Psychometric properties of the Cognitive and Behavioural Responses Questionnaire (CBRQ) in adolescents with CFS, 2019, Loades, Chalder et al

Paywall, https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...ue-syndrome/81B2DF53804857C7AF1FB459392F62E6#
Sci hub, not available at time of posting.

 

Err, what? There's presumably something I'm not understanding, because that would seem to confirm that their questionnaire isn't valid for CFS, but is for depression. Or is it just the same topsy-turvey logic that the BPSers tend to use anyway?

 

"This isn't just normal logic, this is Chalder logic."

 

It is interesting that they seem to have introduced a dichotomy in discussing "cognitive and behavioural responses to symptoms". This is becoming complicated. It was beyond difficult when there were just cognitive and behavioural symptoms to consider. How do they distinguish the symptoms from the responses, and are the responses just a new set of symptoms?

 

How does a cognitive and behavioural response to symptoms relate to an attribution of symptoms, which was the original idea behind the illness? Do we now have symptoms, attributions of symptoms, and cognitive and behavioural responses to symptom? Good luck with measuring all that.

 

Oh this is just becoming repetitive! ...the same old Offaly put together garbage. She could at least spice it up and occasionally publish something that has an ounce of scientific method to it...keep us on our toes. If the full paper is anything to go by the abstract I’m not sure it’s worth anybody reading it.

Rather than m&s ...More like value reconstituted tripe sausages from carefully selected cuts of other improbable papers churned out from the Chalder tripe sausage machine.

 

Can anyone copy and paste the CBRQ here?

 

I tried to find it but after 15 minutes I gave up...the best I could find was done text from a citation. It has been used in some MS studies

https://www.researchgate.net/public...tive_Behavioural_Responses_Questionnaire_CBRQ

 

There is also a bit of a description here

https://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/12213/Ingman Chronic fatigue syndrome: comparing outcomes in White British and Black and minority ethnic patients after cognitive–behavioural therapy 2016 Accepted.docx?sequence=2&isAllowed=y

 

basically it is faulty on many levels because it assumes the beliefs are unfounded if anyone wants to test the “validation’” here are the references they cite

 

It looks as though it is just the old 1991 nonsense rehashed. The problem with all this is that it is asking for ex post facto justifications or rationalisations. One thinks about none of these matters at the time of doing, or trying to do, anything

 

I don’t know why I’m doing this to myself but I searched through the claimed validation of the questionnaire with PWCFS (ref 29). Guess what I found:

So what we have is a lack of transparent reporting ..since the reference 29 claiming that the questionnaire is validated actually takes you to another churned out report (on a separate subject) also using the questionnaire . The reference isn’t about validation of the questionnaire as claimed rather the reference paper infers the same but this takes you to a request for information from the author. So it can only be proven as true if you can access the data which conveniently is controlled via a request to T Chalder.

This is not very transparent ..in fact I would say it is highly misleading. If it’s validated why not let people see the results of the validation?

Full paper here if you can bear to read it:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/serv...ng_patients_with_chronic_fatigue_syndrome.pdf

 

From the link in the science library:
https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/files/45224441/2015_Lievesley_Kate_0959189_ethesis.pdf

 

How is there no point at which the people who employ these fools get tired of paying for the same stuff over and over again?

Here's a proposal for a questionnaire study in which we try to fish for correlations about things that play no role in the disease, version #207. It's the same as the 206 before, just slightly different.

Pathetic.