Severe ME Day of Understanding and Remembrance: Aug. 8, 2017
Determined to paper the Internet with articles about ME, Jody Smith brings some additional focus to Severe Myalgic Encephalomyelitis Day of Understanding and Remembrance on Aug. 8, 2017 ...
Discuss the article on the Forums.

Cognitive Behavioural Responses Questionnaire

Discussion in 'Latest ME/CFS Research' started by JohntheJack, Oct 17, 2017.

  1. JohntheJack

    JohntheJack Senior Member

    Messages:
    178
    Likes:
    946
    Swansea, UK
    This uses PACE. I haven't read it yet.

    http://journals.lww.com/psychosomat...operties_and_factor_structure_of_a.98774.aspx


    Psychometric properties and factor structure of a shortened version of the Cognitive Behavioural Responses Questionnaire (CBRQ).
    Ryan, Elizabeth G. PhD; Vitoratou, Silia PhD; Goldsmith, Kimberley A. PhD; Chalder, Trudie PhD
    Psychosomatic Medicine: Post Author Corrections: October 10, 2017
    doi: 10.1097/PSY.0000000000000536
    Original Article: PDF Only
    Objective: Symptoms of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) can be perpetuated by cognitive and behavioural responses to the illness. We aimed to determine the factor structure, reliability and validity of the 40-item Cognitive Behavioural Responses Questionnaire (CBRQ) using data gathered from CFS patients. We also propose a short version CBRQ for greater clinical utility.

    Methods: The psychometric analysis was performed on datasets drawn from two sources: a clinical service for CFS patients (N=576) and the PACE randomised controlled trial (RCT) of CFS treatments (N=640). An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted on the clinical dataset and a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed on the RCT dataset. Using these results, a short version of the CBRQ was proposed. Reliability, metric invariance across age and sex, and construct validity were assessed.

    Results: The EFA (relative Chi-square 2.52; RMSEA 0.051; CFI 0.964; TLI 0.942) and CFA (relative Chi-square 4.029; RMSEA 0.069; CFI 0.901; TLI 0.892) revealed that eight factor models fitted the data well. Satisfactory Cronbach's alpha values were obtained for the final subscales (>=0.76). The shortened CBRQ was obtained by removing items that cross-loaded onto other factors and/or were the lowest loading items in each factor. The shortened CBRQ contained 18 items which had high factor loadings, good face-validity and reliability (Cronbach's alpha 0.67-0.88).

    Conclusions: The CBRQ, long and short versions, are reliable and valid scales for measuring cognitive and behavioural responses of patients with CFS. Further research is needed to examine the utility of the CBRQ in other long-term conditions.
     
  2. Demepivo

    Demepivo Dolores Abernathy

    Messages:
    406
    Likes:
    2,225
  3. Demepivo

    Demepivo Dolores Abernathy

    Messages:
    406
    Likes:
    2,225
    From the introduction

     
  4. Demepivo

    Demepivo Dolores Abernathy

    Messages:
    406
    Likes:
    2,225
     
    ScottTriGuy and Countrygirl like this.
  5. anni66

    anni66 mum to ME daughter

    Messages:
    210
    Likes:
    818
    scotland
    After the first sentence it would seem to be another conflation with CF. There are many physiological differences with ME, as evidenced by recent biomedical research. It would be good if there was someone appropriate who could debunk this
     
  6. NelliePledge

    NelliePledge plodder

    Messages:
    770
    Likes:
    3,493
    Trudie Chalder involved in yet another Cosmo quiz

    I think my answers would be mainly Fs
     
    JohntheJack and Demepivo like this.
  7. alex3619

    alex3619 Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,491
    Likes:
    35,106
    Logan, Queensland, Australia
    Even Cosmo should not touch this.

    If it were a paper quiz I would wind up with a lot of N/A on the pages. Computerised quizzes are tricky. Maybe just reboot or unplug the computer?

    The PACE papers are so bad they are about the worst "science" out there, and do not conform to quality scientific methodology. So how can you even begin to reliably use that data to create a questionnaire? If it somehow conforms to accepted psychiatric research practices, and that is debatable, this would not justify PACE, it would indict accepted psychiatric methodology.

    Now if they used objective measures, and tracked patients using repeat CPET data, and then had a questionnaire that reliably got the same results as a two day CPET, then it might be interesting and be worth further study.
     
    JohntheJack, Demepivo and A.B. like this.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page