Cross validation of the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) Cognitive Bias Scale of Scales (CB-SOS) over-reporting indicators in a military sample.

IF 1.1 4区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Military Psychology Pub Date : 2024-03-01 Epub Date: 2023-01-05 DOI:10.1080/08995605.2022.2160151
Paul B Ingram, Patrick Armistead-Jehle, Tristan T Herring, Cole S Morris
{"title":"Cross validation of the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) Cognitive Bias Scale of Scales (CB-SOS) over-reporting indicators in a military sample.","authors":"Paul B Ingram, Patrick Armistead-Jehle, Tristan T Herring, Cole S Morris","doi":"10.1080/08995605.2022.2160151","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Following the development of the Cognitive Bias Scale (CBS), three other cognitive over-reporting indicators were created. This study cross-validates these new Cognitive Bias Scale of Scales (CB-SOS) measurements in a military sample and contrasts their performance to the CBS. We analyzed data from 288 active-duty soldiers who underwent neuropsychological evaluation. Groups were established based on performance validity testing (PVT) failure. Medium effects (d = .71 to .74) were observed between those passing and failing PVTs. The CB-SOS scales have high specificity (≥.90) but low sensitivity across the suggested cut scores. While all CB-SOS were able to achieve .90, lower scores were typically needed. CBS demonstrated incremental validity beyond CB-SOS-1 and CB-SOS-3; only CB-SOS-2 was incremental beyond CBS. In a military sample, the CB-SOS scales have more limited sensitivity than in its original validation, indicating an area of limited utility despite easier calculation. The CBS performs comparably, if not better, than CB-SOS scales. CB-SOS-2's differences in performance in this study and its initial validation suggest that its psychometric properties may be sample dependent. Given their ease of calculation and relatively high specificity, our study supports the interpretation of elevated CB-SOS scores indicating those who are likely to fail concurrent PVTs.</p>","PeriodicalId":18696,"journal":{"name":"Military Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10880507/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Military Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08995605.2022.2160151","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Following the development of the Cognitive Bias Scale (CBS), three other cognitive over-reporting indicators were created. This study cross-validates these new Cognitive Bias Scale of Scales (CB-SOS) measurements in a military sample and contrasts their performance to the CBS. We analyzed data from 288 active-duty soldiers who underwent neuropsychological evaluation. Groups were established based on performance validity testing (PVT) failure. Medium effects (d = .71 to .74) were observed between those passing and failing PVTs. The CB-SOS scales have high specificity (≥.90) but low sensitivity across the suggested cut scores. While all CB-SOS were able to achieve .90, lower scores were typically needed. CBS demonstrated incremental validity beyond CB-SOS-1 and CB-SOS-3; only CB-SOS-2 was incremental beyond CBS. In a military sample, the CB-SOS scales have more limited sensitivity than in its original validation, indicating an area of limited utility despite easier calculation. The CBS performs comparably, if not better, than CB-SOS scales. CB-SOS-2's differences in performance in this study and its initial validation suggest that its psychometric properties may be sample dependent. Given their ease of calculation and relatively high specificity, our study supports the interpretation of elevated CB-SOS scores indicating those who are likely to fail concurrent PVTs.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
军事样本中人格评估量表(PAI)认知偏差量表(CB-SOS)对报告指标的交叉验证。
随着认知偏差量表(CBS)的发展,创建了另外三个认知过度报告指标。这项研究在军事样本中交叉验证了这些新的认知偏差量表(CB-SOS)测量结果,并将其表现与CBS进行了对比。我们分析了288名接受神经心理评估的现役士兵的数据。根据绩效有效性测试(PVT)的失败建立小组。在PVT通过和失败之间观察到中等效应(d=.71至.74)。CB-SOS量表具有较高的特异性(≥0.90),但对建议的切割分数的敏感性较低。虽然所有CB-SOS都能达到0.90,但通常需要更低的分数。CBS证明了CB-SOS-1和CB-SOS-3之外的增量有效性;只有CB-SOS-2在CBS之外是递增的。在军事样本中,CB-SOS量表的灵敏度比最初的验证更为有限,这表明尽管计算更容易,但实用性有限。CBS的性能即使不是更好,也与CB-SOS的规模相当。CB-SOS-2在本研究中的表现差异及其初步验证表明,其心理测量特性可能是样本依赖性的。考虑到其易于计算和相对较高的特异性,我们的研究支持CB-SOS评分升高的解释,表明那些可能同时进行PVT失败的人。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Military Psychology
Military Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
18.20%
发文量
80
期刊介绍: Military Psychology is the quarterly journal of Division 19 (Society for Military Psychology) of the American Psychological Association. The journal seeks to facilitate the scientific development of military psychology by encouraging communication between researchers and practitioners. The domain of military psychology is the conduct of research or practice of psychological principles within a military environment. The journal publishes behavioral science research articles having military applications in the areas of clinical and health psychology, training and human factors, manpower and personnel, social and organizational systems, and testing and measurement.
期刊最新文献
Interpersonal and Trauma-Related Guilt moderate the relationship between intensity of combat experiences and suicidality. A qualitative assessment of perceptions of gender-based stigma among US Marine Corps officers in training. Are veterans willing to assist with firearm safety for suicide prevention? Associations among psychological health problems, intimate-relationship problems, and suicidal ideation among United States Air Force active-duty personnel. Fluid teams.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1