评估内隐威胁关联和行为反应倾向的三个间接任务-重测信度和效度

IF 2 4区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
A. Reinecke, E. Becker, M. Rinck
{"title":"评估内隐威胁关联和行为反应倾向的三个间接任务-重测信度和效度","authors":"A. Reinecke, E. Becker, M. Rinck","doi":"10.1027/0044-3409/A000002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Anxiety disorders are characterized by biased implicit threat associations, which can be measured by indirect reaction time tasks. These tasks might provide a useful tool in the assessment of individual diagnoses and therapeutic changes. However, sufficient psychometric properties of the applied tasks are a prerequisite for these applications. Therefore, we comparatively investigated the reliability and validity of an Extrinsic Affective Simon Task (EAST), an Approach-Avoidance Task (AAT), and an Affective Priming Task (APT) by presenting the same tasks twice within 1 week. Data show retest reliabilities of around r = .42 for the EAST, r = .35 for the AAT, and r = .63 for the APT. Internal consistencies varied between .44 and .49 for the EAST, .66 and .70 for the AAT, and .53 and .76 for the APT. Validity correlations with self-report questionnaires ranged between r = .43 and r = .59, being lowest for the EAST and highest for the AAT. We argue that while these instruments might not be applicable to indivi...","PeriodicalId":47289,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift Fur Psychologie-Journal of Psychology","volume":"79 1","pages":"4-11"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"49","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Three Indirect Tasks Assessing Implicit Threat Associations and Behavioral Response Tendencies Test-Retest Reliability and Validity\",\"authors\":\"A. Reinecke, E. Becker, M. Rinck\",\"doi\":\"10.1027/0044-3409/A000002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Anxiety disorders are characterized by biased implicit threat associations, which can be measured by indirect reaction time tasks. These tasks might provide a useful tool in the assessment of individual diagnoses and therapeutic changes. However, sufficient psychometric properties of the applied tasks are a prerequisite for these applications. Therefore, we comparatively investigated the reliability and validity of an Extrinsic Affective Simon Task (EAST), an Approach-Avoidance Task (AAT), and an Affective Priming Task (APT) by presenting the same tasks twice within 1 week. Data show retest reliabilities of around r = .42 for the EAST, r = .35 for the AAT, and r = .63 for the APT. Internal consistencies varied between .44 and .49 for the EAST, .66 and .70 for the AAT, and .53 and .76 for the APT. Validity correlations with self-report questionnaires ranged between r = .43 and r = .59, being lowest for the EAST and highest for the AAT. We argue that while these instruments might not be applicable to indivi...\",\"PeriodicalId\":47289,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Zeitschrift Fur Psychologie-Journal of Psychology\",\"volume\":\"79 1\",\"pages\":\"4-11\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2010-05-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"49\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Zeitschrift Fur Psychologie-Journal of Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1027/0044-3409/A000002\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zeitschrift Fur Psychologie-Journal of Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1027/0044-3409/A000002","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 49

摘要

焦虑障碍的特征是有偏见的内隐威胁关联,这可以通过间接反应时间任务来测量。这些任务可能为评估个体诊断和治疗变化提供有用的工具。然而,应用任务的充分心理测量特性是这些应用的先决条件。因此,我们通过在一周内两次呈现相同的任务,比较研究了外在情感西蒙任务(EAST)、趋近回避任务(AAT)和情感启动任务(APT)的信度和效度。数据显示,东量表的重测信度约为r = 0.42, AAT的重测信度约为r = 0.35, APT的重测信度约为r = 0.63。内部一致性在东量表的0.44至0.49,AAT的0.66至0.70,APT的0.53至0.76之间变化。与自我报告问卷的效度相关性在r = 0.43至r = 0.59之间变化,东量表的效度最低,AAT的效度最高。我们认为,虽然这些工具可能不适用于个人……
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Three Indirect Tasks Assessing Implicit Threat Associations and Behavioral Response Tendencies Test-Retest Reliability and Validity
Anxiety disorders are characterized by biased implicit threat associations, which can be measured by indirect reaction time tasks. These tasks might provide a useful tool in the assessment of individual diagnoses and therapeutic changes. However, sufficient psychometric properties of the applied tasks are a prerequisite for these applications. Therefore, we comparatively investigated the reliability and validity of an Extrinsic Affective Simon Task (EAST), an Approach-Avoidance Task (AAT), and an Affective Priming Task (APT) by presenting the same tasks twice within 1 week. Data show retest reliabilities of around r = .42 for the EAST, r = .35 for the AAT, and r = .63 for the APT. Internal consistencies varied between .44 and .49 for the EAST, .66 and .70 for the AAT, and .53 and .76 for the APT. Validity correlations with self-report questionnaires ranged between r = .43 and r = .59, being lowest for the EAST and highest for the AAT. We argue that while these instruments might not be applicable to indivi...
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
Zeitschrift Fur Psychologie-Journal of Psychology
Zeitschrift Fur Psychologie-Journal of Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
5.60%
发文量
37
×
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