我们能信任互联网来测量精神病症状吗?

IF 3.6 Q1 PSYCHIATRY Schizophrenia Research and Treatment Pub Date : 2013-01-01 Epub Date: 2013-07-10 DOI:10.1155/2013/457010
Steffen Moritz, Niels Van Quaquebeke, Tania M Lincoln, Ulf Köther, Christina Andreou
{"title":"我们能信任互联网来测量精神病症状吗?","authors":"Steffen Moritz,&nbsp;Niels Van Quaquebeke,&nbsp;Tania M Lincoln,&nbsp;Ulf Köther,&nbsp;Christina Andreou","doi":"10.1155/2013/457010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Online studies are increasingly utilized in applied research. However, lack of external diagnostic verification in many of these investigations is seen as a threat to the reliability of the data. The present study examined the robustness of internet studies on psychosis against simulation. We compared the psychometric properties of the Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences scale (CAPE), a self-report instrument measuring psychotic symptoms, across three independent samples: (1) participants with a confirmed diagnosis of schizophrenia, (2) participants with self-reported schizophrenia who were recruited over the internet, and (3) clinical experts on schizophrenia as well as students who were asked to simulate a person with schizophrenia when completing the CAPE. The CAPE was complemented by a newly developed 4-item psychosis lie scale. Results demonstrate that experts asked to simulate schizophrenia symptoms could be distinguished from real patients: simulators overreported positive symptoms and showed elevated scores on the psychosis lie scale. The present study suggests that simulated answers in online studies on psychosis can be distinguished from authentic responses. Researchers conducting clinical online studies are advised to adopt a number of methodological precautions and to compare the psychometric properties of online studies to established clinical indices to assert the validity of their results. </p>","PeriodicalId":45388,"journal":{"name":"Schizophrenia Research and Treatment","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2013-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1155/2013/457010","citationCount":"44","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Can we trust the internet to measure psychotic symptoms?\",\"authors\":\"Steffen Moritz,&nbsp;Niels Van Quaquebeke,&nbsp;Tania M Lincoln,&nbsp;Ulf Köther,&nbsp;Christina Andreou\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/2013/457010\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Online studies are increasingly utilized in applied research. However, lack of external diagnostic verification in many of these investigations is seen as a threat to the reliability of the data. The present study examined the robustness of internet studies on psychosis against simulation. We compared the psychometric properties of the Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences scale (CAPE), a self-report instrument measuring psychotic symptoms, across three independent samples: (1) participants with a confirmed diagnosis of schizophrenia, (2) participants with self-reported schizophrenia who were recruited over the internet, and (3) clinical experts on schizophrenia as well as students who were asked to simulate a person with schizophrenia when completing the CAPE. The CAPE was complemented by a newly developed 4-item psychosis lie scale. Results demonstrate that experts asked to simulate schizophrenia symptoms could be distinguished from real patients: simulators overreported positive symptoms and showed elevated scores on the psychosis lie scale. The present study suggests that simulated answers in online studies on psychosis can be distinguished from authentic responses. Researchers conducting clinical online studies are advised to adopt a number of methodological precautions and to compare the psychometric properties of online studies to established clinical indices to assert the validity of their results. </p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45388,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Schizophrenia Research and Treatment\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1155/2013/457010\",\"citationCount\":\"44\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Schizophrenia Research and Treatment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/457010\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2013/7/10 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Schizophrenia Research and Treatment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/457010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2013/7/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 44

摘要

在线学习越来越多地用于应用研究。然而,在许多这些调查中,缺乏外部诊断验证被视为对数据可靠性的威胁。本研究检验了网络研究对模拟精神病的稳健性。我们比较了精神体验社区评估量表(CAPE)的心理测量特性,这是一种测量精神病症状的自我报告工具,跨越三个独立样本:(1)确诊为精神分裂症的参与者,(2)通过互联网招募的自我报告为精神分裂症的参与者,以及(3)精神分裂症临床专家以及在完成CAPE时被要求模拟精神分裂症患者的学生。CAPE辅以新开发的4项精神病谎言量表。结果表明,被要求模拟精神分裂症症状的专家可以与真实患者区分开来:模拟者夸大了阳性症状,并在精神病谎言量表上显示出更高的分数。本研究表明,在线精神病研究中的模拟回答可以与真实回答区分开来。建议进行临床在线研究的研究人员采取一些方法学上的预防措施,并将在线研究的心理测量特性与已建立的临床指标进行比较,以断言其结果的有效性。
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
Can we trust the internet to measure psychotic symptoms?

Online studies are increasingly utilized in applied research. However, lack of external diagnostic verification in many of these investigations is seen as a threat to the reliability of the data. The present study examined the robustness of internet studies on psychosis against simulation. We compared the psychometric properties of the Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences scale (CAPE), a self-report instrument measuring psychotic symptoms, across three independent samples: (1) participants with a confirmed diagnosis of schizophrenia, (2) participants with self-reported schizophrenia who were recruited over the internet, and (3) clinical experts on schizophrenia as well as students who were asked to simulate a person with schizophrenia when completing the CAPE. The CAPE was complemented by a newly developed 4-item psychosis lie scale. Results demonstrate that experts asked to simulate schizophrenia symptoms could be distinguished from real patients: simulators overreported positive symptoms and showed elevated scores on the psychosis lie scale. The present study suggests that simulated answers in online studies on psychosis can be distinguished from authentic responses. Researchers conducting clinical online studies are advised to adopt a number of methodological precautions and to compare the psychometric properties of online studies to established clinical indices to assert the validity of their results.

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
4.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
2
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊介绍: Schizophrenia Research and Treatment is a peer-reviewed, Open Access journal that publishes original research articles, review articles, and clinical studies related to all aspects of schizophrenia.
期刊最新文献
Adherence to Typical Antipsychotics among Patients with Schizophrenia in Uganda: A Cross-Sectional Study. Investigating Body Mass Index and Body Composition in Patients with Schizophrenia: A Case-Control Study Cigarette Smoking and Schizophrenia: Etiology, Clinical, Pharmacological, and Treatment Implications. Comparison of Efficacy and Safety between Long-Acting Injectable Antipsychotic Monotherapy and Combination of Long-Acting Injectable and Oral Antipsychotics in Patients with Schizophrenia. Homocysteine in Schizophrenia: Independent Pathogenetic Factor with Prooxidant Activity or Integral Marker of Other Biochemical Disturbances?
×
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