John R Duffy, Emily T Sturm, Anastasia G Sares, Lauren Sarabia, Eve M Delao, Katherine M Becker, Andrea M Colmenares, Raana M Manavi, Donald C Rojas, Jason R Tregellas, Jared W Young, Michael L Thomas
{"title":"为 NIMH 研究领域标准项目选择的认知和积极价值任务的心理计量学评估。","authors":"John R Duffy, Emily T Sturm, Anastasia G Sares, Lauren Sarabia, Eve M Delao, Katherine M Becker, Andrea M Colmenares, Raana M Manavi, Donald C Rojas, Jason R Tregellas, Jared W Young, Michael L Thomas","doi":"10.1177/10731911241280770","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The NIMH Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) initiative seeks to utilize multidimensional patterns of socio-cognitive behavior to improve understanding of mental illness. We aimed to evaluate the psychometric properties of a subset of RDoC tasks. Specifically, we investigated two positive valence tasks and five cognitive tasks. Participants (<i>N</i> = 320) were recruited through an online research platform. We used generalizability theory to estimate reliability, and factor analysis to examine factor structure. Reliability was average to excellent with some notable exceptions. Factor analysis results raised concerns about whether the factor structure of task scores aligns with the proposed RDoC model. Effects of cognitive manipulations generally supported the construct representation of tasks. Results indicate that the majority of RDoC task scores examined have acceptable reliability or can be made reliable through modest increases in task length. Future research in diverse populations is needed to better understand the factor structure of RDoC cognitive and positive valence measures.</p>","PeriodicalId":8577,"journal":{"name":"Assessment","volume":" ","pages":"10731911241280770"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Psychometric Evaluation of Cognitive and Positive Valence Tasks Chosen for the NIMH Research Domain Criteria Project.\",\"authors\":\"John R Duffy, Emily T Sturm, Anastasia G Sares, Lauren Sarabia, Eve M Delao, Katherine M Becker, Andrea M Colmenares, Raana M Manavi, Donald C Rojas, Jason R Tregellas, Jared W Young, Michael L Thomas\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10731911241280770\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The NIMH Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) initiative seeks to utilize multidimensional patterns of socio-cognitive behavior to improve understanding of mental illness. We aimed to evaluate the psychometric properties of a subset of RDoC tasks. Specifically, we investigated two positive valence tasks and five cognitive tasks. Participants (<i>N</i> = 320) were recruited through an online research platform. We used generalizability theory to estimate reliability, and factor analysis to examine factor structure. Reliability was average to excellent with some notable exceptions. Factor analysis results raised concerns about whether the factor structure of task scores aligns with the proposed RDoC model. Effects of cognitive manipulations generally supported the construct representation of tasks. Results indicate that the majority of RDoC task scores examined have acceptable reliability or can be made reliable through modest increases in task length. Future research in diverse populations is needed to better understand the factor structure of RDoC cognitive and positive valence measures.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8577,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Assessment\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"10731911241280770\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Assessment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911241280770\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911241280770","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Psychometric Evaluation of Cognitive and Positive Valence Tasks Chosen for the NIMH Research Domain Criteria Project.
The NIMH Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) initiative seeks to utilize multidimensional patterns of socio-cognitive behavior to improve understanding of mental illness. We aimed to evaluate the psychometric properties of a subset of RDoC tasks. Specifically, we investigated two positive valence tasks and five cognitive tasks. Participants (N = 320) were recruited through an online research platform. We used generalizability theory to estimate reliability, and factor analysis to examine factor structure. Reliability was average to excellent with some notable exceptions. Factor analysis results raised concerns about whether the factor structure of task scores aligns with the proposed RDoC model. Effects of cognitive manipulations generally supported the construct representation of tasks. Results indicate that the majority of RDoC task scores examined have acceptable reliability or can be made reliable through modest increases in task length. Future research in diverse populations is needed to better understand the factor structure of RDoC cognitive and positive valence measures.
期刊介绍:
Assessment publishes articles in the domain of applied clinical assessment. The emphasis of this journal is on publication of information of relevance to the use of assessment measures, including test development, validation, and interpretation practices. The scope of the journal includes research that can inform assessment practices in mental health, forensic, medical, and other applied settings. Papers that focus on the assessment of cognitive and neuropsychological functioning, personality, and psychopathology are invited. Most papers published in Assessment report the results of original empirical research, however integrative review articles and scholarly case studies will also be considered.