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

Andy

Andy

Senior Member (Voting rights)
Background:
To better understand the maintenance of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), a valid and reliable measure of cognitive and behavioural responses to symptoms is required. Such a measure could also assess beliefs and coping behaviours in the context of fatigue in other somatic conditions.

Aims:
We aimed to establish the psychometric properties of both the Cognitive and Behavioural Responses Questionnaire (CBRQ) and its shortened version (CBRQ-S) in adolescents with CFS.

Method:
The full questionnaire was completed by a clinical cohort of adolescents (n = 121) presenting to specialist CFS units in the UK.

Results:
Both the CBRQ and CBRQ-S had good internal consistency. The CBRQ scores were strongly associated with depression, anxiety, school and social functioning, but weakly associated with fatigue and physical functioning, providing evidence of validity.

Conclusion:
Both the 40-item and the 18-item versions of the CBRQ were found to be reliable and valid in adolescents with CFS. To minimize unnecessary burden, the 18-item version is favoured. Using this assessment tool in future studies, including intervention studies, may help to better target interventions during clinical practice and improve outcomes.
Click to expand...
Paywall, https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...ue-syndrome/81B2DF53804857C7AF1FB459392F62E6#
Sci hub, not available at time of posting.
 
The CBRQ scores were strongly associated with depression, anxiety, school and social functioning, but weakly associated with fatigue and physical functioning, providing evidence of validity.
Click to expand...
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?
 
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.

633423E0-3175-4E45-9DC2-BC6C63C44192.jpeg
 
arewenearlythereyet said:
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.

View attachment 7342
Click to expand...
A new level of tripeness
 
arewenearlythereyet said:
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
Click to expand...
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


Cognitive and behavioural responses: the Cognitive and Behavioural Responses Questionnaire27 (CBRQ) was used to assess patients’ cognitive and behavioural responses to symptoms. The 42-item scale consists of five cognitive subscales and two behavioural subscales. Four cognitive subscales assess how respondents interpret their symptoms: fear avoidance (e.g. ‘I am afraid that I will make my symptoms worse if I exercise’), damage beliefs (e.g. ‘the severity of my symptoms must mean that there is something serious going on in my body’), catastrophizing (e.g. ‘I will never feel right again’) and embarrassment avoidance (e.g. ‘the embarrassing nature of my symptoms prevents me from doing things’), and one measure of symptom focusing (e.g. ‘when I am experiencing symptoms it is difficult for me to think of anything else’). The two behavioural response subscales assess avoidance-resting behaviour (e.g. ‘I stay in bed to control my symptoms’) and all-or-nothing behaviour(e.g. ‘I tend to do a lot on a good day and rest on a bad day’). Each CBRQ item has five possible responses, scored from 0-4, with cognitive subscales ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ (0) to ‘strongly agree’ (4) and behavioural subscales ranging from ‘never’ (0) to ‘all the time’ (4). The range of possible scores for each subscale is as follows: catastrophizing: 0-16; damage beliefs and all-or-nothing behaviour: 0-20; fear avoidance, symptom focusing and embarrassment avoidance: 0-24; avoidance-resting behaviour: 0-32. Higher scores indicate more unhelpful cognitions and behaviours. The CBRQ was initially developed and validated on 230 CFS patients27 and has since been shown to be valid and reliable in patients with multiple sclerosis28 and CFS.29
Click to expand...
 
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

27 Moss-Morris RE, Chalder T. Illness representations: where to from here? 16th Conference of the European Health Psychology Society; Kos, Greece, 2003

28 Skerrett TN, Moss-Morris RE. Fatigue and social impairment in multiple sclerosis: the role of patients' cognitive and behavioral responses to their symptoms. J Psychosom Res 2006; 61: 587-593.

29 Knudsen AK, Henderson M, Harvey SB, Chalder T. Long-term sickness absence among patients with chronic fatigue syndrome. Br J Psychiatry 2011; 199: 430-431
Click to expand...
 
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:

from 0 to 20.10
The Cognitive and Behavioural Responses Questionnaire (CBRQ) is a new scale designed to assess patients’ cognitive and
behavioural responses to symptoms.11 It has been validated on 230 patients with CFS (further details available from T.C. on request) and has been used in patients with multiple sclerosis.11 Previous factor analysis of Likert-scored data revealed five cognitive subscales and two behavioural subscales. Of the cognitive subscales, one measures the level of symptom focusing, and four assess how patients interpret their symptoms (catastrophising, damage beliefs, fear avoidance and embarrassment avoidance). The two behavioural response subscales measure all-or-nothing behaviour, and avoidance/resting behaviour. Descriptions of the subscales with examples of questions asked are provided in online Appendix DS1. The internal reliability of the scales on the current sample was high, with Chronbach’s alpha ranging from 0.70 to 0.88.
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom