A peer-reviewed, evidence-based journal for clinicians in the field of neuroscience
Issue link: https://innovationscns.epubxp.com/i/555782
[ V O L U M E 1 2 , N U M B E R 7 – 8 , J U L Y – A U G U S T 2 0 1 5 ] Innovations in CLINICAL NEUROSCIENCE 25 Other questionnaires have been developed with the aim of assessing cognitive errors, such as the CBQ, 5 ATQ, 4 CEQ, 6 and CDS, 3 and of these, t he CDS is the only one that permits the examination of specific cognitive errors. Covin et al 3 assessed the frequency with which responders experienced 10 cognitive errors listed by Burns 15 (mindreading, catastrophizing, all-or-nothing thinking, emotional reasoning, labeling, mental filter, overgeneralization, personalization, should statements, and minimizing or disqualifying the positive) in two domains: interpersonal and achievement situations. The CD- Quest, however, is different in that it assesses 15 cognitive errors considering the dimensions frequency of occurrence and intensity of the credit given to them by the respondents. The psychometric indicators of the Brazilian version of the CD-Quest reveal that it is an adequate and promising measure of common cognitive distortions. Regarding its internal consistency, the alpha values obtained were significant for the various groups both for the total scale and the subscales. All items were also significantly correlated with the total, demonstrating high conformity among them and the adequacy and coherence of the instrument for construct validity. The concurrent validity correlation of the CD-Quest with the BAI and BDI was classified as strong (BAI=0.52, p<0.001; BDI=0.65, p<0.001). Compared to the study of concurrent validity of the CDS conducted by Covin et al, 3 the values obtained in our study were superior in comparison with the scale used in Covin's study regarding the BDI. In that study, 3 the correlation between the CDS and the BDI-II was moderate (r=0.39). The best factor solution for the CD-Quest was unidimensional and is consistent with the study by Covin et al. 3 In their study of 10 cognitive errors, the authors performed a factor analysis that supported the use of a TABLE 4. CD-Quest mean scores and SDs according to total scale and SS with and without i ndicators of depression and anxiety in a sample of university students (N=184) C D-QUEST INDICATORS OF DEPRESSION BDI INDICATORS OF ANXIETY BAI YES n=52 NO n=132 STATISTICS YES n=43 NO n=141 STATISTICS Total scale, mean (SD) 31.57 (10.36) 19.12 (10.47) t= -7.27 p<0.0001 30.06 (11.16) 20.34 (11.16) t= -4.99 p<0.0001 SS frequency, mean (SD) 20.38 (6.78) 13.16 (6.65) t= -6.57 p<0.0001 19.72 (7.05) 13.79 (7.02) t= -4.83 p<0.0001 SS intensity, mean (SD) 23.13 (6.38) 15.27 (7.5) t= -7.13 p<0.0001 22.11 (6.93) 16.04 (7.85) t= -4.55 p<0.0001 SD: standard deviation; SS: subscale; BDI: Beck Depression Inventory; BAI: Beck Anxiety Inventory TABLE 5. Psychometric properties of the CD-Quest items (total scale) in a sample of university students (N=184) CD-QUEST ITEMS FACTOR 1 h 2 ITC ALPHA IF ITEM DELETED 1. Dichotomous thinking 0.43 0.18 0.39 0.85 2. Fortune telling (catastrophizing) 0.45 0.21 0.42 0.85 3. Discounting positives 0.43 0.19 0.4 0.85 4. Emotional reasoning 0.4 0.16 0.36 0.86 5. Labeling 0.65 0.42 0.59 0.84 6. Magnification/minimization 0.52 0.27 0.49 0.85 7. Selective abstraction 0.52 0.27 0.48 0.85 8. Mind reading 0.58 0.33 0.53 0.85 9. Overgeneralization 0.58 0.34 0.53 0.85 10. Personalizing 0.62 0.38 0.56 0.84 11. Should statements 0.55 0.31 0.51 0.85 12. Jump to conclusions 0.54 0.29 0.5 0.85 13. Blaming 0.53 0.28 0.48 0.85 14. What if… 0.44 0.2 0.42 0.85 15. Unfair comparisons 0.72 0.51 0.65 0.84 h 2 : communality; ITC: corrected item-total correlation