反应扭曲人格临床形态指标的应用:受试者工作特征分析

Q4 Psychology
{"title":"反应扭曲人格临床形态指标的应用:受试者工作特征分析","authors":"","doi":"10.24913/rjap.22.1.01","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A Receiver Operating Characteristic Analysis (ROC Analysis) was conducted to assess the\nefficiency of six validity scales included in the Personality Clinical Form (PCF) to detect responses\ndistortion. Undergraduate students were randomly assigned to simulate malingering, simulate\ndefensiveness or complete PCF under standard instructions (no faking). Fake-good participants\nscored significantly higher than standard participants on all underreporting scales. The difference\nobserved was even higher when the comparison was made between the fake-good and the fake-bad\nparticipants. Likewise, a reverse trend was observed for the overreporting scales. Participants in the\nfake-bad condition scored the highest, and the participants in the fake-good condition scored the\nlowest on all overreporting scales. Large effect sizes were found in most cases. The responses\nresulted from the malingering condition were also compared with those obtained from psychiatric\ninpatients. The responses resulted from the defensiveness group were also compared with\nresponses obtained from employees in a high-stake assessment condition. The area under the ROC\ncurve (AUC) provided an index of discriminative power. The validity scales discriminate better\nbetween the normal and the fake conditions than between malingerers and psychiatric inpatients,\nbut most AUC values were within good or excellent range. Cut-off scores and their corresponding\nsensitivity and specificity were presented for each validity scale based on this explorative\nendeavour","PeriodicalId":36595,"journal":{"name":"Romanian Journal of Applied Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The utility of the Personality Clinical Form Indicators of Response Distortion:\\nReceiver Operating Characteristic Analysis\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.24913/rjap.22.1.01\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"A Receiver Operating Characteristic Analysis (ROC Analysis) was conducted to assess the\\nefficiency of six validity scales included in the Personality Clinical Form (PCF) to detect responses\\ndistortion. Undergraduate students were randomly assigned to simulate malingering, simulate\\ndefensiveness or complete PCF under standard instructions (no faking). Fake-good participants\\nscored significantly higher than standard participants on all underreporting scales. The difference\\nobserved was even higher when the comparison was made between the fake-good and the fake-bad\\nparticipants. Likewise, a reverse trend was observed for the overreporting scales. Participants in the\\nfake-bad condition scored the highest, and the participants in the fake-good condition scored the\\nlowest on all overreporting scales. Large effect sizes were found in most cases. The responses\\nresulted from the malingering condition were also compared with those obtained from psychiatric\\ninpatients. The responses resulted from the defensiveness group were also compared with\\nresponses obtained from employees in a high-stake assessment condition. The area under the ROC\\ncurve (AUC) provided an index of discriminative power. The validity scales discriminate better\\nbetween the normal and the fake conditions than between malingerers and psychiatric inpatients,\\nbut most AUC values were within good or excellent range. Cut-off scores and their corresponding\\nsensitivity and specificity were presented for each validity scale based on this explorative\\nendeavour\",\"PeriodicalId\":36595,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Romanian Journal of Applied Psychology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-06-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Romanian Journal of Applied Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.24913/rjap.22.1.01\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Psychology\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Romanian Journal of Applied Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24913/rjap.22.1.01","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Psychology","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

采用受试者工作特征分析(ROC)对人格临床量表(PCF)中包含的六个效度量表检测反应失真的有效性进行评估。本科生被随机分配到模拟装病、模拟防御或在标准指令下完成PCF(不作假)。假好的参与者在所有低报量表上的得分都明显高于标准参与者。当在假好人和假坏人之间进行比较时,观察到的差异甚至更大。同样,在多报比额表方面也观察到相反的趋势。在所有夸大报告量表中,假坏状态的参与者得分最高,假好状态的参与者得分最低。在大多数情况下发现了很大的效应量。并将装病患者与精神病患者的调查结果进行了比较。防御组的反应也与高风险评估条件下员工的反应进行了比较。roc曲线下面积(AUC)是判别能力的指标。效度量表对正常和虚假状况的区分优于对装病者和精神病住院患者的区分,但大多数AUC值在良好或优秀的范围内。基于这种探索性的努力,给出了每个效度量表的截止分数及其相应的灵敏度和特异性
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The utility of the Personality Clinical Form Indicators of Response Distortion: Receiver Operating Characteristic Analysis
A Receiver Operating Characteristic Analysis (ROC Analysis) was conducted to assess the efficiency of six validity scales included in the Personality Clinical Form (PCF) to detect responses distortion. Undergraduate students were randomly assigned to simulate malingering, simulate defensiveness or complete PCF under standard instructions (no faking). Fake-good participants scored significantly higher than standard participants on all underreporting scales. The difference observed was even higher when the comparison was made between the fake-good and the fake-bad participants. Likewise, a reverse trend was observed for the overreporting scales. Participants in the fake-bad condition scored the highest, and the participants in the fake-good condition scored the lowest on all overreporting scales. Large effect sizes were found in most cases. The responses resulted from the malingering condition were also compared with those obtained from psychiatric inpatients. The responses resulted from the defensiveness group were also compared with responses obtained from employees in a high-stake assessment condition. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) provided an index of discriminative power. The validity scales discriminate better between the normal and the fake conditions than between malingerers and psychiatric inpatients, but most AUC values were within good or excellent range. Cut-off scores and their corresponding sensitivity and specificity were presented for each validity scale based on this explorative endeavour
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
Romanian Journal of Applied Psychology
Romanian Journal of Applied Psychology Psychology-Applied Psychology
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
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