Quantifying self-reports of auditory verbal hallucinations in persons with psychosis.

The Hamilton Program for Schizophrenia Voices Questionnaire (HPSVQ) was developed to address the need for a brief, self-report measure that quantifies a range of the characteristics of auditory verbal hallucinations (AVHs). Each of the questionnaire's nine scored items utilizes a 5-point rating scale to yield a quantitative assessment of AVHs. The scale was well tolerated by a sample of 20 patients with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder at baseline and at one and eleven weeks postbaseline. It demonstrated good test-retest reliability over these intervals and good internal consistency. In addition, it demonstrated adequate concurrent validity when compared with the interviewer-rated Psychotic Symptoms Rating Scales Auditory Hallucinations subscale. The results of this pilot study suggest that the HPSVQ is potentially a reliable and useful measure for quantifying AVHs in persons suffering from psychosis. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Further validation of the IDAS: Evidence of convergent, discriminant, criterion, and incremental validity.

The authors explicated the validity of the Inventory of Depression and Anxiety Symptoms (IDAS; D. Watson et al., 2007) in 2 samples (306 college students and 605 psychiatric patients). The IDAS scales showed strong convergent validity in relation to parallel interview-based scores on the Clinician Rating version of the IDAS; the mean convergent correlations were .51 and .62 in the student and patient samples, respectively. With the exception of the Well-Being Scale, the scales also consistently demonstrated significant discriminant validity. Furthermore, the scales displayed substantial criterion validity in relation to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.; DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association, 1994) mood and anxiety disorder diagnoses in the patient sample. The authors identified particularly clear and strong associations between (a) major depression and the IDAS General Depression, Dysphoria and Well-Being scales, (b) panic disorder and IDAS Panic, (c) posttraumatic stress disorder and IDAS Traumatic Intrusions, and (d) social phobia and IDAS Social Anxiety. Finally, in logistic regression analyses, the IDAS scales showed significant incremental validity in predicting several DSM-IV diagnoses when compared against the Beck Depression Inventory-II (A. T. Beck, R. A. Steer, & G. K. Brown, 1996) and the Beck Anxiety Inventory (A. T. Beck & R. A. Steer, 1990). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The reliability and validity of the Panic Disorder Self-Report: A new diagnostic screening measure of panic disorder.

This study examined the Panic Disorder Self-Report (PDSR), a new self-report diagnostic measure of panic disorder based on the 4th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (American Psychiatric Association, 1994). PDSR diagnoses were compared with structured interview diagnoses of individuals with generalized anxiety disorder, social phobia, and panic disorder and nonanxious controls. Receiver operating characteristic analyses revealed that the PDSR showed 100% specificity and 89% sensitivity. The PDSR also demonstrated retest reliability, convergent and discriminant validity, and kappa agreement of .93 with a structured interview. Finally, the PDSR demonstrated clinical validity. Students who were identified as having panic disorder using the PDSR did not have significantly different scores on the Panic Disorder Severity Scale--Self-Report form (P. R. Houck, D. A. Speigel, M. K. Shear, & P. Rucci, 2002) than a panic disordered community sample. However, both groups had significantly higher scores than students identified as not meeting criteria for panic disorder. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

A closer look at the frame-of-reference effect in personality scale scores and validity.

This article contributes to the understanding of why the use of a frame-of-reference leads to increased criterion-related validity of personality inventories. Two competing explanations are described and tested. A between-subjects (N = 337) and a within-subject (N = 105) study are conducted to test the hypothesized effects of use of a frame of reference on reliability and validity. Regarding the effects on reliability, use of a frame of reference reduces within-person inconsistency (instead of between-person variability) in responding to generic items. Use of a frame of reference further leads to higher validity as a result of the reduction of between-person variability and within-person inconsistency. Yet, reducing these inconsistencies is not enough. It is also important to use a frame of reference that is conceptually relevant to the criterion. Besides implications for contextualized personality inventories, these results provide an explanation for the moderate validities of generic personality inventories. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit perceptions.

