METHOD: A total of 382 Malaysian adults completed a Malay translation of the SPQ. Confirmatory factory analysis was used to examine the fit of 3- and 4-factor solutions for the higher-order dimensionality of the SPQ. Ethnic invariance for the best-fitting model was tested at the configural, metric, and scalar levels, and a multivariate analysis of variance was used to examine sex and ethnicity differences in domain scores.
RESULTS: The 4-factor model provided a better fit to the data than did the 3-factor model. The 4-factor model also demonstrated partial measurement invariance across ethnic groups. Latent mean comparisons for sex and ethnicity revealed a number of significant differences for both factors, but effect sizes were small.
DISCUSSION: The 4-factor structure of the SPQ received confirmatory support and can be used in Malay-speaking populations.
METHODS: fNIRS signals during a verbal fluency task designed for clinical assessment was recorded for all participants. Demographics, clinical history and symptom severity were also noted.
FINDINGS: Compared to HCs (n = 31), both patient groups (MDD, n = 31; BPD, n = 31) displayed diminished haemodynamic response in the frontal, temporal and parietal cortices. Moreover, haemodynamic response in the right frontal cortex is markedly lower in patients with MDD compared to patients with BPD.
INTERPRETATION: Normal cortical function in patients with BPD is disrupted, but not as extensively as in patients with MDD. These results provide further neurophysiological evidence for the distinction of patients with MDD from patients with BPD.
Methods: We used a single-blind, randomized controlled crossover equivalence design to compare the efficacy on N.A. regulation of W.A.R.A. versus Distraction in 101 patients with different neuropsychiatric disorders.
Results: The results showed a significant difference (p < 0.001) in response to W.A.R.A. vs. Distraction, with W.A.R.A. being significantly more effective in regulating N.A., with a large effect size (dRMpooled = 2.38) and a high probability (95%) of success.
Limitations: The heterogeneity of the study population makes generalization and clear recommendations for specific patient groups difficult. The Numeric Rating Scale might have prevented detection of increased N.A. when the baseline scores were high. More in-depth research is needed to explore the W.A.R.A. technique and the extent of confounding variables such as the placebo effect.
Conclusions: The findings suggest that W.A.R.A. may be an effective, accessible, and brief intervention reducing negative affect. Although premature, these first results are encouraging.