Check and report: The state of data validity detection in personality disorder science.

Brinkley M Sharpe, Donald R Lynam, Joshua D Miller
{"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}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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).

检查与报告:人格障碍科学中数据效度检测的现状。
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。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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