Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Validity and Reliability of the Metacognitions Questionnaire-30 (MCQ-30) among Chinese Adolescents

  • Research
  • Published:
Child Psychiatry & Human Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study aimed to examine the psychometric properties of the Metacognitions Questionnaire-30 (MCQ-30) in a sample of Chinese adolescents (1382 boys, 1445 girls) aged 11 to 18 years. Confirmatory factor analysis was performed to assess factor structure, as well as, measurement invariance across demographic groups and clinical symptoms. The results of confirmatory factor analyses supported the original five-factor model. Configural, metric and scalar invariance of the five-factor model were also supported by gender, age, ethnicity, residence, parental education level, depression and anxiety status. Furthermore, all five subscales demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach alphas > 0.75) and test-retest reliability (intra-class correlation coefficients > 0.45). Finally, the five factors were positively related to symptoms of depression, anxiety, and irritability and negatively related to positive childhood experiences and life satisfaction, indicating excellent validity. The findings provide initial evidence that the MCQ-30 is a valid measure for use in Chinese adolescents.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The raw data and analysis scripts are openly available at https://data.mendeley.com/drafts/7rt4bjstxy.

References

  1. Wells A (2000) Emotional disorders and metacognition: innovative cognitive therapy. John Wiley & Sons Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470713662

  2. Wells A, Matthews G (1994) Attention and emotion: a clinical perspective. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315784991

  3. Wells A (1995) Meta-cognition and worry: a cognitive model of generalized anxiety disorder. Behav Cogn Psychother 23(3):301–320. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1352465800015897

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Wells A (2009) Metacognitive therapy for anxiety and depression. Guilford Press

  5. Wells A, Carter K (2001) Further tests of a cognitive model of generalized anxiety disorder: Metacognitions and worry in GAD, panic disorder, social phobia, depression, and nonpatients. Behav Ther 32(1):85–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0005-7894(01)80045-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Sheppard LC, Teasdale JD (2000) Dysfunctional thinking in major depressive disorder: a deficit in metacognitive monitoring? J Abnorm Psychol 109(4):768–776. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843x.109.4.768

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Papageorgiou C, Wells A (2003) An empirical test of a clinical metacognitive model of rumination and depression. Cogn Therapy Res 27(3):261–273. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1023962332399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Sarisoy G, Pazvantoğlu O, Ozturan DD, Ay ND, Yilman T, Mor S, Korkmaz IZ, Kaçar OF, Gümüş K (2014) Metacognitive beliefs in unipolar and bipolar depression: a comparative study. Nord J Psychiatry 68(4):275–281. https://doi.org/10.3109/08039488.2013.814710

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Sun X, So SH, Chan RCK, Chiu C-D, Leung PWL (2019) Worry and metacognitions as predictors of the development of anxiety and paranoia. Sci Rep 9(1):14723. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-51280-z

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Myers SG, Wells A (2005) Obsessive-compulsive symptoms: the contribution of metacognitions and responsibility. J Anxiety Disord 19(7):806–817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2004.09.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Grotte T, Solem S, Myers SG, Hjemdal O, Vogel PA, Guzey IC, Hansen B, Nordahl HM, Fisher P (2016) Metacognitions in obsessive-compulsive disorder: a psychometric study of the metacognitions Questionnaire-30. J Obsessive-Compulsive Relat Disorders 11(11):82–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocrd.2016.09.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Roussis P, Wells A (2006) Post-traumatic stress symptoms: tests of relationships with thought control strategies and beliefs as predicted by the metacognitive model. Pers Indiv Differ 40(1):111–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.06.019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Solem S, Haland AT, Vogel PA, Hansen B, Wells A (2009) Change in metacognitions predicts outcome in obsessive-compulsive disorder patients undergoing treatment with exposure and response prevention. Behav Res Ther 47(4):301–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2009.01.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Fernie BA, Murphy G, Wells A, Nikcevic AV, Spada MM (2016) Treatment outcome and metacognitive change in CBT and GET for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. Behav Cogn Psychother 44(4):397–409. https://doi.org/10.1017/s135246581500017x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Normann N, Morina N (2018) The efficacy of metacognitive therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Psychol 9:2211. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02211

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Wells A, Cartwright-Hatton S (2004) A short form of the metacognitions questionnaire: Properties of the MCQ-30. Behav Res Ther 42(4):385–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0005-7967(03)00147-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Tosun A, Irak M (2008) Adaptation, validity, and reliability of the metacognition questionnaire-30 for the Turkish population, and its relationship to anxiety and obsessive-compulsive symptoms. Turkish J Psychiatry 19(1):67–80

    Google Scholar 

  18. Cho Y, Jahng S, Chai S (2012) The factor structure and concurrent validity of the Korean version of the metacognitions Questionnaire 30 (K-MCQ-30). J Clin Psychol 68(3):349–391. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20867

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ramos-Cejudo J, Salguero JM, Cano-Vindel A (2013) Spanish Version of the Meta-cognitions Questionnaire 30 (MCQ-30). Span J Psychol 16:E95. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2013.95

