THE VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY OF COGNITIVE FAILURES QUESTIONNAIRE IN UNIVERSITY STUDENTS

Öz

Purpose: The aim of this study was to culturally adapt, validate and investigate the Turkish version of Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (CFQ) in university students.

Methods: Reliability was assessed using the Interclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) and confidence interval %94-96. In the study, three hundred and fortyfive students completed both CFQ and Test Anxiety Inventory (TAI) who were in the examination term and average age were 20.9±1.8 years.

Results: The present study, 265 (76.8%) of the participants were female 80 (23.2%) of were male. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients and ICC’s at time 1 and time 2 were as follows: 0.90 (Confidence Interval (CI) 95%; 0.85—0.94); 0.93 (CI 95%; 0.89—0.96). The mean difference was 0.25 with 95 % CI–2.30 to 3.11. Thirtysix of the students were retested within twice over 2 weeks to assess test-retest reliability. The Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r=0.39; p<0.001) revealed strong relation between CFQ and TAI total score. Turkish version of CFQ was found reliability and validity and responsive instrument for evaluating cognitive failures in university students.

Discussion: The people’s own perception of changes in their cognitive status is the most important indication of the success of the interventions. Individual-reported outcomes (IROs) specifically give the people’s perspective. While the Turkish version of CFQ is found a reliable and a valid PRO, CFQ’s use is recommended in terms of field studies and researches related with students. However, it should be studied with larger samples and different illnesses. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Cognitive,reliability,validity,student

BİLİŞSEL DURUM ÖLÇEĞİ’NİN ÜNİVERSİTE ÖĞRENCİLERİNDE GEÇERLİLİĞİ VE GÜVENİRLİLİĞİ

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı Bilişsel Durum Ölçeğini kültürel adapte etmek ve geçerliliğini üniversite öğrencilerinde incelemektir.

Yöntemler: Güvenirlilik, Interclass Korelasyon Katsayısı (ICC) ve %94-96 güven aralığı kullanılarak değerlendirilmiştir. Çalışmaya sınav döneminde ki, ortalama yaşları 20.9±1.8 yıl olan hem Bilişsel Durum Ölçeğini hem de Sınav Kaygı Envanterini tamamlayan 345 öğrenci dahil edilmiştir.

Sonuçlar: Katılımcıların 265’i (%76.8) kız, 80’i ise (23.2%) erkektir. Cronbach’s alpha kat- sayıları ve ICC’s birinci ve ikinci ölçüm için 0.90 (Güven aralığı (CI) 95%; 0.85—0.94); 0.93 (CI 95%; 0.89—0.96) dır. Ortalama fark 0.25’dir (% 95 CI–2.30 - 3.11). Test-tekrar test gü- venilirliğini ölçmek amacıyla 36 öğrenci 2 hafta içinde iki kez değerlendirilmiştir. Pearson’s korelasyon katsayısına göre (r=0.39; p<0.001) Bilişsel Durum Ölçeği ve Sınav Kaygı Envanteri toplam puanları arasında kuvvetli ilişki tespit edilmiştir. Bilişsel Durum Ölçeğinin Türkçe versiyonu güvenilir, geçerli ve üniversite öğrencilerinde bilişsel durumu değerlendirmek için duyarlı bir araç olarak bulunmuştur.

Tartışma: Müdahalenin başarı göstergesi için bireylerin bilişsel durumlarıyla ilgili kendi algılarındaki değişikliklerin ortaya koyulabilmesi çok önemlidir. Birey tarafından bildirilen sonuçlar özel olarak kişinin algısını gösterir. Bilişsel Durum Ölçeği geçerli ve güvenilir bir araç olarak bulunmuştur ve ölçeğin kullanımı öğrencilerle ilişkili saha çalışmaları ve araştırmalar açısından önerilir. Buna rağmen, daha büyük örneklemlerle ve farklı hastalıklarda çalışılmasına ihtiyaç vardır. 

