limited to test-retest reliabhty,
split-half reliabhty, and relatively simple face and content validity studies.
For the most part, these studies have employed small samples. The present
 WORK ADDICTION RISK TEST 203

purpose was to analyze further the validity and rehability of the items for
dscrirninating among variables that measure work addction. Moreover, an
effort was made to norm three levels of scores as low risk, medium risk, and
high risk for work addiction.
METHOD
To assess the criterion-related validity of the Work Addiction Risk Test
scores were compared with scores on two established inventories in empiri-
cal research on Type A behavior, the Jenkins Activity Survey (Jenkins, Ro-
senman, & Friedman, 1967) and the Type A Self-rating Inventory (Blumen-
thal, Herman, O'Toole, Haney, W a a m s , & Barefoot, 1985). Scores on the
former were compared with those on the latter two because they both mea-
sure characteristics associated with a rapid pace of living and competitive
achievement strivings, which are essential components of work addiction. Ln
addition, scores on the test were compared with scores on a measure of anx-
iety, the State-Trait Anxiety Scale (Spielberger, Gorsuch, & Lushene, 1968),
since anxiety often has been described as a correlate of work addiction (Rob-
inson, 1998).
Subjects
A sample of 371 adults between 17 and 53 years of age (mean age 22
yr.) participated. All were enrolled in courses at the University of North
Carolina at Charlotte. A total of 2 % (or 8 respondents) did not complete all
the forms, yieldmg 363 in the final sample, 29% of whom were male (n =
107), and 71 % of whom were female (n = 256).
Inventories
The Work Addiction k s k Test and three others were administered to
each participant, who received a packet of materials to complete in one class
period.
Jenkins Activity Survey.-This inventory (Jenkins, et al., 1967) was con-
structed to measure Type A coronary-prone behavior patterns. In addition
to the Type A score, the survey provides scores on three subscales of (a)
Speed and Impatience, (b) Job Involvement, and (c) Hard Driving and Com-
petitive. Lnternal consistency indices from an administration in 1965 and an-
other in 1966 ranged from .74 to .81 for the three scales for both years
(Zyzanslu & Jenkins, 1970).
The survey contains 52 items referring to style and pace of Me and to
occupational goals which are significantly correlated with coronary heart dis-
ease. The inventory, a rapid and objective method for measuring risk of
coronary heart disease, was developed to duplicate the complicated, 20-min.
structured interview designed by the researchers who originally coined the
term, "Type A Behavior" (Chesney, Eagleston, & Rosenman, 1980; Rosen-
man, Friedman, Strauss, Wurm, Kostichek, Hahn, & Werthessen, 1964).
204 B. E. ROBINSON

The survey has been extensively tested and refined and yields high reli-
abhty and validity for measuring Type A behaviors. The survey scores have
been correlated with ratings from the structured interview, giving an over-all
agreement in one study of 72.4% (Jenkins, et al., 1967). Type A behavior
assessed by the J e n h s Activity Survey has been shown to be related to cor-
onary heart disease (Jenkins, Rosenman, & Zyzanski, 1974) and to angio-
graphically documented coronary heart disease (Zyzanski, Jenkins, Ryan,
Flessas, & Everist, 1976). Since 1970, eight studies utdtzing the J e n h s Ac-
tivity Survey have supported the association of Type A behavior with preva-
lence of coronary heart disease (Jenkins, Zyzanski, & Rosenman, 1979).
Moreover, the J e n h s Activity Survey has been shown to be a v&d predic-
tor of new cases of coronary heart disease in healthy men (Jenkins, et a[.,
1974) and has yielded high validity when correlated with scores on other psy-
chological measures such as the California Psychological Inventory (Jenkins,
et al., 1979). Test-retest reliabhty generally has been indicated by coeffi-
cients ranging between .60 and .70 for retest intervals from 1 to 4 years (Jen-
h s , et a/., 1979).
The Type A Self-report Inventory.-This inventory (Blumenthal, et al.,
1985) is a 38-item inventory derived from the Adjective Checkhst, using ad-
jectives rated as characteristic or uncharacteristic of the Type A indtvidual
by a panel of 20 Type A researchers (Herman, Blumenthal, Black, & Ches-
ney, 1981). The inventory, easily administered and scored, has been judged
to be relevant to the construct of Type A behavior patterns and to be highly
correlated with the two established measures of Type A behavior-the Jen-
luns Activity Survey and the tradtional structured interview technique used
by chicians (Chesney, et al., 1980; Rosenman, et a[., 1964).
Validtty of the Type A Self-report Inventory for measuring Type A be-
haviors was based upon analysis of data from 281 consecutive patients
referred for diagnostic coronary angiography at Duke University Medical
Center (Blurnenthal, et al., 1985). Significant linear relationships were found
between the Type A Self-report Inventory scores and structured interview'
ratings and between scores on the Jenktns Activity Survey and the Type A
Self-report Inventory.
State-Trait Anxiety Inventory.-Form STAI X-2 of the State-Trait Anxi-
ety Inventory was selected to measure anxiety (Spielberger, et a[., 1968).
This form requests subjects describe how they generally feel by responding
to 20 statements using the following summated rating scale: (1) Almost
never, (2) Sometimes, (3) Often, and (4) h o s t always. Scores range from a
minimum score of 20 to a maximum of 80. The higher the score, the higher
the anxiety. Test-retest reliabdity is relatively high, ranging from .73 to .86,
and correlations between scores on it and on other measures of anxiety also
 WORK ADDICTION RISK TEST 205

