Psychological Assessment最新文献

The COVID-19 pandemic onset necessitated remote administration of psychological instruments, including the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-3 (MMPI-3). Although previous evidence has demonstrated that MMPI scale scores are robust across administration modalities, the specific effects of remote administration on the psychometric properties of MMPI-3 scale scores must be investigated. Distinguishing psychometric differences due to administration modality from substantive changes in psychological symptoms due to the COVID-19 pandemic is also important. Thus, goals of the present study include evaluating the psychometric comparability of MMPI-3 scores derived from in-person and remote administration modalities and examining substantive scale scores changes associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Using a large sample of college students (n = 2,503), rates of protocol invalidity, mean scale scores, reliability, and criterion validity were compared across participants completing the MMPI-3 in-person (both prior to and after the onset of COVID-19) and via remote administration. Results demonstrate comparably low rates of protocol invalidity, negligible differences in reliability, and similar patterns of criterion validity for MMPI-3 scale scores across administration modalities. Results also indicate that mean MMPI-3 scale scores pre- and post-COVID-19 onset substantially differ on select scales, but that scores on remote and in-person protocols administered post-COVID-19 have negligible differences. Remote MMPI-3 scale scores also demonstrated expected patterns of correlations with external criteria, supporting the validity of remote scores. Overall, the present study demonstrates that MMPI-3 protocols administered remotely and in-person are extremely psychometrically similar, although scores have generally increased post-COVID-19 onset for reasons independent of administration modality. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

The aim of the present study was to develop and validate a self-report measure that investigates people's general disengagement after the acute phases of the pandemic. Across three studies, we examined the psychometric features of the Pandemic Disengagement Syndrome Scale (PDSS) in four national contexts. In Study 1, we developed the instrument and investigated the factorial structure, internal consistency, measurement invariance across gender and countries (the United States and Italy), and discriminant validity. A bifactor model with two specific factors (Social Avoidance and Alienation) provided a better fit than the competing models. In Study 2, we tested the stability of the PDSS as well as its predictive validity. In Study 3, we conducted a quasi-experimental comparison between Norway and Sweden, to investigate whether scores on the PDSS are related to a markedly distinct approach to the pandemic in terms of mandatory lockdown. Overall, results from the three studies demonstrated that the PDSS is a valid and reliable measure of a syndrome of disengagement from others following a pandemic. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

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).

This study examined the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cognitive and academic functioning in 574 youth presenting for outpatient clinical neuropsychiatric evaluations. We extended the prior literature by (a) determining the extent to which academic difficulties documented in population and community samples also occurred in child psychiatric outpatients; (b) evaluating the impact of the pandemic on neuropsychological functions relevant to academic performance (overall cognition, executive functions, and graphomotor skill); and (c) investigating the moderating impact of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) diagnosis. We compared cross-sectional scores on standardized measures for groups of youth evaluated at three time periods related to the COVID-19 pandemic: (a) prior to onset (PRIOR; N = 198), (b) during Year 1 (Y1; N = 149), and (c) during Year 2 (Y2; N = 227). Relative to overall cognitive ability, math scores were lower in Y1 and Y2 and reading scores were lower in Y2. Additionally, relative to overall cognitive ability, youth showed lower working memory in Y1 and lower processing speed in Y1 and Y2. Graphomotor skill and parent-rated executive functions (EF) did not vary significantly across the three time periods. ADHD status did not moderate psychometric test scores but did moderate parent-rated EF. These data suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic has negatively impacted academic and executive functions in child psychiatry outpatients. More research is needed to understand the long-term implications for development. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

We explored the networks and discriminant abilities of the current Psychosomatic Symptoms Scale (PSSS) in pharmacists for future abbreviation. Ten thousand seven hundred twenty-one pharmacists participated in this study through an online investigation. We used network analysis to reveal the central and bridge symptoms between the subscales (psychological and somatic symptoms) of the PSSS. Then, we utilized item response theory (IRT) to identify discriminant abilities of the current 26-item of PSSS. Over twenty percent of the pharmacists were troubled with significant psychosomatic issues during the pandemic. Risk factors included age, lack of support, and impaired general health conditions. The network analysis revealed that "Irritability" was central to the psychological subscale and "Fatigue" was central to the somatic subscale. "Irritability-Fatigue," "Fatigue-Obsession," and "Self-injury idea-Perineum discomfort" was bridging between the somatic and psychological subscales. IRT found that "Anhedonia," "Depression," "Tightness," "Palpitations," and "Difficulty breathing" were highly discriminated. A future version of PSSS could be abbreviated according to the highlighted items, and they should also be emphasized in future psychosomatic research and targets for intervention. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

