使用分离性体验量表-V(DES-V)检测无效反应。

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY
Kenneth J Thompson, Rachel R Katz, Lillian C Mecum, Constance J Dalenberg
{"title":"使用分离性体验量表-V(DES-V)检测无效反应。","authors":"Kenneth J Thompson, Rachel R Katz, Lillian C Mecum, Constance J Dalenberg","doi":"10.1080/15299732.2024.2407762","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The Dissociative Experiences Scale (DES) is the most widely used self-report measure of dissociation but lacks a validity scale. Abu-Rus et al. (2020) created the DES-V by embedding atypical and inconsistency items in the DES, ultimately concluding that atypicality demonstrated the greatest ability to differentiate honest respondents from feigners. Among their study limitations, Abu-Rus et al. noted the homogeneous nature of their clinical group (i.e., largely comprising individuals with PTSD) and the potential need to refine the existing atypicality items for a more heterogenous dissociation population. The current study aimed to refine the DES-V by enlisting dissociation experts to improve the believability of the atypical items (while simultaneously ensuring they did not betoken any actual dissociative symptomology) and by supplementing the online sample with a clinical sample that included a broad range of dissociative disorders. Data cleaning comprised eight different techniques, to better ensure the validity of the online sample. Honest and Feigning groups completed the assessments through Amazon's Mechanical Turk; the clinical dissociative disorder group completed hard copy versions. The atypicality scale discriminated the three groups well, with the Feigning group scoring significantly higher than both of the honest groups (online and clinical). The mean atypicality scores of the two honest groups did not differ significantly. In addition, the scale incremented over the original DES-V in a logistic regression predicting honest and feigning participants. These robust results suggest that the revised DES-V could provide researchers with a valuable tool for validating online samples with greater precision - an increasingly vital need in light of the growing reliance on online samples.</p>","PeriodicalId":47476,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trauma & Dissociation","volume":" ","pages":"1-14"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Detection of Invalid Responses Using the Dissociative Experiences Scale-V (DES-V).\",\"authors\":\"Kenneth J Thompson, Rachel R Katz, Lillian C Mecum, Constance J Dalenberg\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/15299732.2024.2407762\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The Dissociative Experiences Scale (DES) is the most widely used self-report measure of dissociation but lacks a validity scale. Abu-Rus et al. (2020) created the DES-V by embedding atypical and inconsistency items in the DES, ultimately concluding that atypicality demonstrated the greatest ability to differentiate honest respondents from feigners. Among their study limitations, Abu-Rus et al. noted the homogeneous nature of their clinical group (i.e., largely comprising individuals with PTSD) and the potential need to refine the existing atypicality items for a more heterogenous dissociation population. The current study aimed to refine the DES-V by enlisting dissociation experts to improve the believability of the atypical items (while simultaneously ensuring they did not betoken any actual dissociative symptomology) and by supplementing the online sample with a clinical sample that included a broad range of dissociative disorders. Data cleaning comprised eight different techniques, to better ensure the validity of the online sample. Honest and Feigning groups completed the assessments through Amazon's Mechanical Turk; the clinical dissociative disorder group completed hard copy versions. The atypicality scale discriminated the three groups well, with the Feigning group scoring significantly higher than both of the honest groups (online and clinical). The mean atypicality scores of the two honest groups did not differ significantly. In addition, the scale incremented over the original DES-V in a logistic regression predicting honest and feigning participants. These robust results suggest that the revised DES-V could provide researchers with a valuable tool for validating online samples with greater precision - an increasingly vital need in light of the growing reliance on online samples.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47476,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Trauma & Dissociation\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-14\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Trauma & Dissociation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/15299732.2024.2407762\",\"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":"Journal of Trauma & Dissociation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15299732.2024.2407762","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

解离体验量表(DES)是使用最广泛的解离自我报告测量方法,但缺乏有效性量表。Abu-Rus 等人(2020 年)通过在 DES 中嵌入非典型和不一致性项目创建了 DES-V,并最终得出结论:非典型表现出了区分诚实受访者和假装受访者的最大能力。在他们的研究局限中,Abu-Rus 等人指出,他们的临床群体(即主要由创伤后应激障碍患者组成)具有同质性,可能需要针对更多不同类型的解离人群改进现有的非典型性项目。目前的研究旨在完善 DES-V,方法是聘请解离专家来提高非典型项目的可信度(同时确保这些项目不代表任何实际的解离症状),并用包含广泛解离障碍的临床样本来补充在线样本。数据清理包括八种不同的技术,以更好地确保在线样本的有效性。诚实组和伪装组通过亚马逊的 Mechanical Turk 完成评估;临床分离障碍组完成硬拷贝版本。非典型性量表很好地区分了三个组别,伪装组的得分明显高于诚实组(在线组和临床组)。两个诚实组的平均非典型性得分没有明显差异。此外,在预测诚实组和佯装组参与者的逻辑回归中,量表比原来的 DES-V 有所提高。这些可靠的结果表明,修订后的 DES-V 可以为研究人员提供一种有价值的工具,用于更精确地验证在线样本--鉴于对在线样本的依赖性越来越强,这是一个日益重要的需求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Detection of Invalid Responses Using the Dissociative Experiences Scale-V (DES-V).

The Dissociative Experiences Scale (DES) is the most widely used self-report measure of dissociation but lacks a validity scale. Abu-Rus et al. (2020) created the DES-V by embedding atypical and inconsistency items in the DES, ultimately concluding that atypicality demonstrated the greatest ability to differentiate honest respondents from feigners. Among their study limitations, Abu-Rus et al. noted the homogeneous nature of their clinical group (i.e., largely comprising individuals with PTSD) and the potential need to refine the existing atypicality items for a more heterogenous dissociation population. The current study aimed to refine the DES-V by enlisting dissociation experts to improve the believability of the atypical items (while simultaneously ensuring they did not betoken any actual dissociative symptomology) and by supplementing the online sample with a clinical sample that included a broad range of dissociative disorders. Data cleaning comprised eight different techniques, to better ensure the validity of the online sample. Honest and Feigning groups completed the assessments through Amazon's Mechanical Turk; the clinical dissociative disorder group completed hard copy versions. The atypicality scale discriminated the three groups well, with the Feigning group scoring significantly higher than both of the honest groups (online and clinical). The mean atypicality scores of the two honest groups did not differ significantly. In addition, the scale incremented over the original DES-V in a logistic regression predicting honest and feigning participants. These robust results suggest that the revised DES-V could provide researchers with a valuable tool for validating online samples with greater precision - an increasingly vital need in light of the growing reliance on online samples.

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
6.00
自引率
6.10%
发文量
39
×
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