Measuring Attentional Control Ability or Beliefs? Evaluation of the Factor Structure and Convergent Validity of the Attentional Control Scale

Quigley, Leanne; Wright, Caitlin; Dobson, Keith S.; Sears, Christopher R.

doi:10.1007/s10862-017-9617-7

Cited by 59 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…executive functioning), but more recent studies indicate that it more likely assesses subjective judgements of attentional control capacities (i.e. metacognitive beliefs) rather than actual cognitive ability (e.g., [26, 27]). We therefore assume that the ACS offers a measure of metacognitive beliefs about attention even though there is some overlap between the ACS and behavioural assessment of attention control abilities (e.g., [28]).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A test of the goodness of fit of the generic metacognitive model of psychopathology symptoms

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Common mental disorders such as depression and anxiety frequently co-occur and may share etiological mechanisms. The metacognitive model is based on the principle that there are common pathological mechanisms across disorders that account for comorbidity and therefore can be conceptualized in one generic model. A central prediction of the model is that particular metacognitive beliefs concerning the value of worry, and the uncontrollability and danger of cognition are positively correlated with psychopathology symptoms. In the present study, we set out to test the overall fit of this model by assessing generic metacognitive beliefs and judgements of attention control capacity as predictors of common and frequently co-occurring emotional distress symptoms. Methods In a cross-sectional design, 645 participants gathered at convenience completed a battery of self-report questionnaires. Results Structural equation modelling indicated a good model fit for the generic metacognitive model, and the predictors accounted for 93% of the variance in distress consisting of depression-, generalized- and social anxiety symptoms. Conclusions This finding supports the generic model and the implication that it can be used as a basis to formulate and treat multiple presenting problems.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A test of the goodness of fit of the generic metacognitive model of psychopathology symptoms

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Recruiting a more balanced sample would allow future researchers to examine gender-related factors and improve the generalizability of the results. Thirdly, the assessment of attentional control was made using self-report and is subject to the limitations of the self-report assessment 61 , 62 , however, the ACS covers a broader formulation of attentional control compared with a single behavioural task 62 . While the antisaccade task can be used to assess attentional control, it is the reaction time to neutral trials which is indicative of attentional control.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Attentional control moderates the relationship between pain catastrophizing and selective attention to pain faces on the antisaccade task

Ranjbar

Mazidi

Sharpe

et al. 2020

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

cognitive models of chronic pain emphasize the critical role of pain catastrophizing in attentional bias to pain-related stimuli. the aim of this study was (a) to investigate the relationship between pain catastrophizing and the ability to inhibit selective attention to pain-related faces (attentional bias); and (b) to determine whether attentional control moderated this relationship. one hundred and ten pain-free participants completed the anti-saccade task with dynamic facial expressions, specifically painful, angry, happy, and neutral facial expressions and questionnaires including a measure of pain catastrophizing. As predicted, participants with high pain catastrophizing had significantly higher error rates for antisaccade trials with pain faces relative to other facial expressions, indicating a difficulty disinhibiting attention towards painful faces. In moderation analyses, data showed that attentional control moderated the relationship between attentional bias to pain faces and pain catastrophizing. post-hoc analyses demonstrated that it was shifting attention (not focusing) that accounted for this effect. Only for those with high self-reported ability to shift attention was there a significant relationship between catastrophizing and attentional bias to pain. These findings confirm that attentional control is necessary for an association between attentional bias and catastrophizing to be observed, which may explain the lack of relationships between attentional bias and individual characteristics, such as catastrophizing, in prior research. Cognitive models of chronic pain propose pain catastrophizing as a risk factor that give rise to pain-related concerns and fuels attentional bias to pain-related information 1-6. However, meta-analyses have failed to find relationships between theoretically important constructs, such as pain catastrophizing and attentional biases 7,8. The absence of a relationship is problematic for these theories that suggest attentional biases are associated with pain catastrophizing 2-6. There are explanations for this lack of relationship. Todd et al. 1 argued that attentional biases have a curvilinear relationship with threat and therefore relationships are obscured when assessed by simple correlations. Van Ryckegham et al. 9 have argued that the context of attentional biases is important to whether biases towards or away from pain are helpful. Another possibility was raised by Dear et al. 10 , who found that the reliability of the dot-probe is poor, and reliability remains questionable for some indices using eye-tracking 11. Another frequently raised issue is the lack of ecological validity of the stimuli (typically words). Numerous authors have argued that pain-related images 12 , facial expressions 13 or somatosensory stimuli 5 are more suitable to assess attentional biases in pain. Although research has used facial expression (e.g. 19 , all studies have used static faces, whereas Ceccarini

show abstract

“…Traditionally, the ACS is viewed as a measurement for AC capabilities rather than the corresponding (meta)cognitive beliefs. Recent studies (e.g., Quigley et al, 2017) have raised questions regarding that view by demonstrating a dissociation between the ACS and corresponding behavioral measurement for AC. Thereby, they made the suggestion that the ACS might be more closely related to perceptions and beliefs regarding AC than actual AC capabilities.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

One Step Ahead—Attention Control Capabilities at Baseline Are Associated With the Effectiveness of the Attention Training Technique

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Attentional control has been observed to play an important role in affective disorders by impacting information processing, the ability to exert topdown control in response to distracting stimuli, and by affecting emotional regulation. Prior studies demonstrated an association between attentional control and response to psychotherapy, thereby identifying attentional control as an interesting prognostic pre-treatment factor. Improving attentional control and flexibility is a cornerstone in metacognitive therapy (MCT), which is trained by the use of the Attentional Training Technique (ATT). However, as of yet, it remains unclear if pre-treatment attentional control is related to the effect of ATT. Methods: An aggregated sample of 139 healthy participants [study 1: 85 participants, mean age 23.7 years, previously published (Barth et al., 2019); study 2: 54 participants, mean age 33.7 years, not previously published] performed an attentional performance test battery before and after applying ATT. Before ATT was administered, attentional control was measured using a well-established self-report instrument, i.e., the Attentional Control Scale (ACS; Derryberry and Reed, 2002). ATT was given in 2, 4, or 15 doses and compared to sham ATT. The test battery comprised a selection of established neurocognitive tasks: emotional dot probe, Stroop, 2-back, and dichotic listening. Results: Sham ATT showed no interaction with ACS score on performance outcome in all tests. At four doses of ATT, ACS score was associated with training response, i.e., subjects with high self-reported attentional control before training showed the largest improvements post-training (all P-values <0.05; see Figure 3). At 2 and 15 doses of ATT, the ACS score was unrelated to training response. Conclusion: This is a first attempt in understanding the optimal dosage in which ATT should be administered dependent on the individual characteristics of each subject pre-training. The current data suggest self-reported attentional control pre-training as a marker to determine an optimal individual ATT training profile. Future studies should

show abstract

Measuring Attentional Control Ability or Beliefs? Evaluation of the Factor Structure and Convergent Validity of the Attentional Control Scale

Cited by 59 publications

References 29 publications

A test of the goodness of fit of the generic metacognitive model of psychopathology symptoms

A test of the goodness of fit of the generic metacognitive model of psychopathology symptoms

Attentional control moderates the relationship between pain catastrophizing and selective attention to pain faces on the antisaccade task

One Step Ahead—Attention Control Capabilities at Baseline Are Associated With the Effectiveness of the Attention Training Technique

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About