are high, supporting concurrent and construct vali&ty (Spielberger, et al.,

1970).
RESULTS
The mean Work Addiction h s k Test score for the sample was 55.5.
Since the sample was cornposed of full-time university students, this score
was considered within the average range for nonarorkaholics. Scores from 25
to 56 were defined as the low-risk group ( n=212). Scores from 57 to 66 (1
SD above the mean) were defined as the medium-risk group ( n=98), and
scores from 67 (greater than 1 SD above the mean) to 100 were defined as
the high-risk group ( n=55).
Reliability of the Work Addiction Risk Test
An estimate of internal consistency (Cronbach alpha) of .88 was ob-
tained for the 25 test items.
TABLE 2
MEANS
A N D STANDARD
DEVIA~IONS
ON DEPENDENT FORLOW-,
VARIABLES
A N D HIGH-RISK
MEDIUM-. WORKADDICTION
GROUPS

Measure Group
Low-risk Medium-risk High-risk
IM SD M SD M SD
State-Trait Anxiety Inventory 38.2 8.6 44.0 10.2 48.0 9.9
Type A Self-report Inventory 110.6 15.5 119.9 18.9 126.0 18.6
J e n h s Activiry Survey
Type A Score 203.4 64.6 244.6 67.6 302.5 66.6
Speed and Impatience 153.6 56.4 182.7 58.7 233.8 52.2
Job Involvement 197.2 46.4 216.2 43.4 210.9 48.0
Hard Driving and Competitive 106.3 25.5 122.3 28.6 140.1 35.6

Relationship of the Work Addiction Risk Test to the State-Trait Anxiety In-
ventory
The mean anxiety score from a study of 484 undergraduate students at
Florida State University was 38 (Spielberger, et al., 1970). The mean score of
our subjects classified as low risk for work addiction matched the mean anx-
iety score. The medium- and high-risk groups scored above the mean, with
anxiety scores of 44 and 46, respectively. Analysis of variance indcated the
anxiety means for the three groups defined by scores on the Work Addic-
tion fisk Test were significantly ddferent (F,,,, = 18.64, p < .05). A post hoe
multiple-range test indicated that the subjects classified as low risk on the
Work Addiction Risk Test scored significantly lower on anxiety than those
classified as medium or high risk ( p < .05) and did not differ significantly on
anxiety scores. A significant correlation was found between work ad&ction
and anxiety scores ( r = .40, p< .05), so that the greater the risk of work ad-
diction, the higher the anxiety.
206 B. E. ROBINSON

