Assessing metacognitive beliefs about worry: validation of German versions of the Why Worry Scale II and the Consequences of Worry Scale

Abstract

BackgroundMetacognitive beliefs have been proposed to play a key role in initiating and maintaining worry. The Why Worry-Scale-II (WW-II) and Consequences of Worry Scale (COWS) are self-report questionnaires assessing positive and negative metacognitive beliefs. The main goal of this study was to validate German versions of these two questionnaires.MethodN = 603 participants completed a questionnaire battery, including the two self-report measures of metacognitive beliefs. We conducted confirmatory factor analyses, calculated internal consistencies, and examined convergent and divergent validity. In addition, the questionnaires’ power in predicting worry, repetitive negative thinking (RNT) and generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) symptoms were investigated.ResultsThe factor structure of the original versions could be replicated for both measures. Furthermore, the translated questionnaires demonstrated excellent internal consistency and evidence of convergent and divergent validity. Importantly they also possessed predictive power in explaining worry, RNT and GAD symptoms, even over and above the Metacognitions Questionnaire-30 (MCQ-30) as the current gold standard.ConclusionsOverall, our findings suggest that the WW-II and COWS show solid psychometric properties and are useful in measuring metacognitive beliefs independently from the MCQ-30.

Positive beliefs about worry: An evaluation of the Why Worry‐II questionnaire in patients with anxiety and mood disorders: Implications for theory and treatment

“…As described in Table 1, all items loaded onto their factors consistent with findings from the Hebert et al (2014) and Thielsch et al (2018) nonclinical populations. Items that exceeded the criteria of loading at 0.40 or above were retained (i.e., all items).…”

“…Finally, we examined whether there are mean differences between groups with primary diagnoses of GAD, MDD or anxiety NOS using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post hoc contrasts if indicated. 1, all items loaded onto their factors consistent with findings from the Hebert et al (2014) and Thielsch et al (2018) nonclinical populations. Items that exceeded the criteria of loading at 0.40 or above were retained (i.e., all items).…”

“…The WW‐II has been demonstrated to be a reliable and valid tool in assessing for positive beliefs about worry with non‐clinical populations of different ages, countries and recruiting methods, supporting the research and clinical utility of this measure (Hebert et al, 2014; Thielsch et al, 2018). However, the present study is the first to examine the utility of the WW‐II with a treatment seeking clinical sample of adults.…”

“…In a population of non‐clinical undergraduate students, the WW‐II demonstrated sound reliability and validity for both the total score and scores on each of the five subscales, and the measure uniquely predicted worry severity. Recently, using the online‐panel PsyWeb, Thielsch et al (2018) evaluated a German translation of the WW‐II with a non‐clinical sample. Consistent with findings from Hebert et al study, the same factor structure of the WW‐II was supported.…”

Predictors of Academic Self Efficacy: Intolerance of Uncertainty, Positive Beliefs about Worry and Academic Locus of Control

“…The research has revealed that there is a consistent and positive correlation between academic self-efficacy and many variables affecting students' academic achievement (Atoum & Al-Momani, 2018;Bahar, 2019;Camelo-Lavadores, Sánchez-Escobedo, & Pinto-Sosa, 2017;Dadandi, 2018;Doménech-Betoret, Abellán-Roselló, & Gómez-Artiga, 2017;Koca & Dadandi, 2019). Though there are studies separately investigating the concepts of academic self-efficacy (Aslan & Agiroglu-Bakir, 2017;Cava-Kuru, 2018;Grøtan, Sund, & Bjerkeset, 2019;Korucu & Cinar, 2017;Makhabbat, Coklar, & Gunduz, 2018;Qamar, Parveen, & Yousuf, 2017;Sachitra & Bandara, 2017;Sokmen, 2018;Sula-Atas & Kumcagiz, 2019;Verešová & Foglová, 2017;Ye, Posada, & Liu, 2018), intolerance of uncertainty (Buhr & Dugas, 2002;Coskun, 2017;Freeston, Rhéaume, Letarte, Dugas, & Ladouceur, 1994;Ranney, Behar, & Bartoszek, 2019;Stanley-Budner, 1962;Sirin-Ayva, 2018;Yildiz, 2017), positive beliefs about worry (Borkovec et al, 1999;Gosselin et al, 2003;Goc, 2017;Karatas & Uzun, 2018;Penney, Mazmanian, & Rudanycz, 2013;Thielsch, Andor, & Ehring, 2018) and academic locus of control (Akin, 2007;Certel & Kozak, 2017;Celik & Saricam, 2018;Cok, 2018;D...…”