• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

进一步验证精神病认知偏差问卷。

Further validation of the Cognitive Biases Questionnaire for psychosis.

机构信息

Département de Psychologie, Laboratoire d'étude sur la schizophrénie et les psychoses orienté vers l'intervention et le rétablissement Pavillon Marie-Victorin, Université de Montréal, 90 Vincent D'Indy Ave, Outremont, QC, H2V 2S9, Canada.

Centre de recherche de l'Institut Universitaire en Santé Mentale de Montréal (CR-IUSMM), Québec, Canada.

出版信息

BMC Psychiatry. 2022 Aug 19;22(1):560. doi: 10.1186/s12888-022-04203-8.

DOI:10.1186/s12888-022-04203-8
PMID:35986316
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9392283/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Cognitive biases are recognized as important treatment targets for reducing symptoms associated with severe mental disorders. Although cognitive biases have been linked to symptoms in most studies, few studies have looked at such biases transdiagnostically. The Cognitive Bias Questionnaire for psychosis (CBQp) is a self-reported questionnaire that assesses cognitive biases amongst individuals with a psychotic disorder, as well as individuals with other severe mental disorders. The current study aims to validate a French version of the CBQp and to explore transdiagnostic cognitive biases in individuals with psychotic disorders, individuals with depression, and in healthy controls.

METHODS

The CBQp was translated into French following a protocol based on international standards. Discriminant validity and internal consistency were determined for total score and each subscale score. Confirmatory factor analyses were performed to test construct validity. Finally, cluster analyses were conducted to investigate cognitive biases across diagnostic groups.

RESULTS

Our results were similar to those of the original authors, with the one-factor solution (assessment of a general thinking bias) being the strongest, but the two-factor solution (assessing biases within two themes relating to psychosis) and the five-factor solution (assessment of multiple distinct biases) being clinically more interesting. A six-cluster solution emerged, suggesting that individuals with similar diagnoses score differently on all cognitive biases, and that individuals with different diagnoses might have similar cognitive biases.

CONCLUSIONS

The current findings support the validity of the French translation of the CBQp. Our cluster analyses overall support the transdiagnostic presence of cognitive biases.

摘要

背景

认知偏差被认为是减少与严重精神障碍相关症状的重要治疗目标。尽管大多数研究都表明认知偏差与症状有关,但很少有研究从跨诊断的角度研究这些偏差。认知偏向问卷精神病版(CBQp)是一种自我报告的问卷,用于评估精神障碍患者以及其他严重精神障碍患者的认知偏差。本研究旨在验证 CBQp 的法语版本,并探讨精神障碍患者、抑郁症患者和健康对照组之间的跨诊断认知偏差。

方法

根据基于国际标准的协议,将 CBQp 翻译成法语。对总分和各分量表得分进行判别有效性和内部一致性检验。进行验证性因子分析以检验结构有效性。最后,进行聚类分析以研究跨诊断组的认知偏差。

结果

我们的结果与原始作者的结果相似,单因素解决方案(评估一般思维偏差)最强,但双因素解决方案(评估与精神病相关的两个主题中的偏差)和五因素解决方案(评估多个不同的偏差)在临床上更有趣。出现了一个六聚类解决方案,表明具有相似诊断的个体在所有认知偏差上的得分不同,而具有不同诊断的个体可能具有相似的认知偏差。