Relationship of the Work Addiction Risk Test to the Type A Self-report Inven-
tory
An analysis of variance compared scores on the Type A Self-report In-
ventory with subjects whose scores on the Work Addiction Risk Test were
classified as low, medum, or high risk for work addiction. The mean Type
A score for the subjects classified as low risk was 111, for those classified as
mehum risk 119, and for those considered high risk 126. A significant h e a r
relationship was found between Work Adlction k s k scores in these three
groups and scores on the Type A Self-report Inventory (F2,,,=21.08, p <
.O5). A post hoc multiple-range test indicated that subjects classified into the
three risk groups were significantly different from one another on Type A
mean scores, with those classified as high risk for work addiction scoring
significantly higher on Type A behaviors than those classified as being at low
or medium risk and the latter were significantly ddferent from each other ( p
< .05). Scores on the two tests were significantly correlated (r = .37, p< ,051.
Relationship of the Work Addiction Risk Test to the Jenkins Activity Survey
Analyses of variance indicated that subjects classified as low, medium,
and high risk for work addiction on the Work Addiction fisk Test were sig-
nificantly daerent from each other on Type A Scale mean scores (F,,,,,=
34.28, p < .05), Speed and Impatience Scale scores (F,,,, = 30.43, p < .05), and
Hard-driving and Competitive Scale scores (F,,,, = 26.25, p < .05). Those
classified as high risk for work addiction tended to have higher Type A
scores, to exhibit greater speed and impatience scores, and to score more
hard-driving and competitive than the low- and medium-risk work-addiction
groups. Mean scores on the Job Involvement Scale were significantly differ-
ent among the three classification groups (F,,,,,-3.62, p < ,051. A post hoc mul-
tiple-range test indcated that only the low-risk group dlffered from the me-
dium-risk group (M= 200, 214 respectively, p < .05). Moreover, Work A d l c -
tion Risk Test scores had moderate but significant correlations on three of
the Jenluns Activity Survey scales: Type A Scale ( r = .50, p < .05), Speed and
Impatience Scale (r = .49, p<.O5), and the Hard-driving and Competitive
Scale (r = 3 8 , p< .05). There was a low but significant correlation between
Work Addction k s k Test scores and the Job Involvement Scale (r = .20,
p < .05). The low correlation on Job Involvement was thought to be a func-
tion of the sample since the respondents were full-time students and not em-
ployed in full-time jobs.
Drscussro~
The estimate of the rehability of the Work Addiction Risk Test scores
in this study was similar to that reported in previous studies of its rehability
(Robinson, et al., 1992; Robinson & Post, 1995a).
 WORK ADDICTION RISK TEST 2 07

Perhaps more importantly, however, are the findings related to the test's
concurrent vahdity. The finding that the greater the score for work addic-
tion, [he higher the anxiety is also supported by previous empirical fidLngs
that people classified as workaholics have greater anxiety and stress than
those who are not workaholics (Haymon, 1993; Spence & Robbins, 1992).
Both medlum- and high-risk respondents were more apt to score higher on
generahzed anxiety than the low-risk respondents. Respondents classdied as
low risk for work addiction had a significantly lower mean anxiety score
than those classified as medium and high risk. Furthermore, the mean anxi-
ety score for the low-risk group was identical to the norm mean anxiety
score (Spielberger, et al., 1970).
The Work Addiction Risk Test scores were significantly related to both
the Type A Self-report Inventory and the Jenkins Activity Survey, indicating
related measurements by all three. The moderate correlations indicate that
the test actually may be assessing different components, i.e., more work-re-
lated factors, than the two Type A measures. Thus, while it appears to mea-
sure more specific work habits, e.g., "I find myself working after co-workers
have called it quits," the Type A measures may emphasize a rapid pace of
living and competitive drive. Blumenthal and his associates (1985) found in
a correlational study of the Type A Self-report Inventory, Jenluns Activity
Survey, and the Structured Interview, that the relative importance of differ-
ent Type A characteristics may vary with different assessment procedures.
In the current study, individuals classified as high risk for work addlc-
tion scored significantly higher on Type A behaviors on both inventories
than those classified as low risk or medium risk for work addiction. More-
over, the high-risk respondents scored significantly higher on Speed and
Lrnpatience factors than the low- and medium-risk groups which indicated
that inhviduals at high risk for work addiction are more likely to eat very
rapidly, become more impatient with the conversations of others, hurry
other people along, have strong tempers, and become irritated easily, a find-
ing congruent with the clinical Iiterature (Pietropinto, 1986; Robinson, 1998;
Seybold & Salomone, 1994; Spruell, 1987).
Based on significantly higher scores on the Hard-driving and Competi-
tive factor, the high-risk respondents would be expected to be more lkely
than their low- and medium-risk counterparts to be hard driving, conscien-
tious, responsible, serious, competitive, and to put forth more effort than
other people. The correlation benveen the Work Addction Rsk Test and
the Job Involvement factor, although significant, was low. Those scoring at
medium risk for work addiction had the highest scores on Job Involvement,
suggesting that these respondents should have the most dedication to occu-
pational activity.
Generally, these findmgs support long-held clinical observations (Fassel,
208 B. E. ROBINSON

