检查与报告:人格障碍科学中数据效度检测的现状。

Brinkley M Sharpe, Donald R Lynam, Joshua D Miller
{"title":"检查与报告:人格障碍科学中数据效度检测的现状。","authors":"Brinkley M Sharpe,&nbsp;Donald R Lynam,&nbsp;Joshua D Miller","doi":"10.1037/per0000601","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The backbone of any field of science is quality data. In personality disorder (PD) science and the broader field of clinical psychology, researchers must consider whether participants were attentive to, understood, and responded honestly and with sufficient effort to self-report questionnaires. We review literature regarding the prevalence of invalid (i.e., careless, low effort, inattentive, or inaccurate) responding, its impact on analysis and interpretation, and available methods of detection. We also present the results of a systematic review of 251 empirical articles across three major journals to characterize the current state of questionable data detection in PD science both in absolute terms and as compared to practices in the larger field of clinical science. In response to the disconcertingly low prevalence rate of self-report validity checks (approximately 22% of PD studies), we conclude by providing practical recommendations for improving data validity in PD science at the points of study design, data analysis, and reporting of results. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":74420,"journal":{"name":"Personality disorders","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Check and report: The state of data validity detection in personality disorder science.\",\"authors\":\"Brinkley M Sharpe,&nbsp;Donald R Lynam,&nbsp;Joshua D Miller\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/per0000601\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The backbone of any field of science is quality data. In personality disorder (PD) science and the broader field of clinical psychology, researchers must consider whether participants were attentive to, understood, and responded honestly and with sufficient effort to self-report questionnaires. We review literature regarding the prevalence of invalid (i.e., careless, low effort, inattentive, or inaccurate) responding, its impact on analysis and interpretation, and available methods of detection. We also present the results of a systematic review of 251 empirical articles across three major journals to characterize the current state of questionable data detection in PD science both in absolute terms and as compared to practices in the larger field of clinical science. In response to the disconcertingly low prevalence rate of self-report validity checks (approximately 22% of PD studies), we conclude by providing practical recommendations for improving data validity in PD science at the points of study design, data analysis, and reporting of results. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74420,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Personality disorders\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Personality disorders\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000601\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Personality disorders","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000601","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

任何科学领域的支柱都是高质量的数据。在人格障碍(PD)科学和更广泛的临床心理学领域,研究人员必须考虑参与者是否注意、理解并诚实地回答自我报告问卷,并付出足够的努力。我们回顾了有关无效反应(即粗心、低努力、不注意或不准确)的患病率、其对分析和解释的影响以及可用的检测方法的文献。我们还介绍了对三个主要期刊上251篇实证文章的系统综述结果,以绝对数量和与临床科学更大领域的实践相比,表征PD科学中可疑数据检测的现状。针对PD研究中自我报告效度检查的低流行率(约占22%),我们在研究设计、数据分析和结果报告方面提供了提高PD科学数据效度的实用建议。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c) 2023 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
Check and report: The state of data validity detection in personality disorder science.

The backbone of any field of science is quality data. In personality disorder (PD) science and the broader field of clinical psychology, researchers must consider whether participants were attentive to, understood, and responded honestly and with sufficient effort to self-report questionnaires. We review literature regarding the prevalence of invalid (i.e., careless, low effort, inattentive, or inaccurate) responding, its impact on analysis and interpretation, and available methods of detection. We also present the results of a systematic review of 251 empirical articles across three major journals to characterize the current state of questionable data detection in PD science both in absolute terms and as compared to practices in the larger field of clinical science. In response to the disconcertingly low prevalence rate of self-report validity checks (approximately 22% of PD studies), we conclude by providing practical recommendations for improving data validity in PD science at the points of study design, data analysis, and reporting of results. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
First psychometric evaluation of the Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Brief Form 2.0 in adolescents. Peer support for borderline personality disorder: A critical review of its feasibility, acceptability, and alignment with concepts of recovery. Investigating the transdiagnostic potential of rumination in relation to Cluster B personality disorder symptoms. An evaluation of measurement invariance of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition borderline personality disorder criteria across heterosexual, lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults. Identity disturbance in dimensional and categorical models of personality disorder: The incremental value of self-rated identity and narrative identity.
×
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