Objective: The aim of the study is to investigate psychometric features of Distress Intolerance Index (DII), which was developed to identify the golden standard of distress tolerance concept, and Cognitive-Behavioral Avoidance Scale (CBAS), which assesses avoidance multidimensionally, in a university students population. Methods: The study sample consists of 610 undergraduate students from various departments in Hacettepe and Uludag University (434 female, 71.4%; 176 male, 28.6%). Test-retest reliability was examined in a sample of 92 people. In addition to DII and CBAS, Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS), Penn State Worry Questionnaire (PSWQ), Coping with Stress Scale (CSS), Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (CERQ), Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI) and Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) was also applied. Construct validity of the scales was tested via factor analysis, Cronbachs alpha coefficients and test-retest correlations were calculated to check for reliability, and Pearson correlation analysis was conducted to investigate criterion-related validity. Results: One factor solution was suitable for DII as also recommended in the original form and reliability of the index was estimated as 0.92. Test-retest reliability was 0.86. The analysis for criterion-related validity revealed theoretically expected significant correlations between DII and BDI, PNAS, BSI and PSWQ, ranging from -0.25 to 0.60. Factor analysis for construct validity of CBAS revealed a four factor solution consistent with the original form. Two items in the original form were excluded from the Turkish version. Reliability coefficient was 0.92 for the overall scale and varied between 0.72 and 0.88 for the subscales. Test-retest reliability varied between 0.60 and 0.90. Analysis for criterion-related validity showed expected and significant correlations varying between -0.10 and 0.44 for CBAS subscales and CERQ, CSS subscales and PSWQ, BDI and BSI overall scores. Conclusion: The findings of this study shows that DII and CBAS are valid and reliable scales. This study also provided further evidence to the validity and utility of the DII. [Anadolu Psikiyatri Derg 2016; 17(0.100): 24-32]