Psychological Assessment最新文献

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).