Cargando…
Validity and Reliability of Cognitive Attentional Syndrome-1 Questionnaire
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the reliability and validity of the Turkish version of Cognitive Attentional Syndrome-1 (CAS-1) questionnaire. METHODS: 221 participants were included in the study who do not meet any psychiatric diagnosis. Participants were applied SCID I and II and filled CA...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Korean Neuropsychiatric Association
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6539268/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31132839 http://dx.doi.org/10.30773/pi.2019.02.11.1 |
_version_ | 1783422346489495552 |
---|---|
author | Gündüz, Anıl Gündoğmus, İbrahim Sertçelik, Sencan Engin, Betül Hacer İşler, Aysel Çipil, Arif Gönül, Hatice Yaşar, Alişan Burak Sungur, Mehmet Zihni |
author_facet | Gündüz, Anıl Gündoğmus, İbrahim Sertçelik, Sencan Engin, Betül Hacer İşler, Aysel Çipil, Arif Gönül, Hatice Yaşar, Alişan Burak Sungur, Mehmet Zihni |
author_sort | Gündüz, Anıl |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the reliability and validity of the Turkish version of Cognitive Attentional Syndrome-1 (CAS-1) questionnaire. METHODS: 221 participants were included in the study who do not meet any psychiatric diagnosis. Participants were applied SCID I and II and filled CAS-1 scale, Meta-Cognitions Questionnaire-30 (MCQ-30), Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI), Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) Scale, and Penn State Worry Questionnaire (PSWQ). Testing the reliability Cronbach’s alpha, item analysis and Item and total score correlation coefficients were applied. For testing structural validity, Confirmatory Factor Analysis was used, and for testing the content validity, the relationship between each item of CAS-1 and MCQ-30, BDI, BAI, GAD-7, PSWQ was examined. RESULTS: The correlation reliability coefficients were statistically significant except for using alcohol/drugs as a coping mechanism. Cronbach Alpha reliability coefficient of 16 items was 0.771 whereas, this ratio was 0.772 for the first eight items (CAS) and 0.685 for the last eight items (Metacognitive Beliefs) which showed that the internal consistency of CAS-1 was high. Structural and Content Validity of the scale was significant. CONCLUSION: The Turkish version of the CAS-1 was a reliable and valid measure to evaluate CAS in a Turkish population. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6539268 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | Korean Neuropsychiatric Association |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-65392682019-06-04 Validity and Reliability of Cognitive Attentional Syndrome-1 Questionnaire Gündüz, Anıl Gündoğmus, İbrahim Sertçelik, Sencan Engin, Betül Hacer İşler, Aysel Çipil, Arif Gönül, Hatice Yaşar, Alişan Burak Sungur, Mehmet Zihni Psychiatry Investig Original Article OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the reliability and validity of the Turkish version of Cognitive Attentional Syndrome-1 (CAS-1) questionnaire. METHODS: 221 participants were included in the study who do not meet any psychiatric diagnosis. Participants were applied SCID I and II and filled CAS-1 scale, Meta-Cognitions Questionnaire-30 (MCQ-30), Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI), Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) Scale, and Penn State Worry Questionnaire (PSWQ). Testing the reliability Cronbach’s alpha, item analysis and Item and total score correlation coefficients were applied. For testing structural validity, Confirmatory Factor Analysis was used, and for testing the content validity, the relationship between each item of CAS-1 and MCQ-30, BDI, BAI, GAD-7, PSWQ was examined. RESULTS: The correlation reliability coefficients were statistically significant except for using alcohol/drugs as a coping mechanism. Cronbach Alpha reliability coefficient of 16 items was 0.771 whereas, this ratio was 0.772 for the first eight items (CAS) and 0.685 for the last eight items (Metacognitive Beliefs) which showed that the internal consistency of CAS-1 was high. Structural and Content Validity of the scale was significant. CONCLUSION: The Turkish version of the CAS-1 was a reliable and valid measure to evaluate CAS in a Turkish population. Korean Neuropsychiatric Association 2019-05 2019-05-23 /pmc/articles/PMC6539268/ /pubmed/31132839 http://dx.doi.org/10.30773/pi.2019.02.11.1 Text en Copyright © 2019 Korean Neuropsychiatric Association This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Gündüz, Anıl Gündoğmus, İbrahim Sertçelik, Sencan Engin, Betül Hacer İşler, Aysel Çipil, Arif Gönül, Hatice Yaşar, Alişan Burak Sungur, Mehmet Zihni Validity and Reliability of Cognitive Attentional Syndrome-1 Questionnaire |
title | Validity and Reliability of Cognitive Attentional Syndrome-1 Questionnaire |
title_full | Validity and Reliability of Cognitive Attentional Syndrome-1 Questionnaire |
title_fullStr | Validity and Reliability of Cognitive Attentional Syndrome-1 Questionnaire |
title_full_unstemmed | Validity and Reliability of Cognitive Attentional Syndrome-1 Questionnaire |
title_short | Validity and Reliability of Cognitive Attentional Syndrome-1 Questionnaire |
title_sort | validity and reliability of cognitive attentional syndrome-1 questionnaire |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6539268/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31132839 http://dx.doi.org/10.30773/pi.2019.02.11.1 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT gunduzanıl validityandreliabilityofcognitiveattentionalsyndrome1questionnaire AT gundogmusibrahim validityandreliabilityofcognitiveattentionalsyndrome1questionnaire AT sertceliksencan validityandreliabilityofcognitiveattentionalsyndrome1questionnaire AT enginbetulhacer validityandreliabilityofcognitiveattentionalsyndrome1questionnaire AT isleraysel validityandreliabilityofcognitiveattentionalsyndrome1questionnaire AT cipilarif validityandreliabilityofcognitiveattentionalsyndrome1questionnaire AT gonulhatice validityandreliabilityofcognitiveattentionalsyndrome1questionnaire AT yasaralisanburak validityandreliabilityofcognitiveattentionalsyndrome1questionnaire AT sungurmehmetzihni validityandreliabilityofcognitiveattentionalsyndrome1questionnaire |