This study examined whether employees develop perceptions about 3 different types of fit: person-organization fit, needs-supplies fit, and demands-abilities fit. Confirmatory factor analyses of data from 2 different samples strongly suggested that employees differentiate between these 3 types of fit. Furthermore, results from a longitudinal design of 187 managers supported both the convergent and discriminant validity of the different types of fit perceptions. Specifically, person-organization fit perceptions were related to organization-focused outcomes (e.g., organizational identification, citizenship behaviors, turnover decisions), whereas needs-supplies fit perceptions were related to job- and career-focused outcomes (e.g., job satisfaction, career satisfaction, occupational commitment). Although demands-abilities fit perceptions emerged as a distinct construct, they were not related to hypothesized outcomes (e.g., job performance, raises). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The validity of behavioral rating scale items for the assessment of individual creativity.

In the study of creativity, how would it do to have statements about creative people obtained in an unstructured interview form the basis for rating research personnel? After trial with 78 Ss, the data was subjected to linkage analysis. 8 types of items were identified. "It was suggested that the items presented may be valid discriminators between relatively more or less creative persons in a wide variety of research areas." (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

An experimental study of "hypnotic" (auditory and visual) hallucinations.

78 unselected female volunteers were individually pretested on response to direct suggestions designed to evoke auditory and visual hallucinations. In the same experimental session each S was retested on equivalent hallucination suggestions after the administration of 1 of the following 3 experimental treatments, with 26 Ss assigned at random to each treatment: standardized hypnotic induction procedure, brief task motivating instructions, control (no hypnotic induction or task motivating instructions). On the pretests (base level tests), 54% stated that they heard the suggested sounds and 33% reported that they saw the suggested object. Analyses of covariance indicated that: (a) the standardized hypnotic induction procedure and the brief task motivating instructions both facilitated response to the suggestions to hallucinate, (b) the group given the hypnotic induction and the group given task motivating instructions did not differ significantly from each other, and (c) both of these groups were significantly more responsive to the suggestions than the control group. (30 ref.) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

"Children's Depression Inventory: Construct and discriminant validity across clinical and nonreferred (control) populations": Correction to Carey et al.

Reports an error in "Children's Depression Inventory: Construct and discriminant validity across clinical and nonreferred (control) populations" by Michael P. Carey, Michael E. Faulstich, Frank M. Gresham, Laurie Ruggiero and Patience Enyart (Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1987[Oct], Vol 55[5], 755-761). An error occurred in Table 3. Specifically, for the three-factor solutions, the coefficient of congruence between the first factor of the combined sample and the first (rather than the second) factor of the nonreferred sample should read "93." (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 1988-06332-001.) The construct and discriminant validity of the Children's Depression Inventory (CDI) was evaluated for a large child and adolescent sample of clinical inpatients (n?=?153) and demographically comparable nonreferred subjects (n?=?153). Principal component analyses of the overall sample, using separate groups of clinical and nonreferred samples, found two- and three-factor models with optimal simple structure and clinical meaningfulness. These factors characterized Depressive Affect, Oppositional Behavior, and Personal Adjustment. The first two factors exhibited adequate internal consistency and correspondence across samples, whereas the third factor was strongest for nonreferred subjects. All three factor scores entered a significant discriminant function and correctly classified most nonreferred and clinical subjects. However, only Depressive Affect and Oppositional Behavior entered into the discriminant function that distinguished depressive and conduct-disorder subjects from nonreferred subjects. The percentage of nonreferred subjects who were correctly categorized ranged from 70.4 to 71.6, whereas the percentage of correctly classified clinical subjects ranged from 25 to 60. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Convergent and discriminant validity of three measures of stage of change.

The University of Rhode Island Change Assessment (E. A. McConnaughy, J. O. Prochaska, & W. F. Velicer, 1983), the Stages of Change Readiness and Treatment Eagerness Scale (W. R. Miller & J. S. Tonigan, 1996), and the Readiness to Change Questionnaire (S. Rollnick, N. Heather, R. Gold, & W. Hall, 1992) are commonly used multidimensional measures of stage of change. The authors examined the convergent and discriminant validity of drug-use versions of these 3 measures through multitrait-multimethod analysis in a population of indigent, out-of-treatment drug users (N = 377). Agreement in stage-of-change assignment and the relationship between stage of change and drug-use behaviors were also examined. Confirmatory factor analysis suggests that the Stages of Change Readiness and Treatment Eagerness Scale may have questionable convergent validity with the University of Rhode Island Change Assessment and Readiness to Change Questionnaire. There was moderate agreement in stage assignment. Analysis of behavior did provide some support for the construct validity of the measures. The results suggest that these drug-use stage-of-change measures may not be equivalent. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

An anxiety scale for the Strong Vocational Interest Inventory: Development, cross-validation, and subsequent tests of validity.

