Cited by 36Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychological Treatments and AssessmentsPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

Development and validation of the Core Beliefs Questionnaire in a sample of individuals with social anxiety disorder

Open access
Wong, Quincy J.J., Gregory, Bree, Gaston, Jonathan E., Rapee, Ronald M., Wilson, Judith K., Abbott, Maree J.·2017·Journal of Affective Disorders

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Prominent cognitive models of social anxiety have consistently emphasised the importance of beliefs about the self in the aetiology and maintenance of social anxiety. The present study sought to develop and validate a new measure of core beliefs about the self for SAD, the Core Beliefs Questionnaire (CBQ). METHODS: Three versions of the CBQ were developed: a Trait version (fundamental absolute statements about the self), a Contingent version (statements about the self related to a specific social-evaluative situation), and an Other version (statements about how others view the self in social-evaluative situations generally). The psychometric features of the scales were examined in clinical (n=269) and non-clinical (n=67) samples. RESULTS: Exploratory factor analysis yielded a one factor model for all three versions of the questionnaire. Total scores differentiated individuals with SAD from individuals without a psychiatric condition, and demonstrated excellent internal consistency. The three CBQ versions had positive associations with social anxiety while controlling for depression, although zero-order correlations indicated the Trait version was more strongly related to depression than social anxiety, the Contingent version was similarly related to depression and social anxiety, and the Other version was more strongly related to social anxiety than depression. Scores on all three versions of the CBQ reduced from pre- to post-treatment and this change predicted treatment outcome. LIMITATIONS: This is the first validation study of the CBQ. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides initial support for the reliability and validity of the CBQ.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jad.2016.09.020

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wong, Q. J. J., Gregory, B., Gaston, J. E., Rapee, R. M., Wilson, J. K., & Abbott, M. J.
Affiliations
  • Macquarie University (AU)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Wong, Quincy J.J.
Venue
Journal of Affective Disorders
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-01
Volume
207
Pages
121-127
ISSN
0165-0327 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2521433755
Cited by
36
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 1
FWCI
5.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Affective Disorders (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Medical Research Council
  • National Health and Medical Research Council (434213, 192107)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychological Treatments and Assessments
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
social anxiety disorder, self-belief, questionnaire development, psychometric validation, depression, treatment outcome prediction
MeSH terms
Phobia, Social, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Cognition, Depression, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Phenotype, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Reproducibility of Results, Case-Control Studies, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review