Examining the item composition of the RBS in veterans undergoing neuropsychological evaluation.

IF 1.7 4区 心理学
Applied Neuropsychology-Adult Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2022-11-11 DOI:10.1080/23279095.2022.2142123
Robert J Spencer, Andrew C Hale, Elizabeth B Campbell, Lauren N Ratcliffe
{"title":"Examining the item composition of the RBS in veterans undergoing neuropsychological evaluation.","authors":"Robert J Spencer, Andrew C Hale, Elizabeth B Campbell, Lauren N Ratcliffe","doi":"10.1080/23279095.2022.2142123","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The Response Bias Scale (RBS) is a measure of protocol validity that is composed of items from the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory - 2. The RBS has been successfully cross-validated as a whole, but the composition of the scale has not been reexamined until recently when three types of items were identified. In this study we sought to examine the reliability of the scale as a whole, as well as the items that are (a) empirically supported and conceptually similar (ES/CS), (b) empirically supported but not conceptually similar (ES/NS), and (c) not empirically supported (NES). Participants included 56 veterans undergoing neuropsychological evaluation for suspected traumatic brain injury. Results generally replicated Ratcliffe et al. finding that removing key NES items improved the internal consistency of the RBS from 0.706 to 0.747. Examined separately, ES/CS and ES/NS had internal consistencies of 0.629 and 0.605, respectively. One of the nine NES items had strong internal consistency, but none of the remaining eight had corrected item-total correlations above 0.194. NES items had an internal consistency of 0.177. Although the RBS is well-validated in detecting non-credible cognitive presentations, it may prove even more valuable after further item refinement whereby items detracting from its reliability and validity are excised.</p>","PeriodicalId":50741,"journal":{"name":"Applied Neuropsychology-Adult","volume":" ","pages":"1452-1456"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Neuropsychology-Adult","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23279095.2022.2142123","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/11/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Response Bias Scale (RBS) is a measure of protocol validity that is composed of items from the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory - 2. The RBS has been successfully cross-validated as a whole, but the composition of the scale has not been reexamined until recently when three types of items were identified. In this study we sought to examine the reliability of the scale as a whole, as well as the items that are (a) empirically supported and conceptually similar (ES/CS), (b) empirically supported but not conceptually similar (ES/NS), and (c) not empirically supported (NES). Participants included 56 veterans undergoing neuropsychological evaluation for suspected traumatic brain injury. Results generally replicated Ratcliffe et al. finding that removing key NES items improved the internal consistency of the RBS from 0.706 to 0.747. Examined separately, ES/CS and ES/NS had internal consistencies of 0.629 and 0.605, respectively. One of the nine NES items had strong internal consistency, but none of the remaining eight had corrected item-total correlations above 0.194. NES items had an internal consistency of 0.177. Although the RBS is well-validated in detecting non-credible cognitive presentations, it may prove even more valuable after further item refinement whereby items detracting from its reliability and validity are excised.

研究接受神经心理学评估的退伍军人的 RBS 项目构成。
反应偏差量表(RBS)是由明尼苏达多相人格量表(Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory - 2)中的项目组成的一种协议效度测量方法。RBS 整体上已经成功地进行了交叉验证,但直到最近发现了三种类型的项目后,才对量表的组成进行了重新研究。在本研究中,我们试图检验量表整体的可靠性,以及(a) 经验支持且概念相似(ES/CS)、(b) 经验支持但概念不相似(ES/NS)和(c) 经验不支持(NES)的项目。参与者包括 56 名因疑似脑外伤而接受神经心理学评估的退伍军人。结果与 Ratcliffe 等人的研究结果基本一致,即去除关键的 NES 项目后,RBS 的内部一致性从 0.706 提高到了 0.747。ES/CS 和 ES/NS 的内部一致性分别为 0.629 和 0.605。在九个 NES 项目中,有一个具有很强的内部一致性,但其余八个项目的修正项目-总相关性均未超过 0.194。NES 项目的内部一致性为 0.177。尽管 RBS 在检测不可信的认知表述方面具有很好的有效性,但在对其进行进一步的项目改进,删除有损其信度和效度的项目后,它可能会被证明更有价值。
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
Applied Neuropsychology-Adult
Applied Neuropsychology-Adult CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-PSYCHOLOGY
自引率
11.80%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
×
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