A level of adjustment dimension utilizing a combination of Taylor MAS and Winne Scale of Neuroticism scales has been developed for the Strong VIB. 400 graduate psychology students served as Ss while a second validation used 200 male freshmen. For the 33 items split-half reliability on the first cross-validation was .73. Criterion cross-validations yielded corrected correlations of .44 and .51. 27 references. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The Child Attachment Interview: A psychometric study of reliability and discriminant validity.

While well-established attachment measures have been developed for infancy, early childhood, and adulthood, a "measurement gap" has been identified in middle childhood, where behavioral or representational measures are not yet sufficiently robust. This article documents the development of a new measure--the Child Attachment Interview (CAI)--which seeks to bridge this gap. The CAI is a semistructured interview, in which children are invited to describe their relationships with their primary caregivers. The coding system is informed by the Adult Attachment Interview and the Strange Situation Procedure, and produces 4 attachment categories along with a continuous measure of attachment security based on ratings of attachment-related dimensions. The main psychometric properties are presented, including interrater reliability, test-retest reliability, and concurrent and discriminant validities, both for normally developing children and for those referred for mental health treatment. The CAI correlates as expected with other attachment measures and predicts independently collected ratings of social functioning. The findings suggest that the CAI is a reliable, valid, and promising measure of child-parent attachment in middle childhood. Directions for improvements to the coding system are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Suicide Attempt Self-Injury Interview (SASII): Development, reliability, and validity of a scale to assess suicide attempts and intentional self-injury.

The authors describe the development of the Suicide Attempt Self-Injury Interview (SASII), an instrument designed to assess the factors involved in nonfatal suicide attempts and intentional self-injury. Using 4 cohorts of participants, authors generated SASII items and evaluated them with factor and content analyses and internal consistency statistics. The final measure was assessed for reliability and validity with collateral measures. The SASII assesses variables related to method, lethality and impulsivity of the act, likelihood of rescue, suicide intent or ambivalence and other motivations, consequences, and habitual self-injury. The SASII was found to have very good interrater reliability and adequate validity. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Diagnostic validity of the Eppendorf Schizophrenia Inventory (ESI): A self-report screen for ultrahigh risk and acute psychosis.

[Correction Notice: An erratum for this article was reported in Vol 23(1) of Psychological Assessment (see record 2011-04411-006). Presents changes that are very small and do not in any way affect the findings of the research. These changes are explained in the correction.] Providers of mental health services need tools to screen for acute psychosis and ultrahigh risk (UHR) for transition to psychosis in help-seeking individuals. In this study, the Eppendorf Schizophrenia Inventory (ESI) was examined as a screening tool and for its ability to correctly predict diagnostic group membership (e.g., help seeking, mild psychiatric complaints, highly symptomatic mood or anxiety disorder, UHR, acute psychosis). Diagnostic evaluation with established instruments was used for diagnosis in 3 research samples. UHR status was assessed with the Structured Interview for Prodromal Symptoms/Scale of Prodromal Symptoms (Miller et al., 1999) and the Bonn Scale for the Assessment of Basic Symptoms Prediction list (Gross, Huber, Klosterk?tter, & Linz, 1987; Klosterk?tter, Hellmich, Steinmeyer, & Schulze-Lutter, 2001). This study showed that members of different diagnostic groups rate themselves significantly differently on the ESI and its subscales. A new subscale was constructed, the UHR–Psychosis scale, that showed good utility in detecting individuals with interview-diagnosed UHR status and acute psychosis. The scale is also sensitive to the threshold between UHR and acute psychosis. Practical applications of the ESI include use as a diagnostic tool within various settings. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

Large-scale investigation of the role of trait activation theory for understanding assessment center convergent and discriminant validity.

