Development of the French version of the Davos Assessment of Cognitive Biases Scale in a non‐clinical sample of young adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In accordance with continuum and cognitive behaviour models of psychosis, cognitive biases precede the onset and the maintenance of positive symptoms. The Davos Assessment of Cognitive Biases Scale (DACOBS), a self-report measure, was developed to explore the prevalence of specific cognitive biases. This study aims to validate the French version of this instrument. METHODS: We first translated the English version of the DACOBS into French. Then, using a sample of 213 French speaking young adults (mean age = 20.54, SD = 1.65; 83% females), we examined the factor structure, internal consistency, concurrent, and convergent validities of the current version. RESULTS: We found an 18-item, four-factor version of the French DACOBS comprising external attribution bias (five items), social cognition problems (five items), subjective cognition problems (five items), and safety behaviours (five items), provided best fit-to-data. Internal consistency for the resulting subscales ranged from acceptable to excellent (Cronbach's α range = .62-.86). All subscales were significantly, positively associated with a measure of psychotic-like experiences and positively associated with established measures of theoretically relevant constructs, demonstrating concurrent and convergent validity of the French DACOBS. CONCLUSIONS: The French DACOBS is a reliable and valid and reliable instrument assessing cognitive biases, in a French-speaking youth population. Ultimately, the French DACOBS may be used to identify at-risk youth which may benefit from cognitive interventions targeting cognitive biases, safety behaviours and social cognition which could potentially prevent transition to psychosis in youth.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".