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Typaldou GM, Konstantakopoulos G, Roxanis I, Nidos A, Vaidakis N, Papadimitriou GN, Wells A (2014) Assessment of the Greek worry-related metacognitions: the Greek version of the metacognitions Questionnaire (MCQ-30). Psychiatrike = Psychiatriki 25(1):39–47

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Baptista A, Soumet-Leman C, Jouvent R (2014) Metacognition and depression: validation of a French version of MCQ-30 in clinical population. Eur Psychiatry 29(8):569–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpsy.2014.09.251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Markovic V, Puric D, Vukosavljevic-Gvozden T, Begovic A (2019) Validation of the Serbian version of the metacognitions Questionnaire-30 in nonclinical and clinical samples. Clin Psychol Psychother 26(4):458–470. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.2366

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Zhang MX, Lei LSM, Wells A, Dang L, Wu AMS (2020) Validation of a Chinese version of the short form of metacognitions Questionnaire (MCQ-30). J Affect Disord 277:417–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2020.08.028

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lysaker PH, Carcione A, Dimaggio G, Johannesen JK, Nicolo G, Procacci M, Semerari A (2005) Metacognition amidst narratives of self and Illness in schizophrenia: associations with neurocognition, symptoms, insight and quality of life. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 112(1):64–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0447.2005.00514.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Mansueto G, Caselli G, Ruggiero GM, Sassaroli S (2019) Metacognitive beliefs and childhood adversities: an overview of the literature. Psychol Health Med 24(5):542–550. https://doi.org/10.1080/13548506.2018.1550258

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Faissner M, Kriston L, Moritz S, Jelinek L (2018) Course and stability of cognitive and metacognitive beliefs in depression. Depress and Anxiety 35(12):1239–1246. https://doi.org/10.1002/da.22834

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Ryum T, Kennair LEO, Hjemdal O, Hagen R, Halvorsen J, Solem S (2017) Worry and Metacognitions as predictors of anxiety symptoms: a prospective study. Front Psychol 8:924. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00924

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Yilmaz AE, Gençöz T, Wells A (2008) Psychometric characteristics of the Penn State Worry Questionnaire and Metacognitions Questionnaire-30 and metacognitive predictors of worry and obsessive-compulsive symptoms in a Turkish sample. Clin Psychol Psychother 15(6):424–439. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.589

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Martin J, Padierna A, Unzurrunzaga A, Gonzalez N, Berjano B, Quintana JM (2014) Adaptation and validation of the metacognition questionnaire (MCQ-30) in Spanish clinical and nonclinical samples. J Affect Disord 167:228–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2014.06.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Fisher PL, Cook SA, Noble A (2016) Clinical utility of the metacognitions Questionnaire 30 in people with Epilepsy. Epilepsy Behav 57:185–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yebeh.2016.02.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Cook SA, Salmon P, Dunn G, Fisher P (2014) Measuring Metacognition in Cancer: validation of the metacognitions Questionnaire 30 (MCQ-30). PLoS ONE 9(9):e107302. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0107302

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Anyan F, Nordahl H, Hjemdal O (2023) The network structure of dysfunctional metacognitions, CAS strategies, and symptoms. Cogent Psychol 10(1) Article 2205258. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2023.2205258

  33. Fergus TA, Bardeen JR (2019) The metacognitions Questionnaire-30: an examination of a Bifactor Model and Measurement Invariance among men and women in a community sample. Assessment 26(2):223–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191116685807

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Paus T, Keshavan M, Giedd JN (2008) Why do many psychiatric disorders emerge during adolescence? Nat Rev Neurosci 9(12):947–957. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2513

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Kessler RC, Berglund P, Demler O, Jin R, Walters EE (2005) Lifetime prevalence and age-of-onset distributions’ of DSM-IV disorders in the national comorbidity survey replication. Arch Gen Psychiatry 62(6):593–602. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.62.6.593

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Cartwright-Hatton S, Mather A, Illingworth V, Brocki J, Harrington R, Wells A (2004) Development and preliminary validation of the Meta-cognitions questionnaire - adolescent version. J Anxiety Disord 18(3):411–422. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0887-6185(02)00294-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Wolters LH, Hogendoorn SM, Oudega M, Vervoort L, de Haan E, Prins PJM, Boer F (2012) Psychometric properties of the Dutch version of the Meta-cognitions Questionnaire-Adolescent Version (MCQ-A) in non-clinical adolescents and adolescents with obsessive-compulsive disorder. J Anxiety Disord 26(2):343–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2011.11.013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Lachat Shakeshaft Y, Lecerf T, Morosan L, Badoud DM, Debbane M (2020) Validation of the French version of the < < Meta-cognition questionnaire > > for adolescents (MCQ-Af): evolution of metacognitive beliefs with age and their links with anxiety during adolescence. PLoS ONE 15(3):e0230171. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230171

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Myers SG, Solem S, Wells A (2019) The metacognitions Questionnaire and its derivatives in children and adolescents: a systematic review of Psychometric Properties. Front Psychol 10:1871. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01871