1990; Robinson, 1998). They further corroborate Haymon's (1993) empirical

findings that workaholics have greater anxiety, anger, and depression than
nonworkaholics, and Spence and Robbins' (1992) conclusions that workahol-
ics, more than nonworkaholics, perceive themselves as having more job
stress, perfectionism, more generalized anxiety, and u n w h g n e s s to delegate
job responsibhties to others. The findings also support recent findings that
higher Work Addiction Risk Test scores correlate significantly with per-
ceived current family dysfunction (Robinson & Post, 1995b). Higher work
addiction was related to less effective problem-solving, lower communica-
tion, less clearly established family roles, fewer affective responses, less affec-
tive involvement, and lower general functioning in famhes in which respon-
dents were parents.
Despite significant statistical associations among these sets of scores,
there are limitations to the utility of the Work Addiction &sk Test. All re-
spondents in the sample were not gainfully employed and therefore are not
representative of the general population. The mean age was only 22 years,
potentially too young an age for such patterns to be fully developed. Conse-
quently, these respondents applied many of the test items to school work
rather than the workplace. A more representative work sample might re-
spond differently to the 25 items, so it is essential that researchers employ a
more representative work sample to validate the individual test items and
the scoring ranges.
REFERENCES
BLUMENTHAL, J. A., HERMAN, S.. O'TOOLE,L. C., HANEY, T. L., WILLIAMS, R. B.. &BAREFOOT. J.
C. (1985) Development of a brief self-report measure of the Type A (coronary prone)
behavior pattern. Jotrrnal of Psychosomatic Research, 29, 265-274.
CHESNEY, M. A,, EAGLLSTON, J. R., & ROSENMAN, R. H. (1980) The Type A structured inter-
view: a behavioral assessment in che rough. Joztrnal of5ehavioraf Medin'ue, 2, 255-272.
CORRIGAN, S. A., &MOSKOWTZ, D. S. (1983) Type A behavior in preschool children: construct
validation evidence for the MYTH. Child Developmen/, 54, 1513-1521.
EAGLESTON, J., KJRMIL-GRAY, B., THORESEN. C., WIEDENFELD, S., BRACKE, I?, HEFT,L., &ARROW,
B. (1986) Physical health correlates of Type A behavior in children and adolescents.
Joztrnal of Behavioral Medicine, 9, 341-362.
D. (1990) Working orirselues fo death. San Francisco, CA: Harper-Collins.
FASSEL,
FRIEDMAN, M., &ROSENMAN. R. H. (1974) T y p e A behauior and yotir heart. New York: Knopf.
HAYMON, S. W. (1993) The relationship of work addiction and depression, anxiety, and anger
in college males. (Doctoral dissertation, Florida State Univer., 1992) Dissertafion Abstracts
Infernafior~a/, 53, 5401-B.
HERMAN. S., BLUMENTHAL, J. A,, BLACK,G., BCCHESNEY, M. (1981) Self-ratings of Type A (coro-
nary prone) adults: do Type A's know they are Type A's? Psychosomafic Medicine, 43,
405-413.
C. D., ROSENMAN,
JENKINS, R. H., &FRIEDMAN. M. (1967) Development of an objective psycho-
logical test for the determination of the coronary-prone behavior pattern in employed
men. Jozrrnal of Chronic Diseases, 20, 371-379.
JENKINS.C. D., ROSENMAN, R. H., &ZYZANSKI, S. J. (1974) Prediction of c l ~ n ~ c coronary
al heart
disease by a test for the coronary-prone behavioral pattern. Nezu Efrgland Jottrnal of Medi-
cine, 290, 1271-1275.
 WORK ADDICTION RISK TEST 209
JENKINS, C. D., ZYZANSKI, S. J., &ROSENMAN, R. H. (1979) Jenkins Activity Szrruey marzual. San
Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corp.
KLLEWER W. (1991) Coping in middle childhood: relations to corn etence, Type A behavior,
monitoring, blunting. and locus of control. ~ e u e l o ~ m e n f~a ~
l c f f o l o g27,
y , 689-697.
LEIKEN,L.. FIRESTONE, I?, & MCGRATH,I? (1988) Physical sym ton] reporting in Type A and
Type B children. Journal of Constilting and Clinical hycho&gy, 56, 721-726.
MAITHEWS.K. A., &ANGULO.J. (1980) Measurement of the Type A behavior pattern in chil-
dren: assessment of children's competitiveness, Impatience-Anger, and Aggression. Child