The COVID-19 pandemic placed much of the practice of psychological assessment in unchartered territory-including assessment via telehealth, assessment with masks or other safety measures, and accounting for the impact of a major global event in measuring performance or psychopathology. The goal of this special issue was to highlight research that addresses the numerous ways in which the pandemic impacted psychological assessment, covering three broad areas. Several articles addressed pandemic restrictions (i.e., telehealth assessment due to lockdown or social distancing, masks) and their impact on the assessment process or test validity. Another set of articles examined the impact of the pandemic on psychopathology and assessment performance more broadly, highlighting the impact on assessment and normative expectations, including in the areas of neuropsychological performance, academic achievement, and levels of psychopathology. Finally, several articles examined the validity of measures developed specifically to assess COVID-19 pandemic-related experiences. Each study is briefly reviewed, and implications for clinical practice are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Face masks are recommended to minimize the spread of COVID-19 and are required in many health care settings. Although masks have documented health advantages, they also negatively impact communication, an essential element of clinical neuropsychological assessment. Using a large clinical data set from a major academic medical center, we investigated the effect of mask wearing on neuropsychological test performance. Specifically, we examined performance on eight standard, widely used neuropsychological tests between a prepandemic (unmasked) and postpandemic (masked) group, composed of 754 and 837 adult patients, respectively. We compared performance on verbally mediated versus visually mediated tests, hypothesizing that the postpandemic group, compared to the prepandemic group, would perform significantly lower on the verbally mediated tests but not on the visually mediated tests. In partial support of the hypothesis, we found that the postpandemic group performed significantly worse on the Auditory Verbal Learning Test (AVLT; p = .001). Secondary analyses showed that age moderated the mask-related effect (p = .038), whereby patients 65 and older had significantly worse performance on Digit Span (p = .0027) and the AVLT (p = .0002) with masks on, while patients younger than 65 showed no significant differences. There were no significant differences on any visually mediated tests. These findings suggest that mask wearing during neuropsychological assessment compromises performance on verbally mediated tests in older patients. These findings are particularly relevant for neuropsychologists practicing in geriatric settings. Neuropsychologists performing assessments with masks should be aware that masks may artificially deflate patient scores for reasons unrelated to cognition or clinical condition. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Developed more than 2 decades ago, the MEZURE (Assessment Technologies, 1995-2020; https://www.mezure.com/) has received increased attention as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is the first individualized test of cognitive ability created to use an online (local or remote) assessment modality. The MEZURE claims to be aligned both with the extended Gf-Gc theory and the Cattell-Horn-Carroll model of abilities. Whereas the test publisher claims it used exploratory factor analysis to investigate the instrument's factor structure, only the subtest factor loadings on the Gf-Gc factors were furnished. No other structural validity information was provided, suggesting that users of the instrument should interpret the scores produced by the MEZURE with caution. Accordingly, the present study used exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis to more fully investigate the structural validity of the MEZURE. The results revealed that the MEZURE contains a combined perceptual reasoning (i.e., [Gf/Gv]/working memory [Gwm]) group factor, a verbal ability group factor, and a relatively weak general factor that is dominated by perceptual reasoning. The finding of a paltry general factor that is weakly loaded by verbal subtests is inconsistent with the broader research on traditional cognitive ability assessment and could be related to the online administration format of the test. Future research is required to better understand this finding. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

To understand psychological distress during COVID-19, we need to ensure that the same construct is measured over time and investigate how much of the variance in distress is attributable to chronic time-invariant variance compared to transient time-varying variance. We conducted secondary data analyses of Understanding Society, a U.K. probability-based longitudinal study of adults, using prepandemic (2015-2020) and pandemic data (N = 17,761, April 2020-March 2021). Using the General Health Questionnaire-12 (GHQ-12), analyses encompassed (a) five annual waves before COVID-19 plus the first survey wave during COVID-19 and (b) eight (bi)monthly waves during COVID-19. We investigated (a) longitudinal measurement invariance of distress, (b) time-invariant and time-varying variance components of distress using latent trait-occasion modeling, and (c) predictors of these different variance components. In all analyses, unique measurement invariance in distress was established, indicating the same unidimensional construct was measured using the GHQ before and during COVID-19. Time-varying variance was higher at the first COVID-19 lockdown (April 2020, 61.2%) compared to before COVID-19 (∼50%), suggesting increased fluctuations in distress at the start of the pandemic. Sensitivity analyses with equal time lags pre- and during COVID-19 confirmed this interpretation. During the pandemic, the highest distress time-varying variance (40.7%) was detected in April 2020, decreasing to 29.0% (July 2020) after restrictions eased. Despite mean-level fluctuations, time-varying variance remained stable during subsequent lockdowns, indicating more rank-order stability after this first major disruption. Loneliness most strongly predicted time-varying variance during the first lockdown. Life dissatisfaction and financial difficulties were associated with both variance components throughout the pandemic. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

The widespread administration and multiple validations of the Fear of COVID-19 Scale (FCV-19S) in different languages have highlighted the controversy over its underlying structure and the resulting reliability index. In the present study, a meta-analysis based on structural equation modeling (MASEM) was conducted to assess the internal structure of the seven-item, 5-point Likert-type FCV-19S version, estimate an overall reliability index from the underlying model that best reflected the internal structure (one τ-equivalent factor, one congeneric factor, or two-factor models), and perform moderator analyses for the model-implied interitem correlations and estimated factor loadings. A Pearson interitem correlation matrix was obtained for 48 independent studies, from which a pooled matrix was calculated following a random-effects multivariate meta-analysis. The results from the one-stage MASEM analysis showed that the two-factor model properly fitted the pooled matrix, while the τ-equivalent and congeneric one-factor models did not. Even though, the use of a bifactor model exhibited the predominance of the general factor over the domain-specific ones. High omega coefficients were obtained for the entire scale (.91) and the psychological (.83) and physiological (.83) symptoms subscales. Moderator analyses evidenced an increase in the estimated factor loadings, as well as in the reliability of the FCV-19S, when the standard deviation of the total scores increased and when the FCV-19S was administered to specific (vs. general) populations. The FCV-19S can be therefore considered as a highly related two-factor scale whose reliability makes it suitable for applied and research purposes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).