Cited by 230Psychometric Methodologies and TestingAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychological Testing and Assessment

The Negative Effects Questionnaire: psychometric properties of an instrument for assessing negative effects in psychological treatments

Open access
Rozental, Alexander, Kottorp, Anders, Forsström, David, Månsson, Kristoffer, Boettcher, Johanna, Andersson, Gerhard, Furmark, Tomas, Carlbring, Per·2019·Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy

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.

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 · 10.1017/s1352465819000018

Cites

46 of 46 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

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Fisher, W. (1992). Reliability, separation, strata statistics. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 6, 238. doi: https://doi.org/
  2. Linacre, J. M. (2005). Rasch dichotomous model vs. one-parameter logistic model. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 19, 1032.
  3. Raîche, G. (2005). Critical eigenvalue sizes in standardized residual principal components analysis. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 19, 1012.
  4. Spitzer, R. L., Kroenke, K., Williams, J. B. W. and Löwe, B. (2006). A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disor- der. Archives of Internal Medicine, 166, 1092. doi: https://doi.org/

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rozental, A., Kottorp, A., Forsström, D., Månsson, K., Boettcher, J., Andersson, G., Furmark, T., & Carlbring, P.
Affiliations
  • Karolinska Institutet (SE)
  • Malmö University (SE)
  • Stockholm University (SE)
  • Uppsala University (SE)
  • Freie Universität Berlin (DE)
  • Linköping University (SE)
Corresponding author
Rozental, Alexander
Venue
Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy
Published
2019-03-15
Volume
47
Issue
5
Pages
559-572
ISSN
  • 1352-4658 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-1833
OpenAlex
W2922529521
Cited by
230
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 47 · 2025: 47 · 2024: 47 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 4 · 2013: 1
FWCI
10.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Uppsala University Publications (Uppsala University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Malmö University Publications (Malmö University) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Southern Denmark Research Portal (University of Southern Denmark) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
  • University of Illinois at Chicago
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
Keywords
adverse effects, psychometric properties, Rasch analysis, differential item functioning, item response theory, short-form scale, treatment outcome monitoring, mental illness
MeSH terms
Negative Results, Adult, Mental Disorders, Female, Humans, Male, Psychology, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Reproducibility of Results, Treatment Failure

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