Development, 5 1, 466-475.
IVLATTHEWS, K. A,, SIEGEL, J., KULLER, L., THOMPSON, M., &VARAT,M. (1987) Determinants of
decisions to seek medical treatment by patients with acute myocardial infarcuon symp-
toms. Journal of Perso~zalit~ and Social Psychology, 6, 1144-1156.
MAmews, K. A,, &VOLUN,J. 1. (1981) Efforts to excel and the Type A behavior pattern in
children. Child Development, 52, 1283-1289.
NAUGHTON, T. 1. (1987) A conceptual view of workaholism and implications for career coun-
seling and research. Career Development Quarterly, 35, 180-187.
OATES,W (1971) Cor7fes.rrons of o workaholic. New York: World.
PIETROPINTO, A. (1986) The workaholic spouse. Medical Aspects of Numan Sexuality, 20, 89-96.
~ C K A R D K.
, M., &WOODS-DE-RAEL, C. (1987) The relationship benveen Type A behavior and
hyperactivity in children as measured by the Conner's Hyperactivity and M Y T H - 0
scales. Jorirnal of Soczal Behovior and Personality, 15, 207-214.
ROBINSON, B. E. (1996) Type A children: empirical findings and counseling implications.
Elementary School and Guidance Journal, 31, 34-42.
ROBINSON, B. E. (1998) Chained to the desk: a for zuorkaholics, their partners and
children and the cfininuns who treat them. New York: New York Univer. Press.
ROBINSON, 0. E., &PHILLIPS, B. (1995) Measuring workaholism: content validity of the Work
Addiction Risk Test. Pqchological Reports, 77, 657-658.
ROBINSON, B. E., &POST,I? (1994) Validity of the Work Addiction Risk Test. Perceptual and
Mofor Skills, 78, 337-338.
ROBINSON, B. E., &POST,I? (1995a) Split-half reliability of the Work Addiction Risk Test: de-
velopment of a measure of workaholism. Psychological Reports. 76, 1226.
ROBINSON, B. E., &POST, P. (1995b) Work addiction as a function of family of orlgln and its
influence on current f a d y functioning. The Family Jorirnal, 3, 200-206.
ROBINSON, B. E., POST, I?, &KHA=E, J . F. (1992) Test-retest reliability of the Work Addiction
Risk Test. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 74, 926.
ROSENMAN, R. H.. FRIEDMAN, M., STRAUSS, R., WURM,M., KOSTICHEK. R., HAHN,W.. &WERTH-
ESSEN, N. A. (1964) A predictive study of coronary heart disease: the Western Collabora-
tive Group Study. Journal of the American Medical Association, 189, 103-110, 121-124.
SEYBOLD. K. C., &SALOMONE, P. R. (1994) Understanding workaholism: a review of causes and
counseling approaches. ]ozrrnal of Cozinseli~zgand Development, 73, 4-9.
SPENCE, 1. T., &ROBBINS, A. S. (1992) Workaholics: definition, measurement, and preliminary
resulrs. ]oz~rnalof Per.conality Assesrmetzt, 58, 160-178.
SPIELBERGER, C. D.. GORSUCH, R. L., &LUSHENE, R. (1968) Self-eva[uation Questionnaire (ST4
Form X-2).Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
SPIELBERGER, C. D., GORSUCH, R. L., &LUSHENE, R. (1970) STAl manual for the State-Trait In-
ventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
SPRUELL, G. (1987) Work fever. Training and Development Journal, 4 1, 41-45.
STEINBERG. L. (1985) Early temperamental antecedenrs of adult Type A behaviors. Develop-
mental Psychology, 21, 117 1.1180.
VEGA-LAHR, N., &FIELD, T. (19861 Type A behavior in preschool children. Child Development,
57, 1333-1348.
V~SINTAINER, I?. & MATTHEWS. K. A. (1987) Stabhty of overt Type A children: results from a
two- and l i ~ e - ~ elongitudinal
ar study. Child Development, 58, 1586-1591.
WOITITZ, J . (1987) Home away from home: he art of se[f-sabotage.Deerfield Beach, FL: Health
Communications.
2 10 B. E. ROBINSON

YAMASAKI,K. (1994) Similarities in Type A behavior between young children and their parents
in Japan. Psychological Reports, 74, 347.
ZYUNSKI,S. J., &JENKINS, C. D. (1970) Basic dimensions within the coronary-prone behavior
pattern. Joztrnal of Chronic Diseases, 22, 781-795.
ZYZANSKI,S. I., JENKINS.C. D., RYAN,T. J., FLESSAS, A., &EVERIST, M. (1976) Psychological cor-
relates of coronary angiography findings. Archives of Internal medicine, 136, 1234-1237.

Accepted December 30, 1998.