Hans Knoop and Rona Moss-Morris Joint last authors
This study aims to replicate a UK study, with a Dutch sample to explore whether attention and interpretation biases and general attentional control deficits in chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) are similar across populations and cultures.
Thirty eight Dutch CFS participants were compared to 52 CFS and 51 healthy participants recruited from the UK. Participants completed self-report measures of symptoms, functioning, and mood, as well as three experimental tasks (i) visual-probe task measuring attentional bias to illness (somatic symptoms and disability) versus neutral words, (ii) interpretive bias task measuring positive versus somatic interpretations of ambiguous information, and (iii) the Attention Network Test measuring general attentional control.
Compared to controls, Dutch and UK participants with CFS showed a significant attentional bias for illness-related words and were significantly more likely to interpret ambiguous information in a somatic way. These effects were not moderated by attentional control. There were no significant differences between the Dutch and UK CFS groups on attentional bias, interpretation bias, or attentional control scores.
This study replicated the main findings of the UK study, with a Dutch CFS population, indicating that across these two cultures, people with CFS demonstrate biases in how somatic information is attended to and interpreted. These illness-specific biases appear to be unrelated to general attentional control deficits.
Hughes A, Hirsch C, Chalder T, Moss-Morris R. Attentional and interpretive bias towards illness-related information in chronic fatigue syndrome: a systematic review. Br J Health Psychol. 2016;
Hughes AM, Gordon R, Chalder T, Hirsch CR, Moss-Morris R. Maximizing potential impact of experimental research into cognitive processes in health psychology: a systematic approach to material development. British Journal of Health Psychology. 2016:n/a-n/a. doi: 10.1111/bjhp.12214.
Hughes AM, Chalder T, Hirsch CR, Moss-Morris R. An attention and interpretation bias for illness-specific information in chronic fatigue syndrome. Psychol Med 2016:1–13. doi: 10.1017/S0033291716002890.
Collaboration OS. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science. 2015;(6251):349, aac4716.
Sigurjónsdóttir Ó, Sigurðardóttir S, Björnsson AS, Kristjánsson Á. Barking up the wrong tree in attentional bias modification? Comparing the sensitivity of four tasks to attentional biases. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry. 2015;48:9–16. doi: 10.1016/j.jbtep.2015.01.005. CrossRefPubMed
Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang A-G, Buchner A. G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2006;39:175–91. CrossRef
Reeves WC, Lloyd A, Vernon SD, Klimas N, Jason LA, Bleijenberg G, et al. Identification of ambiguities in the 1994 chronic fatigue syndrome research case definition and recommendations for resolution. BMC Health Serv Res. 2003;3(1):1. CrossRef
Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1983;67(6):361–70.
Mogg K, Bradley BP. Attentional bias in generalized anxiety disorder versus depressive disorder. Cogn Ther Res. 2005;29(1):29–45. CrossRef
- Cross-Cultural Study of Information Processing Biases in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: Comparison of Dutch and UK Chronic Fatigue Patients
Alicia M. Hughes
Colette R. Hirsch
- Springer US