This study used trait activation theory as a theoretical framework to conduct a large-scale test of the interactionist explanation of the convergent and discriminant validity findings obtained in assessment centers. Trait activation theory specifies the conditions in which cross-situationally consistent and inconsistent candidate performances are likely to occur. Results obtained by aggregating correlations across 30 multitrait-multimethod matrices supported the propositions of trait activation theory, shedding a more positive light on the construct validity puzzle in assessment centers. Overall, convergence among assessment center ratings was better between exercises that provided an opportunity to observe behavior related to the same trait, and discrimination among ratings within exercises was generally better for dimensions that were not expressions of the same underlying traits. Implications for assessment center research and practice are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

The validity of the guilty knowledge technique: The effects of faking.

In developing an alternative to the lie detector, a questionnaire was given 20 Ss with the GSR. 1 response in each multiple-choice item was a guilty response known to the examiner. Ss were bribed to defeat the GSR after being trained to do so. They failed. Although conventional methods may be used in more instances, this objectively scored, guilt knowledge test offers a valuable alternative. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The validity of the desired effects of drinking scale with a late adolescent sample.

This study evaluated the validity of the Desired Effects of Drinking Scale (DEoDS) with a late adolescent sample. This brief measure (37 items) was designed to assess reasons for drinking across 9 domains. Across a culturally diverse sample of late adolescents (ages 18-20 years), this measure evidenced high internal consistency, particularly when all items were summed in 1 full-scale score. Contrary to the factors found with adults, 8 factors emerged with this sample. No differences were found by culture, providing initial evidence for the cross-cultural validity of this measure. In addition, gender differences emerged for only 1 factor. Overall, the results provide empirical support for the use of this measure to assess late adolescents' and emerging adults' reasons for drinking. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The Racial and Ethnic Microaggressions Scale (REMS): Construction, reliability, and validity.

Racial microaggressions are subtle statements and behaviors that unconsciously communicate denigrating messages to people of color. In recent years, a theoretical taxonomy and subsequent qualitative studies have introduced the types of microaggressions that people of color experience. In the present study, college- and Internet-based samples of African Americans, Latina/os, Asian Americans, and multiracial participants (N = 661) were used to develop and validate the Racial and Ethnic Microaggression Scale (REMS). In Study 1, an exploratory principal-components analyses (n = 443) yielded a 6-factor model: (a) Assumptions of Inferiority, (b) Second-Class Citizen and Assumptions of Criminality, (c) Microinvalidations, (d) Exoticization/Assumptions of Similarity, (e) Environmental Microaggressions, and (f) Workplace and School Microaggressions, with a Cronbach's alpha of .912 for the overall model and subscales ranging from .783 to .873. In Study 2, a confirmatory factor analysis (n = 218) supported the 6-factor model with a Cronbach's alpha of .892. Further analyses indicate that the REMS is a valid measure of racial microaggressions, as evidenced by high correlations with existing measures of racism and participants' feedback. Future research directions and implications for practice are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

Commentary: The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking already overcome many of the perceived weaknesses that Silvia et al.'s (2008) methods are intended to correct.

Commentary on an article by P. J. Silvia et al. (see record 2008-05954-001) which discusses the topic of divergent thinking. Silvia et al.'s (2008) primary motivations for exploring and proposing their subjective scoring method are their perceived deficiencies of current divergent thinking tests. First, scores on divergent thinking tests frequently correlate highly with general intelligence. Second, the scoring of divergent thinking tests has changed little since the 1960s. Third, the necessity of instructing people to be creative prior to taking divergent thinking tests is integral to obtaining useful responses and needs to be reaffirmed. Fourth, and finally, the problems posed by uniqueness scoring--confounding with fluency, ambiguity of rarity, and the seeming "penalty" imposed on large samples--need to be addressed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

An examination of the convergent and discriminant validity of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire.

This study examined the factor structure of the parent and teacher versions of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ; R. Goodman, 1997) with a sample of first-grade children at risk for educational failure. The 5-factor model previously found in studies using exploratory factor analysis was fit to the data for both parent and teacher questionnaires. Fit indices for both versions were marginally adequate. Model fit was comparable across gender and ethnic groups. Factor fit for the parent questionnaire was invariant across parent educational level. The examination of convergent and discriminant validity included peer evaluations of each SDQ construct. Thus, each of the five constructs was evaluated by three sources (parent, teacher, and child). On the basis of D. T. Campbell and D. W. Fiske's (1959) multitrait-multimethod approach as well as a confirmatory factor analysis using the correlated uniqueness model, the SDQ has good convergent validity but relatively poor discriminant validity. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)