Cognitive Behavioural Responses Questionnaire

[JohntheJack]

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

• Abstract

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.

 

[Demepivo]

Full paper on Sci-Hub

http://sci-hub.cc/10.1097/PSY.0000000000000536

 

[Demepivo]

From the introduction

Most studies have found that CFS patients do not have significant differences in physiological test results compared to controls (e.g., 4, 5).

Shortly after its recognition as an illness (6, 7), clinical researchers postulated a cognitive behavioural model of CFS that hypothesised that CFS symptoms are perpetuated by the patients‟ cognitive and behavioural responses to the illness (8, 9).

Some of the unhelpful cognitive responses in patients with CFS include excessive focusing on fatigue symptoms (10), and catastrophic interpretations of symptoms which involves worrying about worst-case potential consequences (11).

 

[Demepivo]

The Cognitive and Behavioural Response Questionnaire (CBRQ) is a 40-item self-rated questionnaire that was designed to measure these cognitive and behavioural responses to patients‟ illness symptoms. In the development phase the scale was found to have five cognitive subscales and two behavioural subscales (15).

It was subsequently used to assess symptom beliefs in patients with CFS (16, 17, 18). The cognitive subscales include fear avoidance, catastrophising, damaging beliefs, embarrassment avoidance, and symptom focusing.

 

[anni66]

From the introduction

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

 

[NelliePledge]

Trudie Chalder involved in yet another Cosmo quiz

I think my answers would be mainly Fs

 

[alex3619]

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.