Validity and reliability of the COgnitive Complaints in Bipolar disorder Rating Assessment (COBRA) in Italian bipolar patients.

IF 1 4区 医学 Q4 PSYCHIATRY
Caterina Portaluppi, Elena Teobaldi, Giorgia Porceddu, Camilla Garrone, Giuseppe Maina, Eduard Vieta, Gianluca Rosso
{"title":"Validity and reliability of the COgnitive Complaints in Bipolar disorder Rating Assessment (COBRA) in Italian bipolar patients.","authors":"Caterina Portaluppi, Elena Teobaldi, Giorgia Porceddu, Camilla Garrone, Giuseppe Maina, Eduard Vieta, Gianluca Rosso","doi":"10.1708/4509.45086","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Although bipolar disorder (BD) and cognitive impairment are straightly connected, limited tools exist to capture the patient's perspective on cognitive decline and its impact on this disorder. The aims of the study are: 1) to assess the reliability and validity of the Italian version of a brief self-report scale (COgnitive Complaints in Bipolar disorder Rating Assessment - COBRA) among euthymic bipolar patients; 2) to investigate the relationship between the self-report scale, COBRA, the objective neurocognitive measure Screen for Cognitive Impairment in Psychiatry (SCIP), and the course of illness in BD.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Western all-white sample (n=216) included 108 BD patients and 108 healthy matched controls. The psychometric properties of the COBRA (e.g., internal consistency, retest reliability, discriminative validity, factorial analysis, ROC curve and feasibility) were analyzed. A screening neuropsychological battery was used for objective cognitive assessment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The Italian version of the COBRA (COBRA-I) had a high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha= 0.852) and retest reliability (ICC=0.848). Factor analysis validated the one-factor model, and the cut-off value was obtained with a score of 10.5. BD patients experienced greater cognitive complaints compared to control group suggesting a discriminative validity of the instrument. No significant correlation was found between COBRA and SCIP in the patients group. Higher COBRA scores were associated with BD type II, life-time hypomanic episodes and number of total episodes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The study proved the validity of the COBRA-I as a simple and reliable self-report instrument for screening or monitoring cognitive complaints in adult patients with BD.</p>","PeriodicalId":21506,"journal":{"name":"Rivista di psichiatria","volume":"60 3","pages":"117-129"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rivista di psichiatria","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1708/4509.45086","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Although bipolar disorder (BD) and cognitive impairment are straightly connected, limited tools exist to capture the patient's perspective on cognitive decline and its impact on this disorder. The aims of the study are: 1) to assess the reliability and validity of the Italian version of a brief self-report scale (COgnitive Complaints in Bipolar disorder Rating Assessment - COBRA) among euthymic bipolar patients; 2) to investigate the relationship between the self-report scale, COBRA, the objective neurocognitive measure Screen for Cognitive Impairment in Psychiatry (SCIP), and the course of illness in BD.

Methods: Western all-white sample (n=216) included 108 BD patients and 108 healthy matched controls. The psychometric properties of the COBRA (e.g., internal consistency, retest reliability, discriminative validity, factorial analysis, ROC curve and feasibility) were analyzed. A screening neuropsychological battery was used for objective cognitive assessment.

Results: The Italian version of the COBRA (COBRA-I) had a high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha= 0.852) and retest reliability (ICC=0.848). Factor analysis validated the one-factor model, and the cut-off value was obtained with a score of 10.5. BD patients experienced greater cognitive complaints compared to control group suggesting a discriminative validity of the instrument. No significant correlation was found between COBRA and SCIP in the patients group. Higher COBRA scores were associated with BD type II, life-time hypomanic episodes and number of total episodes.

Conclusions: The study proved the validity of the COBRA-I as a simple and reliable self-report instrument for screening or monitoring cognitive complaints in adult patients with BD.

意大利双相患者双相情感障碍评分评估(COBRA)中认知主诉的效度和信度。
背景:虽然双相情感障碍(BD)和认知障碍有直接联系,但现有的工具有限,无法捕捉患者对认知能力下降及其对该疾病的影响的看法。本研究的目的是:1)评估意大利版简短自我报告量表(双相情感障碍认知抱怨评定- COBRA)在正常心境双相情感障碍患者中的信度和效度;2)探讨自我报告量表、COBRA、客观神经认知量表精神病学认知障碍筛查(SCIP)与BD病程的关系。方法:西方全白样本(n=216),包括108例BD患者和108例健康对照。对COBRA的心理测量特性(如内部一致性、重测信度、判别效度、析因分析、ROC曲线和可行性)进行分析。客观认知评估采用筛选神经心理学测试。结果:意大利版COBRA (COBRA- i)具有较高的内部一致性(Cronbach’s alpha= 0.852)和重测信度(ICC=0.848)。因子分析验证了单因素模型,分值为10.5分。与对照组相比,双相障碍患者经历了更多的认知抱怨,这表明该工具具有判别效度。患者组COBRA与SCIP无明显相关性。较高的COBRA分数与双相障碍II型、终生轻躁发作次数和总发作次数相关。结论:该研究证明了COBRA-I作为筛查或监测成年双相障碍患者认知主诉的一种简单可靠的自我报告工具的有效性。
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
Rivista di psichiatria
Rivista di psichiatria 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
3.70%
发文量
31
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Gli interessi della rivista riguardano l’approfondimento delle interazioni tra mente e malattia, la validazione e la discussione dei nuovi strumenti e parametri di classificazione diagnostica, la verifica delle prospettive terapeutiche farmacologiche e non.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信