Psychological Assessment最新文献

Given the far-reaching effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, it is important to investigate how executive function (EF) assessments were impacted by changes in measurement protocols, context, and timing due to the pandemic. The present study used data from two projects. The first project occurred prior to the pandemic (N = 244, 44.67% female; M_age = 44.27 months) with teacher ratings and objective EF measures collected in the spring of preschool, fall of prekindergarten (pre-K), and spring of pre-K. The second study was comprised of two cohorts, a transition cohort (i.e., Fall 2019 to Fall/Winter 2020) and a post-COVID lockdown cohort (i.e., Fall 2020 to Fall/Winter 2021). For both cohorts, data were collected in the fall of pre-K, spring of pre-K, and fall/winter of kindergarten (N = 130, 46.2% female, M_age = 44.84 months). Aims included: (1) evaluating the measurement characteristics of a virtual assessment of EF, (2) examining cohort differences in teacher and objective EF measures, (3) testing longitudinal mean-level change in EF, and (4) evaluating associations between COVID impact and change in EF. Teachers reported a marginal decrease in EF for the transition cohort and no change in the post-COVID cohort, whereas objective measurements demonstrated the expected increase in EF. Child and family COVID-19 impact emerged as risk factors for reduced EF for the transition cohort but not the post-COVID cohort. Overall, this study provides novel evidence that the timing and type of EF assessment differentially impacted estimates of children's EF. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health of college students was investigated in a cross-sectional design using the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI; Morey, 1991, 2007). Three large samples of college students were recruited for research purposes and given standard instructions: 825 students from two universities assessed in the 2021-2022 academic year (postpandemic), 558 students from three universities assessed between 2016 and 2019 (prepandemic), and 1,051 students from seven universities assessed in 1989 and 1990 (college norms). Comparisons of PAI scores with the prepandemic cohort revealed several significantly higher scores in the postpandemic cohort, especially for scales related to anxiety and depression. Comparisons with the college norms revealed significantly higher scores on several PAI scales in the prepandemic cohort, and these differences were largest for scales related to anxiety, depression, and somatic symptoms. PAI scales related to impulsivity, alcohol use, and other behavior problems showed no changes or decline from earlier to later cohorts. Taken together, the findings suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic has amplified problems with anxiety and depression that existed before the pandemic. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

To assess the public health impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health, investigators from the National Institutes of Health Environmental influences on Child Health Outcomes (ECHO) research program developed the Pandemic-Related Traumatic Stress Scale (PTSS). Based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-5) acute stress disorder symptom criteria, the PTSS is designed for adolescent (13-21 years) and adult self-report and caregiver-report on 3-12-year-olds. To evaluate psychometric properties, we used PTSS data collected between April 2020 and August 2021 from non-pregnant adult caregivers (n = 11,483), pregnant/postpartum individuals (n = 1,656), adolescents (n = 1,795), and caregivers reporting on 3-12-year-olds (n = 2,896). We used Mokken scale analysis to examine unidimensionality and reliability, Pearson correlations to evaluate relationships with other relevant variables, and analyses of variance to identify regional, age, and sex differences. Mokken analysis resulted in a moderately strong, unidimensional scale that retained nine of the original 10 items. We detected small to moderate positive associations with depression, anxiety, and general stress, and negative associations with life satisfaction. Adult caregivers had the highest PTSS scores, followed by adolescents, pregnant/postpartum individuals, and children. Caregivers of younger children, females, and older youth had higher PTSS scores compared to caregivers of older children, males, and younger youth, respectively. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

The Epidemic-Pandemic Impacts Inventory (EPII) is a 92-item measure developed to assess tangible impacts of the pandemic including both negative (work, home, social, and health) and positive changes. The EPII has been used in a variety of studies, but a standard scoring system has not been determined. Parents of young children (N = 216) completed the EPII, Perceived Stress Scale, Parenting Stress Scale, Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS-PA and PANAS-NA), and COVID-19 Stress Scale (CSS) online September 2021-May 2022. The EPII was scored in three ways represented in the literature to examine which scoring method accounted for the greatest amount of variance in parents' stress and mood, independent of demographic factors and CSS. Hierarchical linear regression results revealed that one EPII scoring method consistently accounted for the greatest amount of variance in each outcome variable (largest R2) compared to the other two scoring methods. Additionally, number of negative and positive pandemic impacts accounted for more variance (larger β coefficient) in each outcome compared to demographic factors and CSS, with the exception that negative pandemic impacts were not associated with PANAS-PA. One method of scoring the EPII may maximize the measures' potential to account for variance in stress and mood among parents of young children. The EPII may be a valuable measure to include in studies examining the impact of the pandemic on parents' well-being even beyond the peak of the pandemic, as its association with stress and mood appears to be long-lasting and independent of demographic factors and COVID-19 stress. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

The Epidemic-Pandemic Impacts Inventory (EPII) was developed to assess pandemic-related adverse and positive experiences across several key domains, including work/employment, home life, isolation, and quarantine. Several studies have associated EPII-assessed pandemic-related experiences with a wide range of psychosocial factors, most commonly depressive and anxiety symptoms. The present study investigated the degree to which specific types of COVID-19 pandemic-related experiences may be associated with anxiety and depression risk, capitalizing on two large, independent samples with marked differences in sociodemographic characteristics. The present study utilized two adult samples: participants (N = 635) recruited online over a 4-week period in early 2020 (Sample 1) and participants (N = 908) recruited from the student body of a large Northeastern public university (Sample 2). We employed a cross-validated, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression approach, as well as a random forest (RF) machine learning algorithm, to investigate classification accuracy of anxiety/depression risk using the pandemic-related experiences from the EPII. The LASSO approach isolated eight items within each sample. Two items from the work/employment and emotional/physical health domains overlapped across samples. The RF approach identified similar items across samples. Both methods yielded acceptable cross-classification accuracy. Applying two analytic approaches on data from two large, sociodemographically unique samples, we identified a subset of sample-specific and nonspecific pandemic-related experiences from the EPII that are most predictive of concurrent depression/anxiety risk. Findings may help to focus on key experiences during future public health disasters that convey greater risk for depression and anxiety symptoms. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

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).