Cited by 64Gastrointestinal motility and disordersPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

The development of the irritable bowel syndrome-behavioral responses questionnaire

Reme, Silje E., Darnley, Simon, Kennedy, Tom, Chalder, Trudie·2010·Journal of Psychosomatic Research

Abstract

Objective Unhelpful behavior related to irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is often targeted and expected to change in treatments such as cognitive behavioral therapies. However, no scale has previously been produced to assess these dimensions. The aim of this study was to develop and validate an IBS-specific behavioral responses questionnaire.Methods A total of 153 patients with IBS as diagnosed by a general practitioner completed the 28-item Irritable Bowel Syndrome-Behavioral Responses Questionnaire (IBS-BRQ). A total of 117 persons without IBS also completed the IBS-BRQ and were used as a control group. Tests of internal consistency and principal components analyses (PCAs) were performed on both sets of data.Results The scale was found to be both reliable and valid with a high degree of internal consistency for both IBS patients (Cronbach's alpha=.86) and controls (Cronbach's alpha=.89). The scale differentiated significantly between IBS patients and controls (F=221, P<.01). The PCA supported a two-factor solution in both sets of data. Two items were removed from the scale due to low discriminative ability. The criterion validity was high as evidenced by a strong correlation with the Cognitive Scale for Functional Bowel Disorders (CS-FBD) (r =.67, P<.001).Conclusion The IBS-BRQ is a valid and reliable scale that can be used for clinical as well as empirical purposes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2010.01.025

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 17 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Reme, S. E., Darnley, S., Kennedy, T., & Chalder, T.
Affiliations
King's College London (GB)
Venue
Journal of Psychosomatic Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-09
Volume
69
Issue
3
Pages
319-325
ISSN
0022-3999 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2128828075
Cited by
64
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 2
FWCI
2.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Psychosomatic Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust
  • NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust/Institute of Cancer Research
  • National Institutes of Health
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Gastroenterology › Gastrointestinal motility and disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
irritable bowel syndrome, behavioral responses, cognitive behavioral therapy, scale development, psychometric validation, functional bowel disorders, questionnaire reliability, questionnaire validity
MeSH terms
Female, Humans, Male, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychometrics, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Severity of Illness Index, Social Adjustment, Reproducibility of Results, Principal Component Analysis, Irritable Bowel Syndrome

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