Alexander Rozental1,2, Anders Kottorp3, David Forsström4, Kristoffer Månsson1,5,6, Johanna Boettcher7, Gerhard Andersson1,8, Tomas Furmark6, Per Carlbring5,9. 1. Centre for Psychiatry Research, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. 2. Institute of Child Health, University College London, London, UK. 3. Faculty of Health and Society, Malmö University, Malmö, Sweden. 4. Department of Public Health Sciences, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden. 5. Department of Psychology, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden. 6. Department of Psychology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. 7. Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany. 8. Department of Behavioural Sciences and Learning, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden. 9. Department of Psychology, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Psychological treatments provide many benefits for patients with psychiatric disorders, but research also suggests that negative effects might occur from the interventions involved. The Negative Effects Questionnaire (NEQ) has previously been developed as a way of determining the occurrence and characteristics of such incidents, consisting of 32 items and six factors. However, the NEQ has yet to be examined using modern test theory, which could help to improve the understanding of how well the instrument works psychometrically. AIMS: The current study investigated the reliability and validity of the NEQ from both a person and item perspective, establishing goodness-of-fit, item bias, and scale precision. METHOD: The NEQ was distributed to 564 patients in five clinical trials at post-treatment. Data were analysed using Rasch analysis, i.e. a modern test theory application. RESULTS: (1) the NEQ exhibits fairness in testing across sociodemographics, (2) shows comparable validity for a final and condensed scale of 20 instead of 32 items, (3) uses a rating scale that advances monotonically in steps of 0 to 4, and (4) is suitable for monitoring negative effects on an item-level. CONCLUSIONS: The NEQ is proposed as a useful instrument for investigating negative effects in psychological treatments, and its newer shorter format could facilitate its use in clinical and research settings. However, further research is needed to explore the relationship between negative effects and treatment outcome, as well as to test it in more diverse patient populations.
BACKGROUND: Psychological treatments provide many benefits for patients with psychiatric disorders, but research also suggests that negative effects might occur from the interventions involved. The Negative Effects Questionnaire (NEQ) has previously been developed as a way of determining the occurrence and characteristics of such incidents, consisting of 32 items and six factors. However, the NEQ has yet to be examined using modern test theory, which could help to improve the understanding of how well the instrument works psychometrically. AIMS: The current study investigated the reliability and validity of the NEQ from both a person and item perspective, establishing goodness-of-fit, item bias, and scale precision. METHOD: The NEQ was distributed to 564 patients in five clinical trials at post-treatment. Data were analysed using Rasch analysis, i.e. a modern test theory application. RESULTS: (1) the NEQ exhibits fairness in testing across sociodemographics, (2) shows comparable validity for a final and condensed scale of 20 instead of 32 items, (3) uses a rating scale that advances monotonically in steps of 0 to 4, and (4) is suitable for monitoring negative effects on an item-level. CONCLUSIONS: The NEQ is proposed as a useful instrument for investigating negative effects in psychological treatments, and its newer shorter format could facilitate its use in clinical and research settings. However, further research is needed to explore the relationship between negative effects and treatment outcome, as well as to test it in more diverse patient populations.
Authors: Harald Baumeister; Natalie Bauereiss; Anna-Carlotta Zarski; Lina Braun; Claudia Buntrock; Christian Hoherz; Abdul Rahman Idrees; Robin Kraft; Pauline Meyer; Tran Bao Dat Nguyen; Rüdiger Pryss; Manfred Reichert; Theresa Sextl; Maria Steinhoff; Lena Stenzel; Lena Steubl; Yannik Terhorst; Ingrid Titzler; David Daniel Ebert Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2021-05-14 Impact factor: 4.157
Authors: Giuseppe Riva; Luca Bernardelli; Matthew H E M Browning; Gianluca Castelnuovo; Silvia Cavedoni; Alice Chirico; Pietro Cipresso; Dirce Maria Bengel de Paula; Daniele Di Lernia; Javier Fernández-Álvarez; Natàlia Figueras-Puigderrajols; Kei Fuji; Andrea Gaggioli; Jose Gutiérrez-Maldonado; Upyong Hong; Valentina Mancuso; Milena Mazzeo; Enrico Molinari; Luciana F Moretti; Angelica B Ortiz de Gortari; Francesco Pagnini; Elisa Pedroli; Claudia Repetto; Francesca Sforza; Chiara Stramba-Badiale; Cosimo Tuena; Clelia Malighetti; Daniela Villani; Brenda K Wiederhold Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2020-09-23 Impact factor: 4.157