自动性能否--以及是否应该--使用单一项目进行自我报告?对 16 个数据集的二次分析。

IF 3.8 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED
Applied psychology. Health and well-being Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-09-26 DOI:10.1111/aphw.12600
Benjamin Gardner, Phillippa Lally, Amanda L Rebar
{"title":"自动性能否--以及是否应该--使用单一项目进行自我报告?对 16 个数据集的二次分析。","authors":"Benjamin Gardner, Phillippa Lally, Amanda L Rebar","doi":"10.1111/aphw.12600","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Understanding the influence of habit on health behaviour, or the formation or disruption of health habits over time, requires reliable and valid measures of automaticity. The most used measure, the Self-Report Behavioural Automaticity Index (SRBAI; derived from the Self-Report Habit Index [SRHI]), comprises four items, which may be impractical in some research contexts. Responding to demand from fellow researchers, this study sought to identify whether and which single items from the SRBAI adequately detect hypothesised effects of automaticity, via secondary analysis of 16 datasets, incorporating 16,838 participants and seven different behaviours. We assessed construct validity through correlations between each item and the full SRBAI (and where possible, the SRHI) and predictive validity by examining correlations with behaviour. All four single-item measures independently met construct and predictive validity criteria. We recognise compelling conceptual and methodological arguments regarding why people should not attempt to assess automaticity via a single, self-report item. However, where circumstances require brief measures, three SRBAI items each offer a credible and practical one-item measure that can substitute for the SRBAI or SRHI. We recommend one item in particular-'Behaviour X is something I do automatically'-because it tended to most closely replicate the effects of the four-item SRBAI.</p>","PeriodicalId":8127,"journal":{"name":"Applied psychology. Health and well-being","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Can-and should-automaticity be self-reported using a single item? A secondary analysis of 16 datasets.\",\"authors\":\"Benjamin Gardner, Phillippa Lally, Amanda L Rebar\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/aphw.12600\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Understanding the influence of habit on health behaviour, or the formation or disruption of health habits over time, requires reliable and valid measures of automaticity. The most used measure, the Self-Report Behavioural Automaticity Index (SRBAI; derived from the Self-Report Habit Index [SRHI]), comprises four items, which may be impractical in some research contexts. Responding to demand from fellow researchers, this study sought to identify whether and which single items from the SRBAI adequately detect hypothesised effects of automaticity, via secondary analysis of 16 datasets, incorporating 16,838 participants and seven different behaviours. We assessed construct validity through correlations between each item and the full SRBAI (and where possible, the SRHI) and predictive validity by examining correlations with behaviour. All four single-item measures independently met construct and predictive validity criteria. We recognise compelling conceptual and methodological arguments regarding why people should not attempt to assess automaticity via a single, self-report item. However, where circumstances require brief measures, three SRBAI items each offer a credible and practical one-item measure that can substitute for the SRBAI or SRHI. We recommend one item in particular-'Behaviour X is something I do automatically'-because it tended to most closely replicate the effects of the four-item SRBAI.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8127,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Applied psychology. Health and well-being\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Applied psychology. Health and well-being\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/aphw.12600\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/9/26 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied psychology. Health and well-being","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/aphw.12600","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

要了解习惯对健康行为的影响,或健康习惯随着时间的推移而形成或中断的情况,需要对自动性进行可靠有效的测量。最常用的测量方法是自我报告行为自动性指数(SRBAI;源自自我报告习惯指数[SRHI]),由四个项目组成,在某些研究环境中可能不切实际。应研究人员的要求,本研究通过对 16 个数据集(包含 16838 名参与者和七种不同的行为)进行二次分析,试图确定 SRBAI 中的单个项目是否以及哪些项目能够充分检测自动性的假设效应。我们通过每个项目与 SRBAI(以及在可能的情况下与 SRHI)全文之间的相关性来评估构建有效性,并通过检查与行为之间的相关性来评估预测有效性。所有四个单项测量都独立地达到了构造效度和预测效度标准。我们认识到,在概念和方法论上存在令人信服的论点,即人们不应试图通过单一的自我报告项目来评估自动性。但是,在需要简短测量的情况下,SRBAI 的三个项目都提供了可靠实用的单项测量,可以替代 SRBAI 或 SRHI。我们特别推荐其中一个项目--"行为 X 是我自动做的事情"--因为它往往最接近 SRBAI 四个项目的效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Can-and should-automaticity be self-reported using a single item? A secondary analysis of 16 datasets.

Understanding the influence of habit on health behaviour, or the formation or disruption of health habits over time, requires reliable and valid measures of automaticity. The most used measure, the Self-Report Behavioural Automaticity Index (SRBAI; derived from the Self-Report Habit Index [SRHI]), comprises four items, which may be impractical in some research contexts. Responding to demand from fellow researchers, this study sought to identify whether and which single items from the SRBAI adequately detect hypothesised effects of automaticity, via secondary analysis of 16 datasets, incorporating 16,838 participants and seven different behaviours. We assessed construct validity through correlations between each item and the full SRBAI (and where possible, the SRHI) and predictive validity by examining correlations with behaviour. All four single-item measures independently met construct and predictive validity criteria. We recognise compelling conceptual and methodological arguments regarding why people should not attempt to assess automaticity via a single, self-report item. However, where circumstances require brief measures, three SRBAI items each offer a credible and practical one-item measure that can substitute for the SRBAI or SRHI. We recommend one item in particular-'Behaviour X is something I do automatically'-because it tended to most closely replicate the effects of the four-item SRBAI.

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
12.10
自引率
2.90%
发文量
95
期刊介绍: Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being is a triannual peer-reviewed academic journal published by Wiley-Blackwell on behalf of the International Association of Applied Psychology. It was established in 2009 and covers applied psychology topics such as clinical psychology, counseling, cross-cultural psychology, and environmental psychology.
×
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