PCI Registered Reports

Announcements

Please note that we will be CLOSED to ALL SUBMISSIONS from 1 December 2024 through 12 January 2025 to give our recommenders and reviewers a holiday break.

We are recruiting recommenders (editors) from all research fields!

Your feedback matters! If you have authored or reviewed a Registered Report at Peer Community in Registered Reports, then please take 5 minutes to leave anonymous feedback about your experience, and view community ratings.

Back

182

Title *

Pathway between Negative Interpretation Biases and Psychological Symptoms: Rumination as a Transdiagnostic Mediator in a Longitudinal Studyuse asterix (*) to get italics

Authors *

Chung, Ho-Fung, Cheung, Sing-Hang, Please use the format "First name initials family name" as in "Marie S. Curie, Niels H. D. Bohr, Albert Einstein, John R. R. Tolkien, Donna T. Strickland"

Year *

2022

Picture

Abstract *

<h4>Background</h4> <p>The association between interpretation biases and content-relevant symptoms have been well-established but no studies have investigated their cause-and-effect relationship in a prospective longitudinal design. To date, there is also no study on whether one content-specific negative interpretation bias would lend vulnerability to other symptoms. The transdiagnostic role of rumination in both biases-to-symptoms and symptoms-to-symptoms association remains unclear. </p> <h4>Objective</h4> <p>This study aims to examine the longitudinal association between negative interpretation biases, rumination, internalizing symptoms, and paranoid thoughts.</p> <h4>Method</h4> <p>This is a three-time-point longitudinal study at a one-month interval. Participants aged 18 to 30 will be recruited through the research platform Prolific. Sociodemographic information including age, sex, gender, educational level, employment status, and previous psychiatric history will be self-reported. Internalizing symptoms will be assessed by the Inventory of Depression and Anxiety Symptoms (IDAS). Paranoid thoughts will be assessed by the revised Green et al Paranoid Thought Scale (R-GPTS). Rumination will be assessed by the Perseverative Thinking Questionnaire (PTQ). Two interpretation biases questionnaires, the Ambiguous Scenario Test for Depression (AST-D) and the Cognitive Bias Questionnaire for Psychosis (CBQp), will be used in this study. Cross-lagged panel mediation (CLPM) will be used to examine the longitudinal associations among variables.</p> <h4>Conclusion</h4> <div>Positive results from this longitudinal study can establish a better understanding of the cause-and-effect between interpretation biases and symptoms, as well as supporting rumination as a transdiagnostic mechanism that mediates cognitive vulnerabilities and symptoms. Negative results suggest that symptoms might precede interpretation biases. Rumination might characterize the internalizing spectrum, but not thought disorder components.  </div>

Indicate the full web address (DOI or URL) giving public access to these data (if you have any problems with the deposit of your data, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org). *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'All or part of the results presented in this preprint are based on data'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Indicate the full web address (DOI or URL) giving public access to these scripts (if you have any problems with the deposit of your scripts, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org). *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'Scripts were used to obtain or analyze the results'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Indicate the full web address (DOI, SWHID or URL) giving public access to these codes (if you have any problems with the deposit of your codes, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org). *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'Codes have been used in this study'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Keywords (optional)

Depression, paranoia, repetitive negative thinking, interpretation bias, transdiagnostic, longitudinal study

Methods that require specific expertise (optional)

NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).

Thematic fields *

Social sciences

Suggested reviewers - Suggest up to 10 reviewers (provide names and Email addresses). (Optional)

No need for them to be recommenders of PCI Registered Reports. Please do not suggest reviewers for whom there might be a conflict of interest. Reviewers are not allowed to review preprints written by close colleagues (with whom they have published in the last four years, with whom they have received joint funding in the last four years, or with whom they are currently writing a manuscript, or submitting a grant proposal), or by family members, friends, or anyone for whom bias might affect the nature of the review - see the code of conduct

Opposed reviewers - Suggest up to 5 people not to invite as reviewers. (Optional)

e.g. John Doe [john@doe.com]

Submission date

2022-02-17 05:36:23

Recommender

Chris Chambers

Reviewers

Ariana Castro, Rita Pasion

or Register
Submit a report