Dataset Information

Assessing metacognitive beliefs about worry: validation of German versions of the Why Worry Scale II and the Consequences of Worry Scale.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Metacognitive beliefs have been proposed to play a key role in initiating and maintaining worry. The Why Worry-Scale-II (WW-II) and Consequences of Worry Scale (COWS) are self-report questionnaires assessing positive and negative metacognitive beliefs. The main goal of this study was to validate German versions of these two questionnaires.

Method

N = 603 participants completed a questionnaire battery, including the two self-report measures of metacognitive beliefs. We conducted confirmatory factor analyses, calculated internal consistencies, and examined convergent and divergent validity. In addition, the questionnaires' power in predicting worry, repetitive negative thinking (RNT) and generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) symptoms were investigated.

Results

The factor structure of the original versions could be replicated for both measures. Furthermore, the translated questionnaires demonstrated excellent internal consistency and evidence of convergent and divergent validity. Importantly they also possessed predictive power in explaining worry, RNT and GAD symptoms, even over and above the Metacognitions Questionnaire-30 (MCQ-30) as the current gold standard.

Conclusions

Overall, our findings suggest that the WW-II and COWS show solid psychometric properties and are useful in measuring metacognitive beliefs independently from the MCQ-30.

SUBMITTER: Thielsch C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6047500 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Assessing metacognitive beliefs about worry: validation of German versions of the <i>Why Worry Scale II</i> and the <i>Consequences of Worry Scale</i>.

Thielsch Carolin C Andor Tanja T Ehring Thomas T

PeerJ 20180713

<h4>Background</h4>Metacognitive beliefs have been proposed to play a key role in initiating and maintaining worry. The <i>Why Worry-Scale-II (WW-II)</i> and <i>Consequences of Worry Scale (COWS)</i> are self-report questionnaires assessing positive and negative metacognitive beliefs. The main goal of this study was to validate German versions of these two questionnaires.<h4>Method</h4><i>N</i> = 603 participants completed a questionnaire battery, including the two self-report measures of metaco ...[more]

PMID: 30013842

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objectives: The implementation of obstetric hybrid simulation and interprofessional collaboration between midwives and anesthetists in labor emergencies fostered the need to evaluate the impact of such a program. The original Interprofessional Attitude Scale (IPAS) assesses interprofessional attitudes among health professional students and includes the 2011 and 2016 Interprofessional Collaborative Practice report competency domains. The purpose of this study was to create a German version of the IPAS (G-IPAS) to use for the education of healthcare students. Methods: We performed the translation and validation of the IPAS in five steps: translation to German according to the International Society of Pharmaeconomics and Outcome Research guidelines; nine cognitive interviews with healthcare professionals and students;calculation of the Content Validity Index (CVI) by expert opinion; exploratory factor analysis (EFA); and internal consistency by Cronbach's alpha. All study participants gave written informed consent and the cantonal ethics committee waived further ethical approval. Results: The cognitive interviews led to replacement of single-item wording. We retained 27 items for CVI analysis. The averaged overall CVI was 0.79, with 15 items ?0.89. 185 students (70 medicine, 51 nursing, 48 physiotherapy, and 16 midwifery) contributed with data for the EFA and it produced three subscales. "Teamwork, roles, and responsibilities" with factor loadings ?0.49, "Patient-centeredness" with factor loadings ?0.31, and "Community-centeredness" with factor loadings ?0.57. Two items of the total scale were deleted, and four items were redistributed to another subscale. Cronbach's alpha for the overall G-IPAS scale was 0.87. After deleting and redistributing items in subscales, a new Scale-CVI/Average was calculated and was 0.82. Conclusions: Based on a rigorous validation process, the G-IPAS provides a reliable tool to assess attitudes towards interprofessional education among different healthcare professions in German-speaking countries.