Are we capturing individual differences? Evaluating the test-retest reliability of experimental tasks used to measure social cognitive abilities.

IF 4.6 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Charlotte R Pennington, Kayley Birch-Hurst, Matthew Ploszajski, Kait Clark, Craig Hedge, Daniel J Shaw
{"title":"Are we capturing individual differences? Evaluating the test-retest reliability of experimental tasks used to measure social cognitive abilities.","authors":"Charlotte R Pennington, Kayley Birch-Hurst, Matthew Ploszajski, Kait Clark, Craig Hedge, Daniel J Shaw","doi":"10.3758/s13428-025-02606-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Social cognitive skills are crucial for positive interpersonal relationships, health, and wellbeing and encompass both automatic and reflexive processes. To assess this myriad of skills, researchers have developed numerous experimental tasks that measure automatic imitation, emotion recognition, empathy, perspective taking, and intergroup bias and have used these to reveal important individual differences in social cognition. However, the very reason these tasks produce robust experimental effects - low between-participant variability - can make their use as correlational tools problematic. We performed an evaluation of test-retest reliability for common experimental tasks that measure social cognition. One-hundred and fifty participants completed the race-Implicit Association Test (r-IAT), Stimulus-Response Compatibility (SRC) task, Emotional Go/No-Go (eGNG) task, Dot Perspective-Taking (DPT) task, and State Affective Empathy (SAE) task, as well as the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) and indices of Explicit Bias (EB) across two sessions within 3 weeks. Estimates of test-retest reliability varied considerably between tasks and their indices: the eGNG task had good reliability (ICC = 0.63-0.69); the SAE task had moderate-to-good reliability (ICC = 0.56-0.77); the r-IAT had moderate reliability (ICC = 0.49); the DPT task had poor-to-good reliability (ICC = 0.24-0.60); and the SRC task had poor reliability (ICC = 0.09-0.29). The IRI had good-to-excellent reliability (ICC = 0.76-0.83) and EB had good reliability (ICC = 0.70-0.77). Experimental tasks of social cognition are used routinely to assess individual differences, but their suitability for this is rarely evaluated. Researchers investigating individual differences must assess the test-retest reliability of their measures.</p>","PeriodicalId":8717,"journal":{"name":"Behavior Research Methods","volume":"57 2","pages":"82"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11785611/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Behavior Research Methods","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-025-02606-5","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

Abstract

Social cognitive skills are crucial for positive interpersonal relationships, health, and wellbeing and encompass both automatic and reflexive processes. To assess this myriad of skills, researchers have developed numerous experimental tasks that measure automatic imitation, emotion recognition, empathy, perspective taking, and intergroup bias and have used these to reveal important individual differences in social cognition. However, the very reason these tasks produce robust experimental effects - low between-participant variability - can make their use as correlational tools problematic. We performed an evaluation of test-retest reliability for common experimental tasks that measure social cognition. One-hundred and fifty participants completed the race-Implicit Association Test (r-IAT), Stimulus-Response Compatibility (SRC) task, Emotional Go/No-Go (eGNG) task, Dot Perspective-Taking (DPT) task, and State Affective Empathy (SAE) task, as well as the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) and indices of Explicit Bias (EB) across two sessions within 3 weeks. Estimates of test-retest reliability varied considerably between tasks and their indices: the eGNG task had good reliability (ICC = 0.63-0.69); the SAE task had moderate-to-good reliability (ICC = 0.56-0.77); the r-IAT had moderate reliability (ICC = 0.49); the DPT task had poor-to-good reliability (ICC = 0.24-0.60); and the SRC task had poor reliability (ICC = 0.09-0.29). The IRI had good-to-excellent reliability (ICC = 0.76-0.83) and EB had good reliability (ICC = 0.70-0.77). Experimental tasks of social cognition are used routinely to assess individual differences, but their suitability for this is rarely evaluated. Researchers investigating individual differences must assess the test-retest reliability of their measures.

我们捕捉到个体差异了吗?评估社会认知能力测试任务的重测信度。
社会认知技能对积极的人际关系、健康和幸福至关重要,包括自动和反射过程。为了评估这些技能,研究人员开发了许多实验任务,测量自动模仿、情绪识别、同理心、视角转换和群体间偏见,并利用这些来揭示社会认知中重要的个体差异。然而,正是这些任务产生强大的实验效果的原因——参与者之间的低可变性——使得它们作为相关工具的使用存在问题。我们对测量社会认知的常见实验任务进行了重测信度评估。150名被试在3周内完成了种族-内隐联想测验(r-IAT)、刺激-反应相容性(SRC)任务、情绪去/不去(eGNG)任务、点视角转换(DPT)任务和状态情感共情(SAE)任务,以及人际反应指数(IRI)和外显偏见指数(EB)。任务及其指标之间的重测信度估计差异很大:eGNG任务具有良好的信度(ICC = 0.63-0.69);SAE任务具有中等至良好的信度(ICC = 0.56 ~ 0.77);r-IAT具有中等信度(ICC = 0.49);DPT任务的信度从差到好(ICC = 0.24-0.60);SRC任务的信度较差(ICC = 0.09-0.29)。IRI具有良至优信度(ICC = 0.76 ~ 0.83), EB具有良好的信度(ICC = 0.70 ~ 0.77)。社会认知的实验任务通常用于评估个体差异,但很少评估其适用性。研究个体差异的研究人员必须评估其测量方法的重测可靠性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
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.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信