ArticleInternational journal of methods in psychiatric research2025
The Validity and Reliability Study of the Turkish Version of Cognitive Complaints in Bipolar Disorder Rating Assessment.
Article in International journal of methods in psychiatric research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The Validity and Reliability Study of the Turkish Version of Cognitive Complaints in Bipolar Disorder Rating Assessment.International journal of methods in psychiatric research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe Cognitive Complaints Rating Scale in Bipolar Disorder (COBRA) is a brief self-report measure designed to capture Subjective Cognitive Complaints (SCC) experienced by patients with Bipolar Disorder (BD). This study aimed to translate the 16-item COBRA into Turkish (COBRA-TR) and comprehensively assess its psychometric properties.
methodsWe recruited 160 participants, consisting of 80 BD patients in remission and 80 controls. The psychometric evaluation included confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), calculation of internal consistency, and examination of divergent and convergent validity through Pearson's correlations with related scales. Statistical analyses were performed using the SPSSv29 and the Jamovi software of R Statistical Package.
resultsThe COBRA-TR showed excellent internal consistency (Cronbach α = 0.898) and robust convergent validity, strongly correlating with the Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (r = 0.784; p < 0.001). It demonstrated moderate-to-high correlations with cognitive (r = 0.574; p < 0.001) and global functioning (r = 0.624; p < 0.001), as assessed by the Functioning Assessment Short Test. CFA provided strong support for a unidimensional factor structure. Furthermore, the COBRA-TR successfully differentiated patients from controls. Clinical variables minimally influenced the scale, though it showed weak correlations with subclinical depressive symptoms (r = 0.325; p = 0.003) and working memory performance (r = -0.250; p = 0.002).
conclusionOur findings highlight that the COBRA-TR is a highly reliable and valid tool, effectively capturing SCC among BD patients. Its brevity, ease of administration, and strong psychometric properties suggest its potential utility as a valuable instrument in both clinical practice and research settings.
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.