It has been known for some time that state factoring (dR and P-techniques) of items yields state factors that are clearly replicas of trait factors (Cattell, 1973). Artifactual origins for this have been ruled out (Cattell, 1978). The ratio of intra to inter individual variances in these factors varies greatly, being high in such factors as anxiety and depression, but still significant in such a trait as intelligence (Horn, 1972). These differences have justified, contingently speaking, of state dimension factors and trait change factors, and using the modulation model for each term in the behavioral equation, thus, bxkSxki=vxsxkLxi where b is the behavioral index (loading), S a state measure of i, v is an involvement index, sk a modulation index in situation k, and Lxi is i's endowment in liability (proneness) to state sxi. In state measurement, the ten years of study of depression items from numerous scales by Cattell and Bjerstedt (1967) and Cattell and Bolton (1969) led to the construction that seven distinct state factors (possibly eight) are involved, and names were given to these factors. Kameoka (1979), independently factoring items in depression scales, came similarly to seven or eight factors, As factorists will be aware, the rotation of factors on items purely in a depression area is likely to be less conclusive than in the company of more diverse factors. Consequently, since the seven factors are included in the Clinical Analysis Questionnaire (CAQ), as trait scales, it seemed desirable to do a dR technique factoring (differences of two occasions) of the CAQ both to settle the nature of the primary depression state factors and to determine the role of states in the other dimensions of the CAQ.