The Development and Evaluation of the Psychometric Properties of the Negative Beliefs about Post-Event Processing Scale

Post-event rumination and social anxiety: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Post-event rumination, the extent to which one engages in persistent, detailed, and negative thinking following social situations, serves as a risk process in the pathophysiology of social anxiety. Although a substantial body of research has assessed post-event rumination and social anxiety, this literature has produced inconsistent results. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine whether the magnitude of the association between post-event rumination and social anxiety varied as a function of questionnaire and/or task utilized. We included all studies reporting a correlation between post-event rumination and social anxiety symptomatology. Fisher's z correlation coefficients were calculated through random-effect meta-analyses. Results indicated a moderate association between post-event rumination and social anxiety symptomatology (r = 0.45, p < 0.001, 95%CI [0.40-0.50]). Subgroup meta-analyses indicated that the type of questionnaire used to assess post-event rumination (Q = 44.36, df = 3, p < 0.001) and social anxiety (Q = 26.44, df = 8, p < 0.001), as well as the task conducted prior to assessing post-event rumination (Q = 14.31, df = 2, p < 0.001), influenced the effect size. This study demonstrates a moderate relation between post-event rumination and social anxiety across the anxiety spectrum, illustrating the importance of treatments specifically targeting post-event rumination. Moreover, we highlight the importance of taking care when designing studies to explore relations between post-event rumination and social anxiety.

Positive Beliefs about Post-Event Processing in Social Anxiety Disorder

Background: Post-event processing (PEP) is an important maintenance factor of social anxiety disorder (SAD). This study examined psychometric properties of the Positive Beliefs about Post-Event Processing Questionnaire (PB-PEPQ; Fisak & Hammond, 2013), which measures metacognitive beliefs about PEP. Method: Participants receiving treatment for SAD (n = 71) and other anxiety and related disorders (n = 266) completed self-report questionnaires at several timepoints. Results: Confirmatory factor analysis did not support the PB-PEPQ's proposed unidimensional model. Subsequent exploratory factor analysis yielded a three-factor structure consisting of engaging in PEP to (1) review negative events (Negative scale), (2) review positive events (Positive scale), and (3) better understand one's social anxiety (Understand scale). Within the SAD subsample, PB-PEPQ scales demonstrated good internal consistency (α = 0.83–0.85) and test–retest reliability (r = 0.65–0.78). Convergent and criterion validity of the PB-PEPQ Negative scale were supported. PB-PEPQ scale scores were significantly higher within the SAD group, as compared with the other groups (generalised anxiety disorder, panic disorder and agoraphobia, posttraumatic stress disorder, and obsessive-compulsive disorder), supporting the scales’ discriminative validity. Conclusion: Findings support the reliability and validity of the PB-PEPQ in a clinical sample and reveal the measure's multifactorial structure.