Keywords

• Biliş,güvenilirlik,geçerlilik,öğrenci

References

1. 1. Wallace JC, Kass SJ, Stanny CJ. The cognitive failures questionnaire revisited: Dimensions and correlates. J Gen Psychol. 2002;129(3):238-56.
2. 2. Wallace JC, Vodanovich SJ. Can accidents and industrial mishaps be predicted? Investigation Workplace Performance and Cogni- tive Failure. J Bus Psychol. 2003;17(4):503-14.
3. 3. Reason JT. Skill and error in everyday life. London:Wiley;1997. 4. Cimprich B, Visovatti M, Ronis DL. The Attentional Func- tion Index--a self-report cognitive measure. Psychooncology. 2011;20(2): 194-202.
4. 4. Cimprich B, Visovatti M, Ronis DL. The Attentional Function Index--a self-report cognitive measure. Psychooncology.
5. 5. Cheyne JA, Carriere JS, Smilek D. Absent-mindedness: Lapses of conscious awareness and everyday cognitive failures. Conscious Cogn. 2006;15(3):578-92.
6. 6. Lange S, Suss HM. Measuring slips and lapses when they occur - Ambulatory assessment in application to cognitive failures. Conscious Cogn. 2014;24:1-11.
7. 7. Broadbent DE, Cooper PF, FitzGerald P, Parkes KR. The Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (CFQ) and its correlates. Br J Clin Psychol. 1982;21(Pt 1):1-16.
8. 9. Moheney AM, Thomasdalby J, King MC. Cognitive failures and stress. Psychol Rep. 1998;82 (3 Pt 2):1432- 4.

9. 10. Martin M, Jonnes GV. Distribution of attention in cognitive fail- ure. Human Learning. 1983;2:221-6.
10. 11. Harris JE, Wilkins AJ. Remembering to do things - A theoreti- cal framework and an illustrative experiment. Human Learning. 1982;1(2):123-36.
11. 12. Barlow DH. Anxiety and its disorders: The nature and treatment of anxiety and panic. 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Press; 2002.
12. 13. Attree EA, Arroll MA, Dancey CP, Griffith C, Bansal AS. Psychosocial factors involved in memory and cognitive failures in people with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome. Psy- chol Res Behav Manag. 2014;7:67-76.
13. 14. Bridger RS, Johnsen SA, Brasher K. Psychometric properties of the Cognitive Failures Questionnaire(dagger). Ergonomics. 2013;56(10):1515-24.
14. 15. Spielberger CD. Preliminary professional manual for the Test Anxiety Inventory. Palo-Alto: Consulting Psychologist Press, 1980.
15. 16. Öner N. Sınav kaygısı envanteri el kitabı. İstanbul: Yüksek Öğre- timde Rehberliği Yayma Vakfı,1990:1-2.
16. 17. Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D. Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: Literature review and proposed guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993;46(12):1417-32.
17. 18. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. The assessment of reliability. In: JC Nunnally and IH Bernstein, editor. Psychometric Theory. 3 rd.ed. Newyork: McGraw-Hill Inc, 1994; p. 264-5.
18. 19. George D, Mallery P. SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. 11.0 update. 4th ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon;2003.
19. 20. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;Feb8(1):307-10.
20. 21. Richman J, Makrides L, Prince B. Research methodology and applied statistics, Part 3: Measurement procedures in research. Physio Can. 1980;32:237- 53.
21. 22. McHorney CA, Tarlov AR. Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: Are available health status surveys adequate?. Qual Life Res. 1995;4:293- 307.
22. 23. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric theory. In: JC Nunnally and IH Bernstein, editor. 3rd ed. New York: McCraw-Hill; 1994b.
23. 24. Landgraf JM, Abetz LN. Measuring health-related quality of life in pediatric populations: issues in psychometrics and application. 2 nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Publishers; 1996.
24. 25. Martin DP, Engelberg R, Agel J, Swiontkowski MF. Comparison of the Musculoskeletal Function Assessment questionnaire with the Short Form-36, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, and the Sickness Impact Profile health status measures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997;79:1323-35.
25. 26. Sadeghi H, Abbass A, Hajloo N. Comparison of cognitive failures and academic performance among the students with and with- out developmental coordination disorder. International Journal of Psychology and Behavioral Research. 2013;2(2):79-85.
26. 27. Newmann FM, Wehlage GG, Lamborn SD. The significance and sources of student engagement. In: Newmann FM, editor. New York, NY: Teachers College Press; 1992.
27. 28. Klumb PL. Cognitive failures and performance differences: validation studies of a German version of the cognitive failures questionnaire. Ergonomics. 1995;38:1456-67.
28. 29. Sullivan B, Payne TW. Affective disorders and cognitive failures: a comparison of seasonal and nonseasonal depression. Am J Psychiatry. 2007;164:1663-7.
29. 30. Matthews G, Coyle K, Craig A. Multiple factors of cognitive failure and their relationships with stress vulnerability. J Psychopathol Behav Assess. 1990;12:49-65.