Contrasting MMPI-3 validity scale effectiveness differences across in-person and telehealth administration procedures.

IF 3.3 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Psychological Assessment Pub Date : 2023-11-01 DOI:10.1037/pas0001258
Lillian P Agarwal, Megan A Keen, Cole S Morris, Paul B Ingram
{"title":"Contrasting MMPI-3 validity scale effectiveness differences across in-person and telehealth administration procedures.","authors":"Lillian P Agarwal,&nbsp;Megan A Keen,&nbsp;Cole S Morris,&nbsp;Paul B Ingram","doi":"10.1037/pas0001258","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Psychological assessment underwent substantive challenges and changes when the COVID-19 pandemic began, and these changes are likely to endure given the rapid growth of telehealth clinical practice and assessment research using virtual procedures. COVID-19-related changes to assessment practices have impacted accordingly how we study overreporting scale functioning, including the modality through which we administer measures. No available research provides direct comparisons of overreporting scale effectiveness within simulation research across in-person and telehealth modalities, despite early support for novel instruments relying on remote procedures within the historic context of the pandemic. We used simulated feigning conditions collected using best telehealth practices to examine if, and how, overreporting scales differed in effectiveness by evaluating mean scores, elevation rates, and classification accuracy statistics, relative to parallel in-person conditions. Results indicate no meaningful differences in scale effectiveness, particularly when exclusion procedures included a posttest questionnaire. Our findings support telehealth assessment practice and the integration of research collected virtually into the traditional, in-person feigning literature. Limitations and future directions are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20770,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Assessment","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0001258","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Psychological assessment underwent substantive challenges and changes when the COVID-19 pandemic began, and these changes are likely to endure given the rapid growth of telehealth clinical practice and assessment research using virtual procedures. COVID-19-related changes to assessment practices have impacted accordingly how we study overreporting scale functioning, including the modality through which we administer measures. No available research provides direct comparisons of overreporting scale effectiveness within simulation research across in-person and telehealth modalities, despite early support for novel instruments relying on remote procedures within the historic context of the pandemic. We used simulated feigning conditions collected using best telehealth practices to examine if, and how, overreporting scales differed in effectiveness by evaluating mean scores, elevation rates, and classification accuracy statistics, relative to parallel in-person conditions. Results indicate no meaningful differences in scale effectiveness, particularly when exclusion procedures included a posttest questionnaire. Our findings support telehealth assessment practice and the integration of research collected virtually into the traditional, in-person feigning literature. Limitations and future directions are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

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
对比MMPI-3有效性量表在面对面和远程医疗管理程序中的有效性差异。
新冠肺炎大流行开始时,心理评估经历了实质性的挑战和变化,鉴于使用虚拟程序的远程医疗临床实践和评估研究的快速增长,这些变化可能会持续下去。与COVID-19相关的评估实践变化相应地影响了我们研究过度报告量表功能的方式,包括我们管理措施的方式。尽管在疫情的历史背景下,早期支持依赖远程程序的新型仪器,但没有可用的研究能够直接比较模拟研究中对当面和远程医疗模式的过度报告规模有效性。我们使用使用最佳远程医疗实践收集的模拟伪装条件,通过评估平均得分、提升率和分类准确性统计数据,相对于平行的面对面情况,来检查过度报告量表的有效性是否以及如何不同。结果表明,量表有效性没有显著差异,尤其是当排除程序包括测试后问卷时。我们的研究结果支持远程健康评估实践,并将虚拟收集的研究整合到传统的、面对面假装的文献中。讨论了局限性和未来的发展方向。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c)2023 APA,保留所有权利)。
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
Psychological Assessment
Psychological Assessment PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
5.60%
发文量
167
期刊介绍: Psychological Assessment is concerned mainly with empirical research on measurement and evaluation relevant to the broad field of clinical psychology. Submissions are welcome in the areas of assessment processes and methods. Included are - clinical judgment and the application of decision-making models - paradigms derived from basic psychological research in cognition, personality–social psychology, and biological psychology - development, validation, and application of assessment instruments, observational methods, and interviews
期刊最新文献
Identifying analogue samples of individuals with clinically significant social anxiety: Updating and combining cutoff scores on the Social Phobia Inventory and Sheehan Disability Scale. Measurement invariance of the higher-order model of Preschool Anxiety Scale (PAS) across child age, gender, parental anxiety, and pandemic period in England. Reexamining gender differences and the transdiagnostic boundaries of various conceptualizations of perseverative cognition. The Inventory of Callous-Unemotional Traits (ICU) self-report version: Factor structure, measurement invariance, and predictive validity in justice-involved male adolescents. Latent structure and measurement invariance of the Depression Self-Rating Scale for Children across sex and age.
×
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