Self-Reported Cognitive Bias in Psychosis: Further Validation of the Cognitive Biases Questionnaire for Psychosis (CBQ-P) and the Davos Assessment of Cognitive Biases (DACOBS) in a Large Iranian Clinical and Non-Clinical Sample

IF 2.1 4区医学 Q3 PSYCHIATRY

Early Intervention in Psychiatry Pub Date : 2025-02-23 DOI:10.1111/eip.70023

Mohammad Aminaee, Vahid Khosravani, Seyed Mehdi Samimi Ardestani, Mohammad Reza Fayyazi Bordbar, Mark van der Gaag, Michael Berk

{"title":"Self-Reported Cognitive Bias in Psychosis: Further Validation of the Cognitive Biases Questionnaire for Psychosis (CBQ-P) and the Davos Assessment of Cognitive Biases (DACOBS) in a Large Iranian Clinical and Non-Clinical Sample","authors":"Mohammad Aminaee, Vahid Khosravani, Seyed Mehdi Samimi Ardestani, Mohammad Reza Fayyazi Bordbar, Mark van der Gaag, Michael Berk","doi":"10.1111/eip.70023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>Various factor structures have been suggested for the Davos Assessment of Cognitive Biases (DACOBS) and the Cognitive Biases Questionnaire for Psychosis (CBQ-P), assessing cognitive bias, necessitating additional validation in diverse languages to enhance the validity of the scales.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Method</h3>\n \n <p>Persian versions of these scales were validated within an Iranian cohort comprising 1719 individuals: patients with schizophrenia (<i>n</i> = 334) and major depressive disorder (MDD; <i>n</i> = 346) and a non-clinical group (<i>n</i> = 1039). The participants completed both self-report and clinician-administered assessments.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The 18-item DACOBS version, comprising four factors, and the single-factor structure of the CBQ-P exhibited the optimal model fit, with confirmed reliability. Both scales showed significant correlations with constructs such as paranoid ideation, social cognition, schizotypal personality and positive symptoms. Additionally, the scales differentiated patients with schizophrenia and individuals at high risk for psychosis from those at low risk or patients with MDD. The CBQ-P and certain subscales of the DACOBS predicted susceptibility to psychosis, positive symptoms and psychosis-related manifestations.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>The research highlights the validity and reliability of the Persian adaptations of the 18-item DACOBS and the CBQ-P for evaluating cognitive bias in individuals diagnosed with schizophrenia and for identifying individuals at an elevated risk for psychosis.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":11385,"journal":{"name":"Early Intervention in Psychiatry","volume":"19 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Early Intervention in Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eip.70023","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

Various factor structures have been suggested for the Davos Assessment of Cognitive Biases (DACOBS) and the Cognitive Biases Questionnaire for Psychosis (CBQ-P), assessing cognitive bias, necessitating additional validation in diverse languages to enhance the validity of the scales.

Method

Persian versions of these scales were validated within an Iranian cohort comprising 1719 individuals: patients with schizophrenia (n = 334) and major depressive disorder (MDD; n = 346) and a non-clinical group (n = 1039). The participants completed both self-report and clinician-administered assessments.

Results

The 18-item DACOBS version, comprising four factors, and the single-factor structure of the CBQ-P exhibited the optimal model fit, with confirmed reliability. Both scales showed significant correlations with constructs such as paranoid ideation, social cognition, schizotypal personality and positive symptoms. Additionally, the scales differentiated patients with schizophrenia and individuals at high risk for psychosis from those at low risk or patients with MDD. The CBQ-P and certain subscales of the DACOBS predicted susceptibility to psychosis, positive symptoms and psychosis-related manifestations.

Conclusions

The research highlights the validity and reliability of the Persian adaptations of the 18-item DACOBS and the CBQ-P for evaluating cognitive bias in individuals diagnosed with schizophrenia and for identifying individuals at an elevated risk for psychosis.

查看原文本刊更多论文

自我报告的精神病认知偏差：在伊朗临床和非临床样本中进一步验证精神病认知偏差问卷（CBQ-P）和达沃斯认知偏差评估（DACOBS）

摘要达沃斯认知偏差评估（DACOBS）和精神病认知偏差问卷（CBQ-P）提出了多种评估认知偏差的因素结构，需要在不同语言中进行额外的验证，以提高量表的效度。方法波斯语版本的这些量表在一个包括1719人的伊朗队列中得到验证：精神分裂症患者（n = 334）和重度抑郁症患者(MDD；N = 346)和非临床组（N = 1039）。参与者完成了自我报告和临床管理的评估。结果由4个因素组成的18题DACOBS版本和单因素结构的CBQ-P模型拟合最优，信度得到证实。两种量表均与偏执观念、社会认知、分裂型人格和阳性症状等构念存在显著相关性。此外，该量表将精神分裂症患者和精神病高风险个体与低风险患者或重度抑郁症患者区分开来。CBQ-P和DACOBS的某些子量表预测精神病易感性、阳性症状和精神病相关表现。结论：本研究强调了18项DACOBS和CBQ-P在评估精神分裂症患者认知偏差和识别精神病高风险个体方面的波斯适应性的有效性和可靠性。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Early Intervention in Psychiatry 医学-精神病学

CiteScore

4.80

自引率

5.00%

发文量

112

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： Early Intervention in Psychiatry publishes original research articles and reviews dealing with the early recognition, diagnosis and treatment across the full range of mental and substance use disorders, as well as the underlying epidemiological, biological, psychological and social mechanisms that influence the onset and early course of these disorders. The journal provides comprehensive coverage of early intervention for the full range of psychiatric disorders and mental health problems, including schizophrenia and other psychoses, mood and anxiety disorders, substance use disorders, eating disorders and personality disorders. Papers in any of the following fields are considered: diagnostic issues, psychopathology, clinical epidemiology, biological mechanisms, treatments and other forms of intervention, clinical trials, health services and economic research and mental health policy. Special features are also published, including hypotheses, controversies and snapshots of innovative service models.