Validación del Cuestionario de Sesgos Cognitivos para la Psicosis (CBQp): Relación con sintomatología, insight y neurocognición

Identificador:  TDX:3364

Handle: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11797/TDX3364

Autores:  Corral Rego, Lía

Resumen:
Introduction: Cognitive biases are key factors in the development and maintenance of delusions in psychosis. The Cognitive Biases Questionnaire for Psychosis (CBQp) evaluates five types of cognitive biases that are relevant in psychosis. The aim of this study is to validate the Spanish version of the CBQp, and to study the relationship between these biases and psychotic symptoms, insight and neurocognition. Materials and methods: The Spanish authorized version of the CBQp was obtained by a translation and back-translation procedure. A sample of 171 patients with different diagnoses of psychosis was included. A confirmatory factorial analysis (CFA) tested three different models of the construct. Comparisons of CBQp scales were analysed between patients with psychosis and a control group (N = 30). Associations between the CBQp biases, clinical and cognitive insight (SUMD and BCIS), symptoms (PANSS and PDI) and neurocognition (MATRICS), were studied by correlation and means differences and linear regressions. Results: CFA showed CFI values of 0.94 and 0.95 for the models with 1, 2 and 5 factors, with RMSEA values of 0.031 and 0.029. The reliability of the CBQp was 0.87. When compared with the group of healthy subjects, patients with psychosis scored significantly higher in all cognitive biases, except in Catastrophising (Cat) and Jumping to conclusions (JTC). Associations between cognitive biases and the self-certainty and the total cognitive insight scale of the BCIS were found. In the same way, associations between conviction, distress, preoccupation and total scales of the PDI and cognitive biases were found. The CBQp was also related with positive symptoms evaluated with the PANSS, and with general cognitive performance, specifically with Processing speed, Problem solving and Social cognition. Conclusions: The Spanish version of the CBQp shows high reliability and adequate internal consistency. A one-factor model might be more appropriate for explaining the construct of the scale, suggesting that the CBQp evaluates a general thinking bias rather than different cognitive errors. Cognitive biases involved a greater frequency of delusions, distress, conviction, and preoccupation, and more positive symptoms, as well as worse cognitive insight and worse global neurocognitive performance.