Cited by 71Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychological Treatments and AssessmentsMental Health Research Topics

Automatic thoughts and meta-cognition as predictors of depressive or anxious symptoms: a prospective study of two trajectories

HJEMDAL, ODIN, STILES, TORE, WELLS, ADRIAN·2013·Scandinavian Journal of Psychology

Abstract

The purpose of this prospective study was to explore the Automatic Thought Questionnaire Negative (ATQ-30-N) and the Meta-cognitions Questionnaire (MCQ-30) as predictors in the development of depressive or anxious symptoms. A sample (N = 201) completed the ATQ-30-N, MCQ-30, and the Hopkins Symptom Checklist-25 (HSCL-25) twice with a three month interval. The HSCL-25 measures both depressive and anxiety symptoms. Separate multiple hierarchical regression analyses indicated that the ATQ-30-N was a positive predictor for levels of depressive symptoms, while the MCQ-30 was a predictor of both levels of anxiety and depressive symptoms, at follow-up, when controlling for gender, age and pre-test levels of symptoms. However, the MCQ-30 did not predict future levels of depressive symptoms, when levels of automatic negative thoughts measured by the ATQ-30-N were statistically controlled for. The findings suggested that the ATQ-30-N predicts future levels of depressive symptoms, while the MCQ-30 primarily predicts future levels of anxiety.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/sjop.12010

Cites

70 of 70 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?

  • Findings in mental health settings demonstrate that metacognitive beliefs are associated with anxiety and depression and that negative metacognitive beliefs of uncontrollability and danger show the strongest and most reliable relationships with these symptoms.

    “The results of the review mirror findings in mental health settings, which demonstrate that metacognitive beliefs are associated with anxiety and depression [29, 70–77] and that negative metacognitive beliefs of uncontrollability and danger show the strongest and most reliable relationships with these symptoms [29].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
HJEMDAL, O., STILES, T., & WELLS, A.
Affiliations
Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NO)
Corresponding author
HJEMDAL, ODIN
Venue
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-12-17
Volume
54
Issue
2
Pages
59-65
ISSN
  • 0036-5564 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-9450
OpenAlex
W569865003
Cited by
71
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 1
FWCI
3.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Scandinavian Journal of Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion)
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 › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
Keywords
negative automatic thoughts, metacognition, depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, symptom trajectories, anxiety, prospective prediction
MeSH terms
Adult, Anxiety, Cognition, Depression, Female, Humans, Male, Predictive Value of Tests, Prospective Studies, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Thinking

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