不负众望?模拟研究评估用于检测突然收益和突然损失的方法。

IF 3.3 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Psychological Assessment Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-26 DOI:10.1037/pas0001334
Theresa Eckes, Marie Salditt, Steffen Nestler
{"title":"不负众望?模拟研究评估用于检测突然收益和突然损失的方法。","authors":"Theresa Eckes, Marie Salditt, Steffen Nestler","doi":"10.1037/pas0001334","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Sudden gains and sudden losses are abrupt, large changes in symptom severity between two consecutive psychotherapy sessions. Sudden gains (i.e., large improvements in symptom severity) seem to be associated with better treatment outcomes and have thus received considerable attention in clinical psychology over the last 2 decades. However, simulation studies indicate that the most common approach used to detect sudden gains is prone to misclassifications, implying that sudden gain research might be hindered by false positive and false negative findings. Although other sudden gain detection approaches exist, their performance has not yet been investigated and compared to the conventional method. To close this gap, we conducted a simulation study comparing the performance of the conventional approach and four alternative sudden gain detection approaches depending on the type of symptom trajectory, the number of measurements, the reliability of the measurement scores, and the amount of fluctuation around the trajectories. We found that all five detection approaches performed well in the simulation condition with nearly no variability (i.e., low reliability and small fluctuations). However, in conditions with medium or high variability in the data, all detection methods performed poorly. These results suggest that future studies should investigate further potential methods to detect sudden gains and/or examine ways to improve existing methods, such as by considering measurement error. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20770,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Assessment","volume":" ","pages":"691-705"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Living up to expectations? A simulation study evaluating methods used to detect sudden gains and sudden losses.\",\"authors\":\"Theresa Eckes, Marie Salditt, Steffen Nestler\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/pas0001334\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Sudden gains and sudden losses are abrupt, large changes in symptom severity between two consecutive psychotherapy sessions. Sudden gains (i.e., large improvements in symptom severity) seem to be associated with better treatment outcomes and have thus received considerable attention in clinical psychology over the last 2 decades. However, simulation studies indicate that the most common approach used to detect sudden gains is prone to misclassifications, implying that sudden gain research might be hindered by false positive and false negative findings. Although other sudden gain detection approaches exist, their performance has not yet been investigated and compared to the conventional method. To close this gap, we conducted a simulation study comparing the performance of the conventional approach and four alternative sudden gain detection approaches depending on the type of symptom trajectory, the number of measurements, the reliability of the measurement scores, and the amount of fluctuation around the trajectories. We found that all five detection approaches performed well in the simulation condition with nearly no variability (i.e., low reliability and small fluctuations). However, in conditions with medium or high variability in the data, all detection methods performed poorly. These results suggest that future studies should investigate further potential methods to detect sudden gains and/or examine ways to improve existing methods, such as by considering measurement error. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20770,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychological Assessment\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"691-705\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"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/pas0001334\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/8/26 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0001334","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

突增和突减是指在连续两次心理治疗之间,症状严重程度突然发生的巨大变化。突发性增益(即症状严重程度的大幅改善)似乎与更好的治疗效果有关,因此在过去的二十年里受到了临床心理学界的广泛关注。然而,模拟研究表明,用于检测突发性增益的最常用方法容易出现分类错误,这意味着突发性增益研究可能会受到假阳性和假阴性结果的阻碍。虽然存在其他突增检测方法,但尚未对其性能进行研究,也未将其与传统方法进行比较。为了缩小这一差距,我们进行了一项模拟研究,根据症状轨迹的类型、测量次数、测量分数的可靠性以及轨迹周围的波动量,比较了传统方法和四种可供选择的突增检测方法的性能。我们发现,在几乎没有变化的模拟条件下(即可靠性低、波动小),所有五种检测方法都表现良好。然而,在数据具有中等或高变异性的条件下,所有检测方法都表现不佳。这些结果表明,未来的研究应进一步探究检测突发性增益的潜在方法和/或研究改进现有方法的方法,如考虑测量误差。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, 版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Living up to expectations? A simulation study evaluating methods used to detect sudden gains and sudden losses.

Sudden gains and sudden losses are abrupt, large changes in symptom severity between two consecutive psychotherapy sessions. Sudden gains (i.e., large improvements in symptom severity) seem to be associated with better treatment outcomes and have thus received considerable attention in clinical psychology over the last 2 decades. However, simulation studies indicate that the most common approach used to detect sudden gains is prone to misclassifications, implying that sudden gain research might be hindered by false positive and false negative findings. Although other sudden gain detection approaches exist, their performance has not yet been investigated and compared to the conventional method. To close this gap, we conducted a simulation study comparing the performance of the conventional approach and four alternative sudden gain detection approaches depending on the type of symptom trajectory, the number of measurements, the reliability of the measurement scores, and the amount of fluctuation around the trajectories. We found that all five detection approaches performed well in the simulation condition with nearly no variability (i.e., low reliability and small fluctuations). However, in conditions with medium or high variability in the data, all detection methods performed poorly. These results suggest that future studies should investigate further potential methods to detect sudden gains and/or examine ways to improve existing methods, such as by considering measurement error. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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
Development and validation of a method for deriving MMPI-3 scores from MMPI-2/MMPI-2-RF item responses. Evaluation of the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire (MPQ) Unlikely Virtues Scale in the detection of underreporting. Prospectively predicting violent and aggressive incidents in prison practice with the Risk Screener Violence (RS-V): Results from a multisite prison study. Development of the Food Addiction Symptom Inventory: The first clinical interview to assess ultra-processed food addiction. Does the Bayley-4 measure the same constructs across girls and boys and infants, toddlers, and preschoolers?
×
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