基于努力的决策任务值得付出努力吗?基于努力的决策任务与自我报告测量之间关系的研究

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY
Katharina E. Renz, Björn Schlier, Tania M. Lincoln
{"title":"基于努力的决策任务值得付出努力吗?基于努力的决策任务与自我报告测量之间关系的研究","authors":"Katharina E. Renz,&nbsp;Björn Schlier,&nbsp;Tania M. Lincoln","doi":"10.1002/mpr.1943","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>Amotivation is a common symptom in various mental disorders, including psychotic or depressive disorders. Effort-based decision-making (EBDM)-tasks quantifying amotivation at a behavioral level have been on the rise. Task performance has been shown to differentiate patient groups from healthy controls. However, findings on indicators of construct validity, such as the correlations between different tasks and between tasks and self-reported/observer-rated amotivation in clinical and healthy samples have been inconclusive.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>In a representative community sample (<i>N</i> = 90), we tested the construct validity of the Deck Choice Task, the Expenditure for Rewards Task and the Balloon Task. We calculated correlations between the EBDM-tasks and between the EBDM-tasks and self-reported amotivation, apathy, anticipatory pleasure, and BIS/BAS.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Correlations between tasks were low to moderate (0.198 ≤ <i>r</i> ≤ 0.358), with the Balloon Task showing the largest correlations with the other tasks, but no significant correlations between any EBDM-task and the self-report measures.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Although different EBDM-tasks are conceptualized to measure the same construct, a large part of what each task measures could not be accounted for by the other tasks. Moreover, the tasks did not appear to substantially capture what was measured in established self-report instruments for amotivation in our sample, which could be interpreted as questioning the construct validity of EBDM-tasks.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":50310,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research","volume":"32 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/6e/05/MPR-32-e1943.PMC9976602.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Are effort-based decision-making tasks worth the effort?—A study on the associations between effort-based decision-making tasks and self-report measures\",\"authors\":\"Katharina E. Renz,&nbsp;Björn Schlier,&nbsp;Tania M. Lincoln\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/mpr.1943\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Objectives</h3>\\n \\n <p>Amotivation is a common symptom in various mental disorders, including psychotic or depressive disorders. Effort-based decision-making (EBDM)-tasks quantifying amotivation at a behavioral level have been on the rise. Task performance has been shown to differentiate patient groups from healthy controls. However, findings on indicators of construct validity, such as the correlations between different tasks and between tasks and self-reported/observer-rated amotivation in clinical and healthy samples have been inconclusive.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>In a representative community sample (<i>N</i> = 90), we tested the construct validity of the Deck Choice Task, the Expenditure for Rewards Task and the Balloon Task. We calculated correlations between the EBDM-tasks and between the EBDM-tasks and self-reported amotivation, apathy, anticipatory pleasure, and BIS/BAS.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Correlations between tasks were low to moderate (0.198 ≤ <i>r</i> ≤ 0.358), with the Balloon Task showing the largest correlations with the other tasks, but no significant correlations between any EBDM-task and the self-report measures.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>Although different EBDM-tasks are conceptualized to measure the same construct, a large part of what each task measures could not be accounted for by the other tasks. Moreover, the tasks did not appear to substantially capture what was measured in established self-report instruments for amotivation in our sample, which could be interpreted as questioning the construct validity of EBDM-tasks.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50310,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research\",\"volume\":\"32 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/6e/05/MPR-32-e1943.PMC9976602.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mpr.1943\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mpr.1943","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

动机是各种精神障碍的常见症状,包括精神病或抑郁症。基于努力的决策(EBDM)-在行为层面量化动机的任务一直在上升。任务表现已被证明可以将患者组与健康对照组区分开来。然而,在临床和健康样本中,不同任务之间以及任务与自我报告/观察者评价动机之间的相关性等构念效度指标的研究结果尚无定论。方法在一个有代表性的社区样本(N = 90)中,我们测试了甲板选择任务、奖励支出任务和气球任务的结构效度。我们计算了ebdm任务之间的相关性,以及ebdm任务与自我报告的动机、冷漠、预期愉悦和BIS/BAS之间的相关性。结果各任务之间的相关性为低至中等(0.198≤r≤0.358),气球任务与其他任务的相关性最大,而ebdm任务与自我报告测量之间无显著相关性。结论虽然不同的ebdm任务被概念化来测量相同的结构,但每个任务测量的大部分内容不能被其他任务所解释。此外,在我们的样本中,这些任务似乎并没有实质性地捕捉到在既定的自我报告工具中测量到的动机,这可以解释为质疑ebdm任务的结构有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Are effort-based decision-making tasks worth the effort?—A study on the associations between effort-based decision-making tasks and self-report measures

Are effort-based decision-making tasks worth the effort?—A study on the associations between effort-based decision-making tasks and self-report measures

Objectives

Amotivation is a common symptom in various mental disorders, including psychotic or depressive disorders. Effort-based decision-making (EBDM)-tasks quantifying amotivation at a behavioral level have been on the rise. Task performance has been shown to differentiate patient groups from healthy controls. However, findings on indicators of construct validity, such as the correlations between different tasks and between tasks and self-reported/observer-rated amotivation in clinical and healthy samples have been inconclusive.

Methods

In a representative community sample (N = 90), we tested the construct validity of the Deck Choice Task, the Expenditure for Rewards Task and the Balloon Task. We calculated correlations between the EBDM-tasks and between the EBDM-tasks and self-reported amotivation, apathy, anticipatory pleasure, and BIS/BAS.

Results

Correlations between tasks were low to moderate (0.198 ≤ r ≤ 0.358), with the Balloon Task showing the largest correlations with the other tasks, but no significant correlations between any EBDM-task and the self-report measures.

Conclusion

Although different EBDM-tasks are conceptualized to measure the same construct, a large part of what each task measures could not be accounted for by the other tasks. Moreover, the tasks did not appear to substantially capture what was measured in established self-report instruments for amotivation in our sample, which could be interpreted as questioning the construct validity of EBDM-tasks.

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
5.20
自引率
6.50%
发文量
48
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research (MPR) publishes high-standard original research of a technical, methodological, experimental and clinical nature, contributing to the theory, methodology, practice and evaluation of mental and behavioural disorders. The journal targets in particular detailed methodological and design papers from major national and international multicentre studies. There is a close working relationship with the US National Institute of Mental Health, the World Health Organisation (WHO) Diagnostic Instruments Committees, as well as several other European and international organisations. MPR aims to publish rapidly articles of highest methodological quality in such areas as epidemiology, biostatistics, generics, psychopharmacology, psychology and the neurosciences. Articles informing about innovative and critical methodological, statistical and clinical issues, including nosology, can be submitted as regular papers and brief reports. Reviews are only occasionally accepted. MPR seeks to monitor, discuss, influence and improve the standards of mental health and behavioral neuroscience research by providing a platform for rapid publication of outstanding contributions. As a quarterly journal MPR is a major source of information and ideas and is an important medium for students, clinicians and researchers in psychiatry, clinical psychology, epidemiology and the allied disciplines in the mental health 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