Question

英语翻译，不要用翻译器谢谢

The metacognitive model of GAD places negative metacognitive beliefs and metaworry
as central in the development and maintenance of disorder. The present study
examined the psychometric properties of the Meta-worry Questionnaire (MWQ) and
used it to test hypotheses derived from the metacognitive model in the context of
DSM-IV GAD. The MWQ was found to possess very good internal reliability, and
both frequency and belief scales were found to consist of single factors. The scales
correlated meaningfully with existing measures of worry and metacognition. Consistent
with hypotheses individuals meeting criteria for GAD showed significantly higher
meta-worry frequency scores than individuals classified as somatic anxiety or no anxiety.
Meta-worry belief distinguished the GAD group from the non-anxious group but
not the somatic anxiety group. These effects remained when Type 1 worry (social and
health worry) was controlled. The results provide further support for the metacognitive
model. Relationship between meta-worry frequency, belief, and GAD status was
explored using path analysis. The relationship between meta-worry belief and GAD
classification was dependent on meta-worry frequency.

Items for the MWQ were derived from transcripts of treatment sessions with
nine patients undergoing meta-cognitive therapy for GAD. All patients met DSMIV
criteria for GAD as the primary diagnosis. There was considerable overlap between
themes in meta-worry in the uncontrollability and danger domains. Seven
items reflecting the common danger themes in patients’ meta-worry were devised.
Two response scales were constructed for each item, one designed to assess the
frequency of each meta-worry and the other designed to assess the belief in each
meta-worry at its time of occurrence. The frequency scale was a four-point scale
ranging from (1–4) with each point labeled as follows: Never; sometimes; often; almost
always. The belief scale ranged from 0–100 with anchor points labeled at each
extreme as follows: I do not believe this thought at all, and I am completely convinced
this thought is true. Subscale scores are obtained by summating responses to their respective
items. The items of the MWQ are presented at the end of this manuscript.
Instructions for respondents were presented in two parts. At the top of the MWQ the instructions read: “This questionnaire assesses thoughts and ideas about worrying.
Listed below are some thoughts that you may have about worrying when you
notice yourself worrying. Indicate how often each thought occurs by placing a circle
around a number in the LEFT hand column.” At the bottom of the scale the following
instructions were presented: When you are worrying how much do you believe
each of these thoughts? Please rate your belief by choosing a number from the scale
below and put the number on the line at the RIGHT of each thought.”

Answer 1

性别认知的消极认知模式的地方信仰和元担忧
作为发展和维护中央的障碍。本研究
审查了梅塔的心理特性担心问卷（MWQ）和
用它来测试从上下文的认知模式所带来的假说
DSM - IV的性别与发展。该MWQ发现有非常良好的内部可靠性和
频率和规模的信念，发现由单一因素。规模
与相关有意义的担忧和认知现行措施。一致
个人与假说会议表明，性别与发展显着高于标准
元担心不是没有躯体焦虑或焦虑的频率划分个人得分。
元担心信仰区别于非焦虑组，但GAD组
不是躯体焦虑组。这些影响仍然担心时，第1类（社会和
健康的担心）的控制。研究结果为进一步支持认知
模型。元之间的关系担心频率，信仰和性别的地位
使用路径分析探讨。元之间的关系，信仰和性别担心
分类取决于元担心频率。

为MWQ项目，源于治疗与会议记录
9例患者接受的元认知疗法的性别与发展。所有患者达到了DSMIV
对性别与发展的首要标准诊断。有相当大的重叠
在元主题担心在不可控制的危险领域。七
项目反映了病人的危险元共同的主题，推出了不少忧虑。
两个反应尺度构建了每个项目，目的是评估一个
频率每元担心和其他目的是评估每个信仰
元担心在其发生的时间。频率比额表是四点规模
从（1-4与标示为每个点）范围如下：不要，有时，常常，几乎
总是。规模不等的信念，从0-100与每个标记锚点
极端的情况如下：我不相信这没想，我心悦诚服
这一思想是正确的。分量表得分，获得了summating各自的反应
项目。该MWQ提出的项目在本手稿结束。
在受访者颁发指示分两部分。在MWQ顶端的指示改为：“本调查问卷评估有关担心的想法和观点。
下面列出了一些想法，你可能对当你担心
发现自己担心。说明如何发生往往每个想通过放置一个圆圈
围坐在左侧栏内的数字。“在规模以下的底部
指示提出：当你担心多少你相信
每一个这些想法？请您选择率从规模数量的信念
下面，放在在每行权思想的数量。”