Examining Safety Behavior Subtypes Across Distinct Social Contexts in Social Anxiety Disorder and Major Depression

People with social anxiety disorder (SAD) use different types of safety behaviors that have been classified as avoidance vs. impression management. The current study investigated differences in safety behavior subtype use in 132 individuals with principal diagnoses of social anxiety disorder (SAD, n = 69), major depressive disorder (MDD, n = 30), and nonpatient controls (n = 33) across two social contexts: an interpersonal relationship-building task (social affiliation) and a speech task (social performance). We examined whether diagnostic groups differed in safety behavior subtype use and whether group differences varied by social context. We also explored relationships between avoidance and impression management safety behaviors, respectively, and positive and negative valence affective and behavioral outcomes within the social affiliation and social performance contexts. Safety behavior use varied by diagnosis (SAD > MDD > nonpatient controls). The effect of diagnosis on impression management safety behavior use depended on social context: use was comparable for the principal SAD and MDD groups in the social performance context, whereas the SAD group used more impression management safety behaviors than the MDD group in the social affiliation context. Greater use of avoidance safety behaviors related to higher negative affect and anxious behaviors, and lower positive affect and approach behaviors across contexts. Impression management safety behaviors were most strongly associated with higher positive affect and approach behaviors within the social performance context. These findings underscore the potential value of assessing safety behavior subtypes across different contexts and within major depression, in addition to SAD.     

An evaluation of the convergent validity of a face-to-face and virtual neuropsychological assessment counter balanced

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need for further research evaluating the validity of conducting a battery of neuropsychological assessments virtually compared with face-to-face administration. Previous research has suggested that some neuropsychological assessments yield valid results when administered virtually, however, much of the previous research focused on older adults. To determine the validity of virtually administered neuropsychological tests, 28 healthy participants were assessed using a within-subjects, counter-balanced design. Participants completed a neuropsychological assessment battery covering tests of general intellectual functioning, memory and attention, executive functioning, language and information processing speed, as well as effort. There was no significant difference between face-to-face administration of the neuropsychological battery compared with virtual administration for the majority of the tests used. However, there were significant differences in the Colour Naming Task, with participants making fewer errors on the colour naming task and inhibition/switching task when administered virtually compared with face-to-face administration. There was also a significant age cohort effect in the inhibition/switching task. There was also a trending significant difference in mode of administration for the Verbal Fluency Task. Virtually administered neuropsychological assessments largely provide a valid alternative to face-to-face assessments; however, consideration must be given to test selection as well as the population of participants that are being assessed. Other important considerations must focus on preserving the security and integrity of test materials, as well as administration in a medico-legal setting. Future research should focus on validating assessments with specific patient populations and developing a neuropsychological assessment battery using information technology.     

The detection of malingering in neuropsychological assessment

Although malingering, or the manipulation of data by the patient, is a problem commonly faced by neuropsychologists, there has been little systematic investigation of this problem. This paper reviews the literature on the detection of malingering in assessment instruments commonly used by clinical neuropsychologists. Criticism of previous research is discussed, and suggestions are made both for future research and for clinical practice.     

The concurrent validity of three self-report measures of borderline personality

The recent accumulation of self-report measures of borderline personality disorder (BPD) affords the opportunity to evaluate both the construct validity of the concept and the quality of these measures. This study examines the relationship among three recently developed self-report instruments for assessing BPD from the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI; Morey, 1991), the MMPI Personality Disorders Scales (MPD; Morey, Waugh, & Blashfield, 1985), and the Bell Object Relations Inventory (BORI: Bell, Billington, & Becker, 1986). Data on the three measures were provided by 119 undergraduate subjects from a southeastern university. A correlational analysis addresses the convergence of these measures of BPD, their divergence from measures of different but related traits, and their independence from variance due to method. Application of the Campbell-Fiske (1959) criteria indicates adequate convergence for all the BPD measures but a lack of discriminant validity for the BORI scales. The fit of the data to a structural model of construct validity is tested using confirmatory factor analysis, and these results are consistent with the hypothesis of a latent borderline trait factor independent of measurement method factors. In sum, the construct validity of the borderline personality concept using self-report methodologies receives support, and a strong association between borderline personality and paranoid phenomena is also suggested.     

驾驶员心理品质检测中的杆型人形图法

在汽车驾驶员心理品质检测研究中,我们根据数学中的多变量图分析方法,并汲取简笔画的优点,用19个人形图变量代表检测所得的17种心理品质数据,来具体、形象地再现每个驾驶员心理品质变量的整体关系。这对于检测结果的分类或进行系统化分析具有重要的实用意义。     

An evaluation of the reliability of probability judgments across response modes and over time

Despite the importance of probability assessment methods in behavioral decision theory and decision analysis, little attention has been directed at evaluating their reliability and validity. In fact, no comprehensive study of reliability has been undertaken. Since reliability is a necessary condition for validity, this oversight is significant. The present study was motivated by that oversight. We investigated the reliability of probability measures derived from three response modes: numerical probabilities, pie diagrams, and odds. Unlike previous studies, the experiment was designed to distinguish systematic deviations in probability judgments, such as those due to experience or practice, from random deviations. It was found that subjects assessed probabilities reliably for all three assessment methods regardless of the reliability measures employed. However, a small but statistically significant decrease over time in the magnitudes of assessed probabilities was observed. This effect was linked to a decrease in subjects overconfidence during the course of the experiment.     

ASSESSING FOOD PREFERENCES AMONG PERSONS WITH PROFOUND MENTAL RETARDATION: PROVIDING OPPORTUNITIES TO MAKE CHOICES

Increased attention has been directed recently to assisting persons with severe handicaps to express preferences concerning events in their lives. We evaluated a program for assessing choice-making skills to provide opportunities for persons with profound mental retardation to express food and drink preferences. In Experiment 1, the assessment procedure involving repeated, paired-item presentations resulted in active choice making and the identification of preferences for all 5 participants. Results also indicated that caregiver opinion was not predictive of participant food and drink preferences. A survey of service providers supported the importance of meal-related choices in this population. In Experiment 2, the practicality of the assessment procedure was supported by demonstrating that (a) routine caregivers could apply the procedure with appropriate supervision to provide choice opportunities, and (b) results of the procedure were predictive of participant choices when a less structured and more normal opportunity to express a preference was provided during regular mealtimes. Results are discussed in terms of extending the developing technology of preference and reinforcer identification to other important areas for persons with severe disabilities.