Dear Chanu, 

The DAIMON scale is supposed to work for this purpose: 

Article Reliability and validity of a new scale for measuring relati...

Try PSYRATS, perhaps.

 A Auditory hallucinations

1 Frequency

0         Voices not present or present less than once a week

1         Voices occur for at least once a week

2         Voices occur at least once a day

3         Voices occur at least once a hour

4         Voices occur continuously or almost continuously i.e. stop for only a few seconds or minutes

2 Duration

0         Voices not present

1         Voices last for a few seconds, fleeting voices

2         Voices last for several minutes

3         Voices last for at least one hour

4         Voices last for hours at a time

3 Location

0         No voices present

1         Voices sound like they are inside head only

2         Voices outside the head, but close to ears or head. Voices inside the head may also be present

3         Voices sound like they are inside or close to ears and outside head away from ears

4         Voices sound like they are from outside the head only

4 Loudness

0         Voices not present

1         Quieter than own voice, whispers.

2         About same loudness as own voice

3         Louder than own voice

4         Extremely loud, shouting

5 Beliefs re-origin of voices

0         Voices not present

1         Believes voices to be solely internally generated and related to self

2         Holds < 50% conviction that voices originate from external causes

3         Holds ~ 50% conviction (but < 100% ) that voices originate from external causes

4         Believes voices are solely due to external causes (100% conviction)

6 Amount of negative content of voices

0         No unpleasant content

1         Occasional unpleasant content ( < 10%)

2         Minority of voice content is unpleasant or negative ( < 50%)

3         Majority of voice content is unpleasant or negative (> 50%)

4         All of voice content is unpleasant or negative

7 Degree of negative content

0         Not unpleasant or negative

1         Some degree of negative content, but not personal comments relating to self or family e.g. swear words or comments not directed to self, e.g. 'the milkman's ugly'

2         Personal verbal abuse, comments on behavior e.g. ' shouldn't do that or say that ,

3         Personal verbal abuse relating to self-concept e.g. 'you're lazy, ugly, mad, perverted ,

4         Personal threats to self e.g. threats to harm self or family, extreme instructions or commands to harm self or others

8 Amount of distress

0         Voices not distressing at all

1         Voices occasionally distressing, majority not dis­tressing ( < 10%)

2         Minority of voices distressing ( < 50% )

3         Majority of voices distressing, minority not dis­tressing ( ~ 50% )

4         Voices always distressing

9 Intensity of distress

0         Voices not distressing at all

1         Voices slightly distressing

2         Voices are distressing to a moderate degree

3         Voices are very distressing, although subject could feel worse

4         Voices are extremely distressing, feel the worst he/she could possibly feel

10 Disruption to life caused by voices

0         No disruption to life, able to maintain social and family relationships (if present)

1         Voices causes minimal amount of disruption to life e.g. interferes with concentration although able to maintain daytime activity and social and family relationships and be able to maintain independent living without support

2         Voices cause moderate amount of disruption to life causing some disturbance to daytime activity and/or family or social activities. The patient is not in hospital although may live in supported accommodation or receive additional help with daily living skills

3         Voices cause severe disruption to life so that hospitalisation is usually necessary . The patient is able to maintain some daily activities, self-care and relationships while in hospital. The patient may also be in supported accommodation but experiencing severe disruption of life in terms of activities, daily living skills and/or relationships

4         Voices cause complete disruption of daily life requiring hospitalization. The patient is unable to maintain any daily activities and social relation­ships. Self-care is also severely disrupted.

11 Controllability of voices

0         Subject believes they can have control over the voices and can always bring on or dismiss them at will

1         Subject believes they can have some control over the voices on the majority of occasions

2         Subject believes they can have some control over their voices approximately half of the time

3         Subject believes they can have some control over their voices but only occasionally. The majority of the time the subject experiences voices which are uncontrollable

4         Subject has no control over when the voices occur and cannot dismiss or bring them on at all

B Delusions

1 Amount of preoccupation with delusions

0         No delusions, or delusions which the subject thinks about less than once a week

1         Subject thinks about beliefs at least once a week

2         Subject thinks about beliefs at least once a day

3         Subject thinks about beliefs at least once an hour

4         Subject thinks about delusions continuously or almost continuously

2 Duration of preoccupation with delusions

0         No delusions

1         Thoughts about beliefs last for a few seconds, fleeting thoughts

2         Thoughts about delusions last for several minutes

3         Thoughts about delusions last for at least 1 hour

4         Thoughts about delusions usually last for hours at a time

3  Conviction

0         No conviction at all

1         Very little conviction in reality of beliefs, < 10%

2         Some doubts relating to conviction in beliefs, between 10-49%

3         Conviction in belief is very strong, between 50-99 %

4         Conviction is 100 %

4  Amount of distress

0         Beliefs never cause distress

1         Beliefs cause distress on the minority of occasions

2         Beliefs cause distress on < 50% of occasions

3         Beliefs cause distress on the majority of occasions when they occur between 50-99% of time

4         Beliefs always cause distress when they occur

5  Intensity of distress

0 No distress

1 Beliefs cause slight distress

2 Beliefs cause moderate distress

3 Beliefs cause marked distress

4 Beliefs cause extreme distress, could not be worse

6 Disruption to life caused by beliefs

0         No disruption to life, able to maintain independent living with no problems in daily living skills. Able to maintain social and family relationships (if present)

