ArticleBMC psychiatry2019
A test of the goodness of fit of the generic metacognitive model of psychopathology symptoms.
Article in BMC psychiatry, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- A novel model to predict mental distress among medical graduate students in China.BMC psychiatry · 2021Trial
- Mechanics of Mindfulness: Investigating Metacognitive Beliefs as a Pathway of Effect on Anxiety and Depression.European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education · 2025Article
- Decision making and its correlates in recurrent depressive disorder.Indian journal of psychiatry · 2023Article
- Facial mimicry and metacognitive judgments in emotion recognition are distinctly modulated by social anxiety and autistic traits.Scientific reports · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCommon mental disorders such as depression and anxiety frequently co-occur and may share etiological mechanisms. The metacognitive model is based on the principle that there are common pathological mechanisms across disorders that account for comorbidity and therefore can be conceptualized in one generic model. A central prediction of the model is that particular metacognitive beliefs concerning the value of worry, and the uncontrollability and danger of cognition are positively correlated with psychopathology symptoms. In the present study, we set out to test the overall fit of this model by assessing generic metacognitive beliefs and judgements of attention control capacity as predictors of common and frequently co-occurring emotional distress symptoms.
methodsIn a cross-sectional design, 645 participants gathered at convenience completed a battery of self-report questionnaires.
resultsStructural equation modelling indicated a good model fit for the generic metacognitive model, and the predictors accounted for 93% of the variance in distress consisting of depression-, generalized- and social anxiety symptoms.
conclusionsThis finding supports the generic model and the implication that it can be used as a basis to formulate and treat multiple presenting problems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.