Measurement practices in hallucinations research.

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 PSYCHIATRY Cognitive Neuropsychiatry Pub Date : 2022-03-01 Epub Date: 2021-11-08 DOI:10.1080/13546805.2021.1999224
David Smailes, Ben Alderson-Day, Cassie Hazell, Abigail Wright, Peter Moseley
{"title":"Measurement practices in hallucinations research.","authors":"David Smailes, Ben Alderson-Day, Cassie Hazell, Abigail Wright, Peter Moseley","doi":"10.1080/13546805.2021.1999224","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Introduction:</b> In several sub-fields of psychology, there has been a renewed focus on measurement practices. As far as we are aware, this has been absent in hallucinations research. Thus, we investigated (a) cross-study variation in how hallucinatory experiences are measured and (b) the reliability of measurements obtained using two tasks that are widely employed in hallucinations research.<b>Method:</b> In Study 1, we investigated to what extent there was variation in how the Launay-Slade Hallucination Scale (LSHS) has been used across 100 studies. In Study 2, we investigated the reliability of the measurements obtained through source monitoring and signal detection tasks, using data from four recent publications. Materials/data are available at doi: 10.17605/osf.io/d3gnk/.<b>Results:</b> In Study 1, we found substantial variation in how hallucinatory experiences were assessed using the LSHS and that descriptions of the LSHS were often incomplete in important ways. In Study 2, we reported a range of reliability estimates for the measurements obtained using source monitoring and signal discrimination tasks. Some measurements obtained using source monitoring tasks had unacceptably low levels of reliability.<b>Conclusions:</b> Our findings suggest that suboptimal measurement practices are common in hallucinations research and we suggest steps researchers could take to improve measurement practices.</p>","PeriodicalId":51277,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Neuropsychiatry","volume":"27 2-3","pages":"183-198"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9006980/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Neuropsychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13546805.2021.1999224","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/11/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: In several sub-fields of psychology, there has been a renewed focus on measurement practices. As far as we are aware, this has been absent in hallucinations research. Thus, we investigated (a) cross-study variation in how hallucinatory experiences are measured and (b) the reliability of measurements obtained using two tasks that are widely employed in hallucinations research.Method: In Study 1, we investigated to what extent there was variation in how the Launay-Slade Hallucination Scale (LSHS) has been used across 100 studies. In Study 2, we investigated the reliability of the measurements obtained through source monitoring and signal detection tasks, using data from four recent publications. Materials/data are available at doi: 10.17605/osf.io/d3gnk/.Results: In Study 1, we found substantial variation in how hallucinatory experiences were assessed using the LSHS and that descriptions of the LSHS were often incomplete in important ways. In Study 2, we reported a range of reliability estimates for the measurements obtained using source monitoring and signal discrimination tasks. Some measurements obtained using source monitoring tasks had unacceptably low levels of reliability.Conclusions: Our findings suggest that suboptimal measurement practices are common in hallucinations research and we suggest steps researchers could take to improve measurement practices.

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
幻觉研究中的测量实践。
导言:在心理学的多个分支领域,人们重新开始关注测量实践。据我们所知,在幻觉研究中还没有这方面的研究。因此,我们调查了:(a) 幻觉体验测量方法的跨研究差异;(b) 使用幻觉研究中广泛使用的两种任务进行测量的可靠性:在研究 1 中,我们调查了 100 项研究中使用劳内-斯莱德幻觉量表(LSHS)的差异程度。在研究2中,我们利用最近发表的四篇论文中的数据,调查了通过源监测和信号检测任务获得的测量结果的可靠性。材料/数据可从以下网址获取:10.17605/osf.io/d3gnk/:结果:在研究 1 中,我们发现使用 LSHS 评估幻觉体验的方法存在很大差异,而且 LSHS 的描述往往在一些重要方面不完整。在研究 2 中,我们报告了使用信号源监测和信号辨别任务进行测量的一系列可靠性估计值。一些使用声源监测任务获得的测量结果的可靠性低得令人无法接受:我们的研究结果表明,次优测量方法在幻觉研究中很常见,我们建议研究人员可以采取一些措施来改进测量方法。
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
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
11.80%
发文量
18
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Cognitive Neuropsychiatry (CNP) publishes high quality empirical and theoretical papers in the multi-disciplinary field of cognitive neuropsychiatry. Specifically the journal promotes the study of cognitive processes underlying psychological and behavioural abnormalities, including psychotic symptoms, with and without organic brain disease. Since 1996, CNP has published original papers, short reports, case studies and theoretical and empirical reviews in fields of clinical and cognitive neuropsychiatry, which have a bearing on the understanding of normal cognitive processes. Relevant research from cognitive neuroscience, cognitive neuropsychology and clinical populations will also be considered. There are no page charges and we are able to offer free color printing where color is necessary.
期刊最新文献
How disrupted interoception could lead to disturbances in perceptual reality monitoring. Can neurocognitive performance account for dimensional paranoid ideation? Conspiracy mentality in autistic and non-autistic individuals Pattern glare sensitivity distinguishes subclinical autism and schizotypy. Limited awareness of hallucinations in patients with Alzheimer's disease.
×
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