1         Beliefs cause minimal amount of disruption to life, e.g. interferes with concentration although able to maintain daytime activity and social and family relationships and be able to maintain independent living without support

2         Beliefs cause moderate amount of disruption to life causing some disturbance to daytime activity and/or family or social activities. The patient is not in hospital although may live in supported accommodation or receive additional help with daily living skills

3         Beliefs cause severe disruption to life so that hospitalisation is usually necessary. The patient is able to maintain some daily activities, self-care and relationships while in hospital. The patient may be also be in supported accommodation but experiencing severe disruption of life in terms of activities, daily living skills and/or relationships

4         Beliefs cause complete disruption of daily life requiring hospitalization. The patient is unable to maintain any daily activities and social relation­ships. Self-care is also severely disrupted

Many reviews deem it the best one. See ... 6702549 and.... 6215456 at researchgate, or biomed.central, as well as Hindawi Publications: Dimensions of hallucinations and delusions in affective and non-affective  illnesses.

Good luck

A different approach is found in An experience sampling study of worry and rumination in psychosis.Hartley, S.; Haddock, G.; Vasconcelos e Sa, D.; Emsley, R.; Barrowclough, C. Psychological Medicine, Vol 44(8), Jun 2014, 1605-1614.

Background: Increasing research effort is being dedicated to investigating the links between emotional processes and psychosis, despite the traditional demarcation between the two. Particular focus has alighted upon two specific anxious and depressive processes, worry and rumination, given the potential for links with aspects of delusions and auditory hallucinations. This study rigorously explored the nature of these links in the context of the daily life of people currently experiencing psychosis. Method: Experience sampling methodology (ESM) was used to assess the momentary links between worry and rumination on the one hand, and persecutory delusional ideation and auditory hallucinations on the other. Twenty-seven participants completed the 6-day experience sampling period, which required repeated self-reports on thought processes and experiences. Multilevel modelling was used to examine the links within the clustered data. Results: We found that antecedent worry and rumination predicted delusional and hallucinatory experience, and the distress they elicited. Using interaction terms, we have shown that the links with momentary symptom severity were moderated by participants’ trait beliefs about worry/rumination, such that they were reduced when negative beliefs about worry/rumination (meta-cognitions) were high. Conclusions: The current findings offer an ecologically valid insight into the influence of worry and rumination on the experience of psychotic symptoms, and highlight possible avenues for future intervention strategies. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved)

Power and perceived expressed emotion of voices: Their impact on depression and suicidal thinking in those who hear voices. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cpp.798

By Connor, Charlotte; Birchwood, Max

Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, Vol 20(3), May-Jun 2013, 199-205.

Considerable focus has been given to the interpersonal nature of the voice-hearing relationship and how appraisals about voices may be linked with distress and depression (the ‘cognitive model’). Research hitherto has focused on appraisals of voice power, but the supportive and affiliative quality of voices, which may act to mitigate distress, is not understood. We explored appraisals of voices’ power and emotional support to determine their significance in predicting depression and suicidal thought. We adapted the concept of expressed emotion (EE) and applied it to measure voice hearers’ perception of the relationship with their voice(s). In a sample of 74 voice hearers, 55.4% were moderately depressed. Seventy-eight who rated their voices as high in both power and EE had a large and significant elevation in depression, suggesting that co-occurrence of these appraisals impacts on depression. Analysis of the relationship between power and EE revealed that many voices perceived as low in power were, nevertheless, perceived as high in EE. Those rating their voices as emotionally supportive showed the lowest levels of depression and suicidal thinking. These findings highlight the protective role that the supportive dimension of the voice/voice-hearer relationship may have. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved)

The relationship between metacognitive beliefs, auditory hallucinations, and hallucination‐related distress in clinical and non‐clinical voice‐hearers.Hill, Katy; Varese, Filippo; Jackson, Mike; Linden, David E. J.

British Journal of Clinical Psychology, Vol 51(4), Nov 2012, 434-447

Objectives: To test the hypothesis that metacognitive beliefs are implicated in the development of distress associated with auditory verbal hallucinations (AVHs) rather than in their aetiology. Design. A cross sectional questionnaire design was used. Methods: Three groups of participants were recruited (n = 20 in each group); clinical voice-hearers diagnosed with psychiatric disorders; non-clinical voice-hearers with no psychiatric history; and non-clinical participants with no history of voices or psychiatric disorder. All participants were screened for psychiatric symptomatology and completed a self-report measure of their metacognitive beliefs (MCQ-30). In addition, the two groups of voice-hearers were interviewed about dimensions of their voices (i.e., content, frequency, distress, and disruption). Results: The clinical group scored significantly higher than the two non-clinical groups on two subscales of the MCQ-30 (negative beliefs about worry concerning controllability and danger and negative beliefs about thoughts concerning need for control). There were no significant differences between the two non-clinical groups on MCQ-30 scores. Regression analyses revealed that the negative beliefs about need for control subscale of the MCQ-30 was the only significant predictor of voice-related distress, although this effect was no longer significant after controlling for the effect of group. Conclusions: These results are consistent with previous findings suggesting that metacognitive beliefs are not directly implicated in the aetiology of AVHs, but may be associated with psychological distress. Further research is however needed to determine whether metacognitive style may directly impact upon voice-related distress. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2013 APA, all rights reserved)