结论

本研究结果支持 CBQp 法语翻译的有效性。我们的聚类分析总体上支持认知偏差的跨诊断存在。

相似文献

1
Further validation of the Cognitive Biases Questionnaire for psychosis.进一步验证精神病认知偏差问卷。
BMC Psychiatry. 2022 Aug 19;22(1):560. doi: 10.1186/s12888-022-04203-8.
2
Cognitive Biases Questionnaire for psychosis.精神病认知偏差问卷。
Schizophr Bull. 2014 Mar;40(2):300-13. doi: 10.1093/schbul/sbs199. Epub 2013 Feb 14.
3
Cognitive Biases Questionnaire for Psychosis (CBQp): Spanish Validation and Relationship With Cognitive Insight in Psychotic Patients.《精神病认知偏差问卷》(CBQp):西班牙语版验证及其与精神病患者认知洞察力的关系
Front Psychiatry. 2021 Feb 18;11:596625. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2020.596625. eCollection 2020.
4
Development of the French version of the Davos Assessment of Cognitive Biases Scale in a non-clinical sample of young adults.发展认知偏差量表在非临床年轻成年人样本中的法语版本。
Early Interv Psychiatry. 2023 Feb;17(2):141-148. doi: 10.1111/eip.13297. Epub 2022 Mar 31.
5
Self-reported cognitive biases in psychosis: Validation of the Davos Assessment of Cognitive Biases Scale (DACOBS) in a Spanish sample of psychotic patients and healthy controls.精神分裂症患者自我报告的认知偏差:在西班牙精神分裂症患者和健康对照组中验证达沃斯认知偏差评估量表(DACOBS)。
J Psychiatr Res. 2022 Nov;155:526-533. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2022.09.041. Epub 2022 Sep 27.
6
The Cognitive Biases Questionnaire for Psychosis (CBQ-P) and the Davos Assessment of Cognitive Biases (DACOBS): validation in a Flemish sample of psychotic patients and healthy controls.《精神病认知偏差问卷》(CBQ-P)和《达沃斯认知偏差评估》(DACOBS):在 Flemish 精神病患者和健康对照组中的验证。
Schizophr Res. 2013 Jul;147(2-3):310-4. doi: 10.1016/j.schres.2013.04.037. Epub 2013 May 31.
7
A comparison of cognitive biases between schizophrenia patients with delusions and healthy individuals with delusion-like experiences.妄想型精神分裂症患者与有类似妄想体验的健康个体认知偏差的比较。
Eur Psychiatry. 2015 Nov;30(8):943-9. doi: 10.1016/j.eurpsy.2015.08.003. Epub 2015 Oct 13.
8
Cognitive biases and auditory verbal hallucinations in healthy and clinical individuals.认知偏差与健康个体和临床个体的听觉言语幻觉。
Psychol Med. 2013 Nov;43(11):2339-47. doi: 10.1017/S0033291713000275. Epub 2013 Mar 1.
9
Self-reported cognitive distortions in the psychosis continuum: A Polish 18-item version of the Davos Assessment of Cognitive Biases Scale (DACOBS-18).精神病连续谱中的自我报告认知扭曲:波兰语版 18 项达沃斯认知偏差评估量表(DACOBS-18)。
Schizophr Res. 2018 Feb;192:317-326. doi: 10.1016/j.schres.2017.05.042.
10
Cognitive biases in first-episode psychosis with and without attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.伴有和不伴有注意力缺陷/多动障碍的首发精神病中的认知偏差。
Front Psychol. 2023 Jul 5;14:1127535. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1127535. eCollection 2023.

引用本文的文献

1
Reasoning and interpretation cognitive biases related to psychotic characteristics: An umbrella-review.与精神病性特征相关的推理和解释认知偏差:一项伞状综述。
PLoS One. 2024 Dec 27;19(12):e0314965. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0314965. eCollection 2024.

本文引用的文献

1
Psychosocial and psychological interventions for relapse prevention in schizophrenia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.精神分裂症复发预防的心理社会和心理干预:系统评价和网络荟萃分析。
Lancet Psychiatry. 2021 Nov;8(11):969-980. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(21)00243-1. Epub 2021 Oct 12.
2
The evidence for cognitive behavioural therapy in any condition, population or context: a meta-review of systematic reviews and panoramic meta-analysis.任何情况下、人群或环境中认知行为疗法的证据:系统评价和全景式荟萃分析的元综述。
Psychol Med. 2021 Jan;51(1):21-29. doi: 10.1017/S0033291720005292. Epub 2021 Jan 18.
3
Efficacy of psychological interventions targeting cognitive biases in schizophrenia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
针对精神分裂症认知偏差的心理干预措施的疗效:系统评价和荟萃分析。
Clin Psychol Rev. 2020 Jun;78:101854. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2020.101854. Epub 2020 Apr 24.
4
What Constitutes Sufficient Evidence for Case Formulation-Driven CBT for Psychosis? Cumulative Meta-analysis of the Effect on Hallucinations and Delusions.什么构成了针对精神病的个案概念化驱动认知行为疗法的充分证据?对幻觉和妄想影响的累积荟萃分析。
Schizophr Bull. 2020 Sep 21;46(5):1072-1085. doi: 10.1093/schbul/sbaa045.
5
The association between depression, anxiety and substance use among Canadian post-secondary students.加拿大高等院校学生中抑郁、焦虑与物质使用之间的关联。
Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2018 Nov 23;14:3241-3251. doi: 10.2147/NDT.S187419. eCollection 2018.
6
Effectiveness of metacognitive interventions for mental disorders in adults-A systematic review and meta-analysis (METACOG).元认知干预对成人精神障碍的疗效:系统评价和荟萃分析 (METACOG)。
Clin Psychol Psychother. 2019 Mar;26(2):227-240. doi: 10.1002/cpp.2345. Epub 2018 Dec 16.
7
Canadian Treatment Guidelines on Psychosocial Treatment of Schizophrenia in Adults.加拿大成人精神分裂症心理社会治疗指南
Can J Psychiatry. 2017 Sep;62(9):617-623. doi: 10.1177/0706743717719894. Epub 2017 Jul 13.
8
Individualized metacognitive therapy for delusions: A randomized controlled rater-blind study.针对妄想的个体化元认知疗法:一项随机对照、评估者盲法研究。
J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry. 2017 Sep;56:144-151. doi: 10.1016/j.jbtep.2016.11.013. Epub 2016 Nov 29.
9
Avoiding common pitfalls when clustering biological data.聚类生物数据时避免常见陷阱。
Sci Signal. 2016 Jun 14;9(432):re6. doi: 10.1126/scisignal.aad1932.
10
Association of the Jumping to Conclusions and Evidence Integration Biases With Delusions in Psychosis: A Detailed Meta-analysis.精神分裂症中妄下结论和证据整合偏差与妄想的关联:一项详细的荟萃分析。
Schizophr Bull. 2017 Mar 1;43(2):344-354. doi: 10.1093/schbul/sbw056.