MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2418320015

[Study of psychometric properties of two new questionnaires assessing beliefs in hypochondriasis in a non-clinical population].

2002· article· en· W2418320015 sur OpenAlexaff
Olivier Pelletier, Patrick Gosselin, Frédèric Langlois, Robert Ladouceur

Notice bibliographique

RevuePubMed · 2002
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiquePsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Établissements canadiensUniversité Laval
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésWorryPsychologyAnxietyConvictionClinical psychologyPopulationCognitionPsychiatryMedicine
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Most instruments focussing on hypochondriasis symptoms do not have for goal to assess beliefs specifically. Instead, these instruments are used to measure specific behaviors. To assess underlying beliefs with these kinds of instruments, you have to extract false beliefs by deduction. In cognitive therapy, it is important to target erroneous beliefs in order to change them. On the other hand, existing instruments are not really suitable to target erroneous health beliefs. Even if some questionnaires are built to assess beliefs directly, it seems that they only measure the conviction of having an illness and do not assess the general health beliefs present in excessive health worriers. However, many researchers argue that this other kind of beliefs are the ones responsible in maintaining hypochondriasis symptoms. Presently, researchers assume that erroneous beliefs can maintain worries about illness among people with hypochondriasis symptoms like false beliefs about worry maintain worries in people with General Anxiety Disorder (GAD). Even if the importance of false beliefs in the maintenance of pathological worries is now recognized, most instruments on hypochondriasis symptoms do not have for goal to assess erroneous beliefs concerning worry about health. For instance, although the questionnaire Why do people worry? (WW) shows good psychometric properties and measures beliefs related to general worries, this questionnaire is not specific enough to correctly evaluate beliefs associated to health worry. A new questionnaire has to emerge in order to assess false beliefs associated to worry about health. This manuscript presents the development and the validation of a new questionnaire: the General Health Beliefs Questionnaire (GHBQ) that assesses general health beliefs, and also presents the development and the validation of a new questionnaire assessing beliefs associated to worry about health: the Why do people Worry about Health? (WW-H) . In this study, the GHBQ's and the WW-H's psychometric qualities and the factorial structure were assessed. More precisely, this study examined the factorial structure, the temporal stability, the convergent, divergent and criteria validities of the GHBQ and the WW-H. Four hundred and twenty nine French-speaking university students (non-clinical participants) completed a battery of questionnaires at the beginning of a class. The questionnaires were: The General Health Beliefs Questionnaire (GHBQ), the Why do people Worry about Health (WW-H), the Illness Worry Scale (IWS), the Beck Depression Inventory-short form (BDI-short form) and the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI). A second administration took place three weeks later with the same sample to test the temporal stability of the GHBQ and the WW-H. The principal component analysis with orthogonal rotation (varimax) supports a five components solution for the GHBQ: 1) magical thinking, 2) health, 3) consequences, 4) responsibility, and 5) vulnerability. The principal component analysis with oblique rotation (direct oblimin) (d=0) found a two components solution for the WW-H: 1) utility and 2) magical thinking associated to worries about health. The internal consistency of the GHBQ and the WW-H is excellent (a=.80 and a=.90, respectively). A correlation of 0.49 was found between the GHBQ and the WW-H. The correlation between the GHBQ and the IWS who evaluates the tendency to worry (r=.50) and between the WW-H and the IWS (r=.49) showed that the convergent validity of these questionnaires is adequate. On a three weeks interval, the GHBQ (r=.70) and the WW-H (r=.71) showed a satisfying temporal stability. The means of the high worriers (80 superior percentile at the IWS) (M=38.8, ET=8.93) and the means of the moderate worriers (between the 40 and the 60 percentile at the IWS) (M=32.8, ET=8.00) on the GHBQ have been compared. A significant difference has been found between the two groups [F(1,181)=23,129, p<0,001]. Also, the means of the high worriers (M=27.3, ET=8.59) and the means of the moderate worriers (M=23.8, ET=8.56) on the WW-H haveave been compared. An ANOVA has found a significant difference between these two groups [F(1,180)=7,396, p=0,007]. These results show that general health beliefs and false beliefs associated to worry about health are more often present in high worriers than in moderate worriers. The GHBQ and the WW-H allow psychologists, physicians and psychiatrists to do a quicker and more exhaustive evaluation of general health beliefs and false beliefs associated to worry about health, in less costs. These questionnaires will improve the chances of success of the hypochondriasis' treatment by helping clinicians to detect and correct false beliefs more easily.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,028
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,104
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,028
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,146

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0280,104
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,002
Bibliométrie0,0020,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0020,003
Science ouverte0,0020,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0040,002

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,114
Tête enseignante GPT0,340
Écart entre enseignants0,226 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations9
Publié2002
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePubMed→Même sujetPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments→Travaux en français237 207→