Measuring the Cognitive Attentional Syndrome Associated with Emotional Distress: Psychometric Properties of the CAS-1
The self-regulatory executive function model is the basis of metacognitive therapy and proposes that psychological disorders are caused by maladaptive beliefs about thinking (metacognitive beliefs) and a perseverative negative thinking style associated with them, named the cognitive attentional syndrome (CAS). The CAS-1 was devised and has been used as a clinical tool for assessment and monitoring of the cognitive attentional syndrome and underlying positive and negative metacognitive beliefs during the course of treatment. The aim of this study is to assess the psychometric properties of the CAS-1. Seven hundred and seventy-three participants completed a battery of self-report questionnaires at the cross-sectional level, and 431 individuals also completed the same measures 6 and 12 weeks later. Confirmatory factor analysis supported the proposed three-factor solution of the measure, and the factors demonstrated good internal consistency (α ranging from .77 to .89), convergent validity, incremental validity, stability and discriminative validity were satisfactory. Our findings support the continued use of the CAS-1 in clinical and research settings.
KeywordsPsychometric properties CAS-1 Metacognitive beliefs Cognitive attentional syndrome
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
On behalf of both authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
- Clark, D. M., & Wells, A. (1995). A cognitive model of social phobia. In R. G. Heimberg, M. R. Liebowitz, D. A. Hope, F. Schneier, & R. (Eds.), Social phobia: Diagnosis, assessment, and treatment (pp. 69–93). New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Fergus, T. A., Valentiner, D. P., McGrath, P. B., Gier-Lonsway, S., & Jencius, S. (2013). The cognitive attentional syndrome: Examining relations with mood and anxiety symptoms and distinctiveness from psychological inflexibility in a clinical sample. Psychiatry Res, 210, 215–219 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2013.04.020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Fresco, D. M., Coles, M. E., Heimberg, R. G., Liebowitz, M. R., Hami, S., Stein, M. B., & Goetz, D. (2001). The Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale: a comparison of the psychometric properties of self-report and clinician-administered formats. Psychol Med, 31, 1025–1035 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291701004056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Garver, M. S., & Mentzer, J. T. (1999). Logistics research methods: employing structural equation modeling to test for construct validity. J Bus Logist, 20, 33–57.Google Scholar
- Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2014). In J. F. Hair, Jr., W. C. Black, B. J. Babin, & R. E. Anderson (Eds.), Multivariate data analysis (Pearson new international seventh ed.). Harlow, Essex: Pearson.Google Scholar
- Hoffart, A., Johnson, S. U., Nordahl, H. M., & Wells, A. (2018). Mechanisms of change in metacognitive and cognitive behavioral therapy for treatment-resistant anxiety: the role of metacognitive beliefs and coping strategies. Journal of Experimental Psychopathology, 9, 1–10 https://doi.org/10.1177/2043808718787414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kocalevent, R. D., Hinz, A., & Brähler, E. (2013). Standardization of the depression screener patient health questionnaire (PHQ-9) in the general population. Gen Hosp Psychiatry, 35, 551–555 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2013.04.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., & Williams, J. B. (2001). The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure. J Gen Intern Med, 16, 606–613 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., Williams, J. B., & Löwe, B. (2010). The patient health questionnaire somatic, anxiety, and depressive symptom scales: a systematic review. Gen Hosp Psychiatry, 32, 345–359 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2010.03.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Liebowitz, M. R. (1987). Social Phobia. In D. F. Klein (Ed.), Anxiety. New York, NY: Karger.Google Scholar
- Manea, L., Gilbody, S., & McMillan, D. (2015). A diagnostic meta-analysis of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) algorithm scoring method as a screen for depression. Gen Hosp Psychiatry, 37, 67–75 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2014.09.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Meyer, T. J., Miller, M. L., Metzger, R. L., & Borkovec, T. D. (1990). Development and validation of the penn state worry questionnaire. Behav Res Ther, 28, 487–495 https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(90)90135-6.
- Rytwinski, N. K., Fresco, D. M., Heimberg, R. G., Coles, M. E., Liebowitz, M. R., Cissell, S., et al. (2009). Screening for social anxiety disorder with the self-report version of the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale. Depression and Anxiety, 26, 34–38. https://doi.org/10.1002/da.20503.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Sellers, R., Wells, A., Parker, S., & Morrison, A. P. (2018). Do people with psychosis engage in unhelpful metacognitive coping strategies? A test of the validity of the Cognitive Attentional Syndrome (CAS) in a clinical sample. Psychiatry Res, 259, 243–250 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2017.10.032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Wells, A. (2009). Metacognitive therapy for anxiety and depression. New York: Guilford press.Google Scholar
- Wells, A., & Matthews, G. (1994). Attention and emotion: A clinical perspective. Hove UK: Erlbaum.Google Scholar