社交焦虑情境下四种认知解释偏差测量的信度和效度。

IF 4.6 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Behavior Research Methods Pub Date : 2025-01-07 DOI:10.3758/s13428-024-02576-0
Sascha B Duken, Jun Moriya, Colette Hirsch, Marcella L Woud, Bram van Bockstaele, Elske Salemink
{"title":"社交焦虑情境下四种认知解释偏差测量的信度和效度。","authors":"Sascha B Duken, Jun Moriya, Colette Hirsch, Marcella L Woud, Bram van Bockstaele, Elske Salemink","doi":"10.3758/s13428-024-02576-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>People with social anxiety disorder tend to interpret ambiguous social information in a negative rather than positive manner. Such interpretation biases may cause and maintain anxiety symptoms. However, there is considerable variability in the observed effects across studies, with some not finding a relationship between interpretation biases and social anxiety. Poor psychometric properties of interpretation bias measures may explain such inconsistent findings. We evaluated the internal consistency, test-retest reliability, convergent validity, and concurrent validity of four interpretation bias measures, ranging from more implicit and automatic to more explicit and reflective: the probe scenario task, the recognition task, the scrambled sentences task, and the interpretation and judgmental bias questionnaire. Young adults (N = 94) completed interpretation bias measures in two sessions separated by one week. Psychometric properties were poor for the probe scenario and not acceptable for the recognition task. The reliability of the scrambled sentences task and the interpretation and judgmental bias questionnaire was good, and they correlated highly with social anxiety and each other, supporting their concurrent and convergent validity. However, there are methodological challenges that should be considered when measuring interpretation biases, even if psychometric indices suggest high measurement validity. We also discuss likely reasons for poor psychometric properties of some tasks and suggest potential solutions to improve the assessment of implicit and automatic biases in social anxiety in future research.</p>","PeriodicalId":8717,"journal":{"name":"Behavior Research Methods","volume":"57 1","pages":"48"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11706852/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reliability and validity of four cognitive interpretation bias measures in the context of social anxiety.\",\"authors\":\"Sascha B Duken, Jun Moriya, Colette Hirsch, Marcella L Woud, Bram van Bockstaele, Elske Salemink\",\"doi\":\"10.3758/s13428-024-02576-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>People with social anxiety disorder tend to interpret ambiguous social information in a negative rather than positive manner. Such interpretation biases may cause and maintain anxiety symptoms. However, there is considerable variability in the observed effects across studies, with some not finding a relationship between interpretation biases and social anxiety. Poor psychometric properties of interpretation bias measures may explain such inconsistent findings. We evaluated the internal consistency, test-retest reliability, convergent validity, and concurrent validity of four interpretation bias measures, ranging from more implicit and automatic to more explicit and reflective: the probe scenario task, the recognition task, the scrambled sentences task, and the interpretation and judgmental bias questionnaire. Young adults (N = 94) completed interpretation bias measures in two sessions separated by one week. Psychometric properties were poor for the probe scenario and not acceptable for the recognition task. The reliability of the scrambled sentences task and the interpretation and judgmental bias questionnaire was good, and they correlated highly with social anxiety and each other, supporting their concurrent and convergent validity. However, there are methodological challenges that should be considered when measuring interpretation biases, even if psychometric indices suggest high measurement validity. We also discuss likely reasons for poor psychometric properties of some tasks and suggest potential solutions to improve the assessment of implicit and automatic biases in social anxiety in future research.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8717,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Behavior Research Methods\",\"volume\":\"57 1\",\"pages\":\"48\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11706852/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Behavior Research Methods\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-024-02576-0\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Behavior Research Methods","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-024-02576-0","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

患有社交焦虑障碍的人倾向于以消极而不是积极的方式解释模棱两可的社会信息。这种解释偏差可能导致并维持焦虑症状。然而,在不同的研究中,观察到的影响存在相当大的差异,有些研究没有发现解释偏见和社交焦虑之间的关系。解释偏差测量的不良心理测量特性可以解释这种不一致的发现。我们评估了探究情景任务、识别任务、乱句任务和解释与判断偏见问卷这四种解释偏见量表的内部一致性、重测信度、收敛效度和并发效度,这些量表从更隐式和自动到更显式和反思。年轻成人(N = 94)在间隔一周的两个阶段完成解释偏差测量。心理测量特性在探测场景中很差,在识别任务中也不能接受。乱句任务和解释与判断偏差问卷的信度较好,且与社交焦虑和其他问卷的信度高度相关,支持它们的并发效度和收敛效度。然而,在测量解释偏差时,即使心理测量指标显示高测量效度,也应该考虑方法上的挑战。我们还讨论了某些任务的心理测量特性较差的可能原因,并提出了在未来的研究中改进社会焦虑中内隐和自动偏见评估的潜在解决方案。
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
Reliability and validity of four cognitive interpretation bias measures in the context of social anxiety.

People with social anxiety disorder tend to interpret ambiguous social information in a negative rather than positive manner. Such interpretation biases may cause and maintain anxiety symptoms. However, there is considerable variability in the observed effects across studies, with some not finding a relationship between interpretation biases and social anxiety. Poor psychometric properties of interpretation bias measures may explain such inconsistent findings. We evaluated the internal consistency, test-retest reliability, convergent validity, and concurrent validity of four interpretation bias measures, ranging from more implicit and automatic to more explicit and reflective: the probe scenario task, the recognition task, the scrambled sentences task, and the interpretation and judgmental bias questionnaire. Young adults (N = 94) completed interpretation bias measures in two sessions separated by one week. Psychometric properties were poor for the probe scenario and not acceptable for the recognition task. The reliability of the scrambled sentences task and the interpretation and judgmental bias questionnaire was good, and they correlated highly with social anxiety and each other, supporting their concurrent and convergent validity. However, there are methodological challenges that should be considered when measuring interpretation biases, even if psychometric indices suggest high measurement validity. We also discuss likely reasons for poor psychometric properties of some tasks and suggest potential solutions to improve the assessment of implicit and automatic biases in social anxiety in future research.

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
CiteScore
10.30
自引率
9.30%
发文量
266
期刊介绍: Behavior Research Methods publishes articles concerned with the methods, techniques, and instrumentation of research in experimental psychology. The journal focuses particularly on the use of computer technology in psychological research. An annual special issue is devoted to this field.
期刊最新文献
Testing for group differences in multilevel vector autoregressive models. Distribution-free Bayesian analyses with the DFBA statistical package. Jiwar: A database and calculator for word neighborhood measures in 40 languages. Open-access network science: Investigating phonological similarity networks based on the SUBTLEX-US lexicon. Survey measures of metacognitive monitoring are often false.
×
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