1. Sign our petition calling on Cochrane to withdraw their review of Exercise Therapy for CFS here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Guest, the 'News in Brief' for the week beginning 18th March 2024 is here.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Welcome! To read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum, click here.
    Dismiss Notice

Psychometric properties of the Cognitive and Behavioural Responses Questionnaire (CBRQ) in adolescents with CFS, 2019, Loades, Chalder et al

Discussion in 'Psychosomatic research - ME/CFS and Long Covid' started by Andy, May 23, 2019.

  1. Andy

    Andy Committee Member

    Messages:
    21,809
    Location:
    Hampshire, UK
    Paywall, https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...ue-syndrome/81B2DF53804857C7AF1FB459392F62E6#
    Sci hub, not available at time of posting.
     
  2. Andy

    Andy Committee Member

    Messages:
    21,809
    Location:
    Hampshire, UK
    Err, what? There's presumably something I'm not understanding, because that would seem to confirm that their questionnaire isn't valid for CFS, but is for depression. Or is it just the same topsy-turvey logic that the BPSers tend to use anyway?
     
  3. NelliePledge

    NelliePledge Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,140
    Location:
    UK West Midlands
    The Chalder effect
     
    EzzieD, alktipping, MEMarge and 8 others like this.
  4. Andy

    Andy Committee Member

    Messages:
    21,809
    Location:
    Hampshire, UK
    "This isn't just normal logic, this is Chalder logic."
     
  5. NelliePledge

    NelliePledge Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,140
    Location:
    UK West Midlands
    :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl: I’d rather have M&S logic tho
     
    EzzieD, alktipping, MEMarge and 4 others like this.
  6. chrisb

    chrisb Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    4,602
    It is interesting that they seem to have introduced a dichotomy in discussing "cognitive and behavioural responses to symptoms". This is becoming complicated. It was beyond difficult when there were just cognitive and behavioural symptoms to consider. How do they distinguish the symptoms from the responses, and are the responses just a new set of symptoms?
     
    Amw66, MEMarge, Ellie_Finesse and 5 others like this.
  7. Mithriel

    Mithriel Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,815
  8. chrisb

    chrisb Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    4,602
    How does a cognitive and behavioural response to symptoms relate to an attribution of symptoms, which was the original idea behind the illness? Do we now have symptoms, attributions of symptoms, and cognitive and behavioural responses to symptom? Good luck with measuring all that.
     
    Amw66, MEMarge, Ellie_Finesse and 3 others like this.
  9. arewenearlythereyet

    arewenearlythereyet Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,092
    Oh this is just becoming repetitive! ...the same old Offaly put together garbage. She could at least spice it up and occasionally publish something that has an ounce of scientific method to it...keep us on our toes. If the full paper is anything to go by the abstract I’m not sure it’s worth anybody reading it.

    Rather than m&s ...More like value reconstituted tripe sausages from carefully selected cuts of other improbable papers churned out from the Chalder tripe sausage machine.

    633423E0-3175-4E45-9DC2-BC6C63C44192.jpeg
     
    EzzieD, alktipping, MEMarge and 8 others like this.
  10. Hoopoe

    Hoopoe Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    5,234
    Can anyone copy and paste the CBRQ here?
     
    Trish likes this.
  11. NelliePledge

    NelliePledge Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,140
    Location:
    UK West Midlands
    A new level of tripeness
     
  12. arewenearlythereyet

    arewenearlythereyet Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,092
    MEMarge, Andy and adambeyoncelowe like this.
  13. arewenearlythereyet

    arewenearlythereyet Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,092
    There is also a bit of a description here

    https://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/12213/Ingman Chronic fatigue syndrome: comparing outcomes in White British and Black and minority ethnic patients after cognitive–behavioural therapy 2016 Accepted.docx?sequence=2&isAllowed=y


     
  14. Cheshire

    Cheshire Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,675
    MEMarge, rvallee and Andy like this.
  15. arewenearlythereyet

    arewenearlythereyet Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,092
    basically it is faulty on many levels because it assumes the beliefs are unfounded if anyone wants to test the “validation’” here are the references they cite

     
    MEMarge, Amw66 and Andy like this.
  16. chrisb

    chrisb Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    4,602
    It looks as though it is just the old 1991 nonsense rehashed. The problem with all this is that it is asking for ex post facto justifications or rationalisations. One thinks about none of these matters at the time of doing, or trying to do, anything
     
    EzzieD, alktipping, MEMarge and 3 others like this.
  17. arewenearlythereyet

    arewenearlythereyet Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,092
    I don’t know why I’m doing this to myself but I searched through the claimed validation of the questionnaire with PWCFS (ref 29). Guess what I found:

    So what we have is a lack of transparent reporting ..since the reference 29 claiming that the questionnaire is validated actually takes you to another churned out report (on a separate subject) also using the questionnaire . The reference isn’t about validation of the questionnaire as claimed rather the reference paper infers the same but this takes you to a request for information from the author. So it can only be proven as true if you can access the data which conveniently is controlled via a request to T Chalder.

    This is not very transparent ..in fact I would say it is highly misleading. If it’s validated why not let people see the results of the validation?

    Full paper here if you can bear to read it:

    https://www.cambridge.org/core/serv...ng_patients_with_chronic_fatigue_syndrome.pdf
     
    EzzieD, Mithriel, ScottTriGuy and 9 others like this.
  18. Snowdrop

    Snowdrop Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,134
    Location:
    Canada
    MEMarge, Barry, Cheshire and 2 others like this.
  19. NelliePledge

    NelliePledge Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,140
    Location:
    UK West Midlands
    Mithriel, alktipping, MEMarge and 6 others like this.
  20. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    12,290
    Location:
    Canada
    How is there no point at which the people who employ these fools get tired of paying for the same stuff over and over again?

    Here's a proposal for a questionnaire study in which we try to fish for correlations about things that play no role in the disease, version #207. It's the same as the 206 before, just slightly different.

    Pathetic.
     
    Atle, EzzieD, ScottTriGuy and 6 others like this.

Share This Page