Cited by 15Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesCardiac Health and Mental HealthPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

Metacognition in Cardiac Patients With Anxiety and Depression: Psychometric Performance of the Metacognitions Questionnaire 30 (MCQ-30)

Open access
Faija, Cintia L., Reeves, David, Heal, Calvin, Wells, Adrian·2020·Frontiers in Psychology

Abstract

The evaluation of effective psychological therapies for anxiety and depression in cardiac patients is a priority, and progress in this area depends on the suitability and validity of measures. Metacognitive Therapy is a treatment with established efficacy in mental health settings. It postulates that anxiety and depression are caused by dysfunctional metacognitions, such as those assessed with the Metacognitions Questionnaire 30 (MCQ-30), which impair effective regulation of repetitive negative thinking patterns. The aim of this study was to examine the psychometric properties of the MCQ-30 in a cardiac sample. A sample of 440 cardiac patients with co-morbid anxiety and/or depression symptoms completed the MCQ-30 and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to test established factor structures of the MCQ-30: a correlated five-factor model and a bi-factor model. The five-factor model just failed to meet our minimum criteria for an acceptable fit on Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = 0.892 vs. criterion of ≥ 0.9; but was acceptable on the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = 0.061 vs. ≤ 0.08; whereas the bi-factor model just met those criteria (CFI = 0.913; RMSEA = 0.056). These findings suggest that the bi-factor solution may carry additional information beyond the five subscale scores alone. However, such a model needs to be evaluated further before widespread adoption could be recommended. Meantime we recommend cautious continued use of the five-factor model. Structural issues aside, all five subscales demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach alphas > 0.7) and similar relationships to HADS scores as in other patient populations. The MCQ-30 accounted for additional variance in anxiety and depression after controlling for age and gender.

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 · 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01064

Cites

42 of 42 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
Faija, C. L., Reeves, D., Heal, C., & Wells, A.
Affiliations
Manchester Academic Health Science Centre (GB)
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Published
2020-05-26
Volume
11
Pages
1064-1064
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3030285838
Cited by
15
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2019: 1
FWCI
1.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Programme Grants for Applied Research
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac Health and Mental Health
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
Metacognitions Questionnaire-30, metacognition, cardiac patients, anxiety, depression, psychometric properties, factor structure, bifactor model, Big Five personality traits, metacognitive therapy, comorbidities, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale

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