Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (CFQ)
Broadbent's 25-item measure of everyday memory, attention, and action slips: the standard brain fog questionnaire
Brain fog is one of the most common complaints in long COVID and ME/CFS, and one of the hardest to put a number on. The Cognitive Failures Questionnaire, published by Donald Broadbent and colleagues in 1982, is a widely used self-report measure of everyday cognitive lapses: forgetting why you walked into a room, reading a paragraph and taking nothing in, losing your thread mid-sentence. You rate how often 25 such lapses have happened over the past six months, from 0 (never) to 4 (very often), for a total of 0–100.
Community samples have averaged in the low 30s. Groups with long COVID have averaged from the mid-40s to the 60s, and one ME/CFS sample averaged 57. The questionnaire does not measure cognitive performance (scores are only weakly linked to objective testing, if at all), but it does capture how often lapses happen, which is what most people mean by brain fog and what clinicians rarely have a number for. The results also show the three overlapping item groups from a published analysis, forgetfulness, distractibility and false triggering, as a rough guide to where lapses cluster.
The questionnaire is presented in two pages of 12–13 items. If mental fatigue rather than lapses is your main concern, the Chalder Fatigue Scale has a mental fatigue subscale, and the DSQ-PEM characterises symptoms that worsen after cognitive effort.
Your Cognitive Failures Questionnaire score
Subscales
Average item score (0–4) for the three factors described by Rast and colleagues in 2009. Many items belong to two factors, so the groups overlap. A later analysis found the factors so closely related that the total is the more reliable measure, so treat these as a rough description.
Where your total sits
This is not a diagnosis. See understanding your score below for reference values and what the CFQ can and cannot show, and discuss your results with your doctor or specialist.
Your results over time
Complete this again in a few weeks and the change will show here.
Symptom scores change slowly. A monthly retake is enough to see a trend.
Your results are stored only in this browser, on this device. Nothing is sent to us or to anyone else. They will be lost if you clear this site's data, use a private window, or switch browser or device. You can delete them at any time.
Understanding your Cognitive Failures Questionnaire score
What the score measures
The Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (CFQ) was published by Donald Broadbent and colleagues in 1982. It asks how often 25 everyday slips of attention, memory and action happen to you, each rated from 0 (never) to 4 (very often), for a total from 0 to 100. Higher scores mean more frequent lapses. It is widely used in research on brain fog after COVID-19 and in ME/CFS.
The forgetfulness, distractibility and false triggering figures follow the three factors described by Rast et al. 2009, in which many items count towards two factors. An analysis of 839 adults found these factors so closely related that the total fitted best, and advised against subscales (Goodman et al. 2022). Treat them as a rough guide.
Score bands
There are no official cut-offs. A US community sample of 839 adults averaged 31.7, and UK adults who had never had COVID-19 averaged 32.7. Groups with long COVID have averaged between 44 and 64, and one group with ME/CFS 57. Some studies treat a score above 43 as high, but that is a research convention, not a validated threshold.
| Group | Average | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Irish adults who had COVID-19 without lasting symptoms (50) | 25.9 | Holland et al. 2024 |
| US community adults (839) | 31.7 | Goodman et al. 2022 |
| UK adults who had never had COVID-19 (53) | 32.7 | Bland et al. 2024 |
| UK adults with post-COVID syndrome (50) | 44.4 | Bland et al. 2024 |
| Irish post-COVID clinic patients (71) | 50.2 | Holland et al. 2024 |
| People with ME/CFS (87) | 57.4 | Attree et al. 2014 |
| Danish long COVID clinic patients (182) | 63.5 | Miskowiak et al. 2023 |
The studies used different recall periods, so compare loosely.
What a change in score means
No minimal important change has been published for the CFQ. It behaves like a stable trait: when adults were retested two years apart, their totals correlated at 0.71. This version asks about the past six months, so it moves slowly. Compare results taken several months apart and look for a steady trend rather than one difference.
Broadbent's team also found scores stable over long periods (Broadbent et al. 1982). With no published figure, one Dutch study used a 10-point change as its own threshold (Berentschot et al. 2025): a reasonable rule of thumb, not a validated one.
What it does not measure
Not necessarily. The CFQ records how often you notice everyday slips, not how well you do on tests. In studies including people after COVID-19, CFQ scores were weakly linked or not linked to objective test results, and rose with fatigue, stress and low mood. A high score is a valid record of what you live with, but it is not a test of cognitive function.
It does not measure mental fatigue or what thinking costs you afterwards: see the Chalder Fatigue Scale, the DSQ-PEM and the post-exertional malaise explainer.
Taking this to your GP or consultant
Bring the total, the date and the trend from your saved results. Describe the CFQ as a validated 25-question measure of how often everyday lapses happen, widely used in long COVID research, and give two or three examples that matter, such as missed appointments or medication mistakes. It can support a request for a cognitive assessment or work adjustments; it cannot show the cause or confirm impairment. See also preparing for a GP appointment.
Sources
- Broadbent DE, Cooper PF, FitzGerald P, Parkes KR. The Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (CFQ) and its correlates. Br J Clin Psychol 1982;21(1):1–16. DOI
- Rast P, Zimprich D, Van Boxtel M, Jolles J. Factor structure and measurement invariance of the Cognitive Failures Questionnaire across the adult life span. Assessment 2009;16(2):145–158. DOI (item lists as tabulated by Goodman et al. 2022)
- Goodman ZT, Timpano KR, Llabre MM, Bainter SA. Revisiting the factor structure and construct validity of the Cognitive Failures Questionnaire. Psychol Assess 2022;34(7):671–683. DOI
- Bland AR, Barraclough M, Trender WR, et al. Profiles of objective and subjective cognitive function in Post-COVID Syndrome, COVID-19 recovered, and COVID-19 naïve individuals. Sci Rep 2024;14:13368. Full text
- Holland J, Brown S, O'Flanagan S, et al. Self-reported immune status and COVID-19 associated subjective cognitive functioning in post-COVID-19 syndrome: examination of an Irish cohort. Brain Behav 2024;14(9):e70027. Full text
- Miskowiak KW, Pedersen JK, Gunnarsson DV, et al. Cognitive impairments among patients in a long-COVID clinic: prevalence, pattern and relation to illness severity, work function and quality of life. J Affect Disord 2023;324:162–169. Full text
- Attree EA, Arroll MA, Dancey CP, et al. Psychosocial factors involved in memory and cognitive failures in people with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome. Psychol Res Behav Manag 2014;7:67–76. Full text
- Berentschot JC, Bek LM, Drost M, et al. Health outcomes up to 3 years and post-exertional malaise in patients after hospitalization for COVID-19: a multicentre prospective cohort study (CO-FLOW). Lancet Reg Health Eur 2025;53:101290. Full text
- Bridger RS, et al. Psychometric properties of the Cognitive Failures Questionnaire. Ergonomics 2013;56(10):1515–1524. DOI