Psychological Assessment最新文献

The Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP) is a dimensional nosological system that addresses key limitations with categorical frameworks, including heterogeneity, boundary, and comorbidity issues. The HiTOP consortium recently developed a new self-report instrument, the HiTOP-Self-Report Measure (HiTOP-SR), designed to operationalize the HiTOP model for use in research and clinical practice. In a set of preregistered analyses with a sample of clinical/community participants (75% female, 81% White), we explored the hierarchical structure of the HiTOP-SR scales using exploratory factor analysis (n = 637) and examined their associations with behaviors and experiences assessed in daily life (n = 531), such as affect, stress, impulsivity, energy, sleep quality, and social interactions. Findings indicate a nine-factor model, closely aligned with the HiTOP's current structure, best represented the measure. The hierarchical structure of the HiTOP-SR generally converges with the HiTOP model, with several key departures, particularly for historically understudied constructs. Furthermore, the HiTOP-SR facet scales and domains associated with individual differences in daily behavior and experiences as anticipated, highlighting the construct validity and the potential clinical utility of this new measure. Our results have implications not only for the structure, validity, and clinical utility of the HiTOP-SR but also raise broader questions about the underlying nature of psychopathology as represented by the HiTOP. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).

Retest improvements in self-reported anxiety may stem from inflated initial scores (initial elevation bias) rather than genuine symptom change. In this systematic review, we examined changes in anxiety scores reported by children and parents across repeated assessments in nonintervention control groups from randomized controlled trials across community, risk, and clinical samples, using four widely used anxiety measures for children and adolescents (Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children, Spence Children's Anxiety Scale, Revised Child Anxiety and Depression Scale, and Screen for Child Anxiety-Related Emotional Disorders). We searched BASE, MEDLINE, APA PsycInfo, Web of Science, and PubMed Central, alongside a cited reference search for seminal publications of the included measures. A random-effects model was used for meta-analysis. A total of 106 studies (N = 9,224 children) met inclusion criteria: 46 clinical samples, 37 risk samples, and 23 community samples. For child-rated anxiety, a weighted average effect of -0.25 (95% CI [-0.30, -0.21]) was found between the first and second assessments and -0.09 (95% CI [-0.18, -0.01]) between the second and third assessments. Metaregression showed that clinical and risk samples had larger decreases in anxiety scores, while the Screen for Child Anxiety-Related Emotional Disorders measure exhibited smaller decreases. For parent-rated child anxiety, the effect was -0.12 (95% CI [-0.17, -0.06]) between the first and second assessment. The findings support the presence of initial elevation bias mainly in child-reported anxiety. The results are unlikely to be explained by maturation, real improvements, or selective attrition, and they extend beyond the effects of regression to the mean as they appear even in community samples. Initial elevation bias complicates the interpretation of child anxiety ratings and has important implications for clinical practice and research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).

Intraindividual variability dispersion (IIV-d) measures variation in a patient's test performance throughout a neuropsychological evaluation. Higher IIV-d has been identified as a potentially useful indicator of both cognitive impairment and noncredible test performance, but further exploration of the utility of these metrics for group classification is warranted. This study assessed measures of IIV-d-individual standard deviation and coefficient of variation (CoV)-for classifying levels of neurocognitive impairment and invalid test performance. Adult patients referred for outpatient neuropsychological evaluation (N = 421, M_age = 44.49, M_education = 13.71) were administered four freestanding performance validity tests and a neuropsychological test battery yielding 18 indicator scores. Patients were classified into four groups: no neurocognitive disorder (n = 125), mild neurocognitive disorder (n = 163), major neurocognitive disorder (n = 45), and invalid performance (invalid; n = 88). Analyses of covariance revealed that both individual standard deviation (F = 13.75, p < .001, η² = 0.08) and CoV (F = 64.14, p < .001, η² = 0.31) significantly differed across groups. Results showed that high levels of variability followed increasing severity of cognitive impairment (i.e., no neurocognitive disorder < mild neurocognitive disorder < major neurocognitive disorder); performance invalidity was also associated with high variability. Additional analyses highlighted CoV as a more robust indicator of prediction utility than individual standard deviation. Overall, findings suggest that use of IIV-d metrics, particularly CoV, differentiates level of cognitive impairment. Performance invalidity can also be identified in some cases, although differentiating invalid responding from major neurocognitive disorder is more challenging using IIV-d metrics alone. Ongoing research is warranted for better understanding the use of IIV-d in facilitating diagnostic clarification and determining whether this method provides incremental value beyond other methods. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).