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB (2001) The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure. J Gen Intern Med 16(9):606–613. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Kroenke K (2012) Enhancing the clinical utility of depression screening. Can Med Assoc J 184(3):281–282. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.112004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Wang W, Bian Q, Zhao Y, Li X, Wang W, Du J, Zhang G, Zhou Q, Zhao M (2014) Reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) in the general population. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 36(5):539–544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2014.05.021

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JB, Lowe B (2006) A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: the GAD-7. Arch Intern Med 166(10):1092–1097. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Sun J, Liang K, Chi X, Chen S (2021) Psychometric properties of the generalized anxiety disorder Scale-7 item (GAD-7) in a large sample of Chinese adolescents. Healthc (Basel) 9(12). https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare9121709

  45. Holtzman S, O’Connor BP, Barata PC, Stewart DE (2015) The brief irritability test (BITe): a measure of irritability for use among men and women. Assessment 22(1):101–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191114533814

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Zhan N, Zhang L, Gong M, Geng F (2023) Clinical correlates of irritability, anger, hostility, and aggression in posttraumatic stress disorder. Psychol Trauma: Theory Res Pract Policy. https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0001498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Narayan AJ, Rivera LM, Bernstein RE, Harris WW, Lieberman AF (2018) Positive childhood experiences predict less psychopathology and stress in pregnant women with childhood adversity: a pilot study of the benevolent childhood experiences (BCEs) scale. Child Abuse Negl 78:19–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.09.022

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Zhan N, Xie D, Zou J, Wang J, Geng F (2021) The validity and reliability of benevolent childhood experiences scale in Chinese community adults. Eur J Psychotraumatology 12(1):1945747. https://doi.org/10.1080/20008198.2021.1945747

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Diener E, Emmons RA, Larsen RJ, Griffin S (1985) The satisfaction with Life Scale. J Pers Assess 49(1):71–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Bai XW, Wu CH, Zheng R, Ren XP (2011) The psychometric evaluation of the satisfaction with Life Scale using a nationally representative sample of China. J Happiness Stud 12(2):183–197. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-010-9186-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Hu L-t, Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model 6(1):1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Vandenberg R, Lance C (2000) A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Res Methods 3:4–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810031002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Rutkowski L, Svetina D (2014) Assessing the hypothesis of measurement invariance in the context of large-scale international surveys. Educ Psychol Meas 74(1):31–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164413498257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Chen FF (2007) Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Struct Equation Modeling-a Multidisciplinary J 14(3):464–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Cheung GW, Rensvold RB (2002) Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Struct Equation Modeling-a Multidisciplinary J 9(2):233–255. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem0902_5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Cortina JM (1993) What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. J Appl Psychol 78(1):98–104. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Cicchetti DV (1994) Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychol Assess 6(4):284–290. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Debbane M, Van der Linden M, Balanzin D, Billieux J, Eliez S (2012) Associations among Metacognitive beliefs, anxiety and positive Schizotypy during Adolescence. J Nerv Mental Disease 200(7):620–626. https://doi.org/10.1097/NMD.0b013e31825bfc1a

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Laghi F, Bianchi D, Pompili S, Lonigro A, Baiocco R (2018) Metacognition, emotional functioning and binge eating in adolescence: the moderation role of need to control thoughts. Eat Weight Disorders-Studies Anorexia Bulimia Obes 23(6):861–869. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40519-018-0603-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Reinholdt-Dunne ML, Blicher A, Nordahl H, Normann N, Esbjorn BH, Wells A (2019) Modeling the relationships between Metacognitive beliefs, attention control and symptoms in children with and without anxiety disorders: a test of the S-REF model. Front Psychol 10:1205. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01205

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Spada MM, Mohiyeddini C, Wells A (2008) Measuring metacognitions associated with emotional distress: factor structure and predictive validity of the metacognitions questionnaire 30. Pers Indiv Differ 45(3):238–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.04.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Sun X, Zhu C, So SHW (2017) Dysfunctional metacognition across psychopathologies: a meta-analytic review. Eur Psychiatry 45:139–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpsy.2017.05.029

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The present study was funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant numbers: 31700987, 32260210). The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Psychology, Jiangxi Normal University, 99 Ziyang Ave, Nanchang, 330022, Jiangxi, China

    Fan Li, Danyan Yuan, Chang Gao, Kaixin Xiong, Fulei Geng & Lan Zhang

Authors
  1. Fan Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Danyan Yuan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chang Gao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kaixin Xiong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Fulei Geng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Lan Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Lan Zhang designed the study. Danyuan Yan and Chang Gao collected the data. Fan li and Kaixin Xiong performed data analysis. Fan Li, Fulei Geng and Lan Zhang drafted the manuscript. All authors provided critical revision of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lan Zhang.

Ethics declarations

Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethics Declarations

The project was approved by the Moral & Ethics Committee of the School of Psychology, Jiangxi Normal University and adheres to the Declaration of Helsinki. Written informed consents were obtained from all the participants and also from their legal guardian.

Conflict of Interest

No.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Li, F., Yuan, D., Gao, C. et al. Validity and Reliability of the Metacognitions Questionnaire-30 (MCQ-30) among Chinese Adolescents. Child Psychiatry Hum Dev (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-023-01625-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-023-01625-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation