ArticleNoro psikiyatri arsivi2024
Reliability and Validity of the Turkish versions of the Davos Assessment of Cognitive Biases Scale (DACOBS) and Cognitive Biases Questionnaire for Psychosis (CBQp).
Article in Noro psikiyatri arsivi, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Translation and Validation of the 18-Item Davos Assessment of Cognitive Biases Scale in Arabic.Brain and behavior · 2026Article
- Application of a cognitive-structure framework-based scenario-based education programme in schizophrenia patients with delusional symptoms: a randomised controlled trial.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Cognitive biases can be defined as dysfunctional patterns of thought formation that lead to incorrect conclusions and abnormal perceptions and are critical factors in the development and maintenance of psychosis. Two self-report measures assessing cognitive biases in psychosis spectrum disorder (PSD) have recently been developed: the Davos Assessment of Cognitive Biases Scale (DACOBS) and the Cognitive Biases Questionnaire for Psychosis (CBQp). This study aimed to validate the Turkish versions of the DACOBS and CBQp. Methods: The sample consisted of 171 patients with PSD and 162 age and sex-matched healthy controls (HC). We investigated I) the factor structure with confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), II) the reliability (internal consistency and test-retest reliability), III) discriminative power, IV) convergent validity, and V) the concurrent validity of DACOBS and CBQp. Results: The 7-factor solution for DACOBS, similar to the original study, and the 5-factor solution for CBQp provided the best fit. DACOBS and CBQp total and their subscale scores showed good internal consistency and test-retest reliability. DACOBS and CBQp total and their subscale scores could differentiate between PSD patients and HCs when controlling for age, sex, and education. DACOBS and CBQp showed a positively moderate correlation. DACOBS and CBQp scores were associated with psychotic symptoms in PSD patients and positive psychic experiences in HCs. Conclusions: Both the DACOBS and the CBQp have good psychometric properties and are suitable instruments for assessing cognitive biases in the Turkish population. The Turkish versions of the DACOBS and CBQp were as reliable and valid as the original.
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.