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

Following the underwear stealing gnomes model:


The secret is step 2 is using your imagination. Also: "it's valid because we like it".

 

Obviously, you ask the unicorn to smoke signal the angels dancing on hairpins, then use the seer crystals to reflect onto one of those illusion paintings and if you squint hard enough you can just see the outline of the magical 8-ball that points to the proper constellation alignment that will spell the distinction very clearly.

That's just basic sciencey stuff, pay attention.

 

Damn, this is so embarrassing. I would never be able to live with myself if I was this bad at my job.

 

Although it doesn't state evidence of validity for what, I assumed they are saying it's valid for assessing depression etc, and coyly avoiding saying it is not valid for CFS.

 

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

Ermmm am I barking up the wrong tree here, (edit but to) by the way I interpret that statement is that we are embarrassed by/fear symptoms and we then use avoidance of both work and social situations? Please tell me I read this wrong lol. It just seems unbelievable!

 

Meanwhile evidence that CFS is perpetuated by thoughts and behaviours is yet to be produced.

The tricky part is showing that these thoughts and behaviours are not a normal or appropriate response to being ill. You have to take all the factors that are specific to ME/CFS into account. The high impact of the illness, the uncertainty and skepticism, the hopelessness, the way society views people that don't do much during the day.

 

One for those on NICE guidelines group to highlight.

 

Exactly this
Fishing to reinforce an established narrative
Compare with chronic illnesses...

 

if you publish enough junk/pseudo science you can cite your own works, to validate your own work. circular arguments at their worst.

 

Validated against what? They didn't ask patients whether they thought the questions made sense or whether they represented their illness experience. They didn't validate against any objective measures of functioning. Their "validity" is based on self-reference (similar bias applying to all the questions).

 

Yes that is what intrigued me in the first place...how you can validate Catastrophising for example ...the main problem I can see is it’s not even a word let alone something that can be measured as real ...it’s just a made up word to describe Trudies opinion of another person.

 

The submitted version of this article can now be seen here: SLAM_Paper_6_CBRQ_Psychometric_Properties_R2_BCP_v1.3_CLEAN.pdf (bath.ac.uk)
and the supplementary materials can be downloaded here:
Psychometric properties of the Cognitive and Behavioural Responses Questionnaire (CBRQ) in adolescents with chronic fatigue syndrome | Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy | Cambridge Core

Here is the short form of the CBRQ:

See table S3 in the supplementary materials for how each subscale of the CBRQ correlates (or not) with measures like the Chalder Fatigue Scale and the Short Form 36 Physical Function scale. No subscale of the CBRQ correlates moderately or strongly with the Chalder scale at p<0.001.

Only one subscale of the CBRQ - the fear avoidance subscale - correlates moderately or strongly with the SF36PF - the fear avoidance subscale scale, and it correlates moderately and negatively, meaning that adolescents who report worse physical function agree more with FA1 and FA12 below and less with FA2 below (FA2 is scored in reverse):

Which looks a lot like adolescents reporting more post-exertional malaise report worse physical function.

This is from the discussion:

Apart from fear avoidance/post-exertional malaise, none of the other subscales of these pesky beliefs we are saddled with correlate significantly with these pesky symptoms and disability we persist in reporting.

Did the whole CBT model just tumble down?

 

Those questions are completely ridiculous. I don't think there is a level of bias above this, it's not even pretending to be serious.

 

Feels like the prosecution's questions in a mediaeval witch trial.

 

yes, this seems to be the problem with all these constructs--like "catastrophizing" etc. If you assume the symptoms are "functional" then any concern is catastrophizing.