大型社区样本中实验认知测试的收敛性。

IF 3.5 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Andy C Dean, Jean-Baptiste Pochon, Robert M Bilder, Fred W Sabb, Eliza Congdon, Dara Ghahremani, Katherine H Karlsgodt, Theo G M van Erp, Rebecca F Schwarzlose, Tyrone D Cannon, Nelson B Freimer, Edythe D London
{"title":"大型社区样本中实验认知测试的收敛性。","authors":"Andy C Dean, Jean-Baptiste Pochon, Robert M Bilder, Fred W Sabb, Eliza Congdon, Dara Ghahremani, Katherine H Karlsgodt, Theo G M van Erp, Rebecca F Schwarzlose, Tyrone D Cannon, Nelson B Freimer, Edythe D London","doi":"10.1177/10731911241283410","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Experimental cognitive tests are designed to measure particular cognitive domains, although evidence supporting test validity is often limited. The Consortium for Neuropsychiatric Phenomics test battery administered 23 experimental and traditional neuropsychological tests to a large sample of community volunteers (<i>n</i> = 1,059) and patients with psychiatric diagnoses (<i>n</i> = 137), providing a unique opportunity to examine convergent validity with factor analysis. Traditional tests included subtests from the Wechsler and Delis-Kaplan batteries, while experimental tests included the Attention Networks Test, Balloon Analogue Risk Task, Delay Discounting Task, Remember-Know, Reversal Learning Task, Scene Recognition, Spatial and Verbal Capacity and Manipulation Tasks, Stop-Signal Task, and Task Switching. Several experimental cognitive measures were insufficiently related to other tests and were excluded from factor analyses. In the remaining 18 tests, exploratory factor analysis and subsequent multigroup confirmatory factor analysis supported a three-factor structure broadly corresponding to domains of verbal/working memory, inhibitory control, and memory. In sum, several experimental measures of inhibitory control had weak relationships with all other tests, while the convergent validity of most tests of working memory and memory was supported.</p>","PeriodicalId":8577,"journal":{"name":"Assessment","volume":" ","pages":"10731911241283410"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Convergent Validity of Experimental Cognitive Tests in a Large Community Sample.\",\"authors\":\"Andy C Dean, Jean-Baptiste Pochon, Robert M Bilder, Fred W Sabb, Eliza Congdon, Dara Ghahremani, Katherine H Karlsgodt, Theo G M van Erp, Rebecca F Schwarzlose, Tyrone D Cannon, Nelson B Freimer, Edythe D London\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10731911241283410\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Experimental cognitive tests are designed to measure particular cognitive domains, although evidence supporting test validity is often limited. The Consortium for Neuropsychiatric Phenomics test battery administered 23 experimental and traditional neuropsychological tests to a large sample of community volunteers (<i>n</i> = 1,059) and patients with psychiatric diagnoses (<i>n</i> = 137), providing a unique opportunity to examine convergent validity with factor analysis. Traditional tests included subtests from the Wechsler and Delis-Kaplan batteries, while experimental tests included the Attention Networks Test, Balloon Analogue Risk Task, Delay Discounting Task, Remember-Know, Reversal Learning Task, Scene Recognition, Spatial and Verbal Capacity and Manipulation Tasks, Stop-Signal Task, and Task Switching. Several experimental cognitive measures were insufficiently related to other tests and were excluded from factor analyses. In the remaining 18 tests, exploratory factor analysis and subsequent multigroup confirmatory factor analysis supported a three-factor structure broadly corresponding to domains of verbal/working memory, inhibitory control, and memory. In sum, several experimental measures of inhibitory control had weak relationships with all other tests, while the convergent validity of most tests of working memory and memory was supported.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8577,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Assessment\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"10731911241283410\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Assessment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911241283410\",\"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/10.1177/10731911241283410","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

实验性认知测试旨在测量特定的认知领域,但支持测试有效性的证据往往有限。神经精神表型组学联合会的测试组对大量社区志愿者(n = 1,059)和精神病诊断患者(n = 137)进行了 23 项实验性和传统的神经心理学测试,提供了一个独特的机会,通过因子分析来检验趋同效度。传统测试包括韦氏(Wechsler)和德利斯-卡普兰(Delis-Kaplan)测验中的子测验,而实验测试则包括注意力网络测试、气球模拟风险任务、延迟折现任务、记忆-认知、逆向学习任务、场景识别、空间和语言能力及操作任务、停止信号任务和任务转换。有几项实验性认知测量与其他测试的相关性不够,因此被排除在因素分析之外。在剩余的 18 项测试中,探索性因子分析和随后的多组确认性因子分析都支持三因子结构,大致对应于言语/工作记忆、抑制控制和记忆领域。总之,抑制控制的几种实验测量与所有其他测试的关系较弱,而大多数工作记忆和记忆测试的收敛有效性得到了支持。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Convergent Validity of Experimental Cognitive Tests in a Large Community Sample.

Experimental cognitive tests are designed to measure particular cognitive domains, although evidence supporting test validity is often limited. The Consortium for Neuropsychiatric Phenomics test battery administered 23 experimental and traditional neuropsychological tests to a large sample of community volunteers (n = 1,059) and patients with psychiatric diagnoses (n = 137), providing a unique opportunity to examine convergent validity with factor analysis. Traditional tests included subtests from the Wechsler and Delis-Kaplan batteries, while experimental tests included the Attention Networks Test, Balloon Analogue Risk Task, Delay Discounting Task, Remember-Know, Reversal Learning Task, Scene Recognition, Spatial and Verbal Capacity and Manipulation Tasks, Stop-Signal Task, and Task Switching. Several experimental cognitive measures were insufficiently related to other tests and were excluded from factor analyses. In the remaining 18 tests, exploratory factor analysis and subsequent multigroup confirmatory factor analysis supported a three-factor structure broadly corresponding to domains of verbal/working memory, inhibitory control, and memory. In sum, several experimental measures of inhibitory control had weak relationships with all other tests, while the convergent validity of most tests of working memory and memory was supported.

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
Assessment
Assessment PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
2.60%
发文量
86
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.
×
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