Literature DB >> 35650382

Same same, but different: A psychometric examination of three frequently used experimental tasks for cognitive bias assessment in a sample of healthy young adults.

Alla Machulska1, Kristian Kleinke2, Tim Klucken3.   

Abstract

Cognitive bias research draws upon the notion that altered information processing is key for understanding psychological functioning and well-being. However, little attention has been paid to the question of whether the frequently used experimental paradigms hold adequate psychometric properties. The present study examined the psychometric properties of three widely used cognitive bias tasks: the Approach-Avoidance Task (AAT), the visual dot-probe-task, and the Implicit Association Test (IAT). Approach, attentional, and association biases towards valenced stimuli were repeatedly measured at five different time points in a sample of 79 healthy young adults. Two different devices were used for assessment: a personal computer (PC) and a touchscreen-based tablet. Reliability estimates included internal consistency and temporal stability. Validity was inferred from convergence across different behavioral tasks and correlations between bias scores and self-reported psychological traits. Reliability ranged widely amongst tasks, assessment devices, and measurement time points. While the dot-probe-task appeared to be completely unreliable, bias scores obtained from the PC-based version of the AAT and both (PC and touchscreen) versions of the IAT showed moderate reliability. Almost no associations were found across information processing tasks or between implicit and explicit measures. Cognitive bias research should adopt a standard practice to routinely estimate and report psychometric properties of experimental paradigms, investigate feasible ways to develop more reliable tools, and use tasks that are suitable to answer the precise research question asked.
© 2022. The Author(s).

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cognitive bias; Experimental tasks; Information processing; Psychometric properties; Reliability; Validity

Year:  2022        PMID: 35650382     DOI: 10.3758/s13428-022-01804-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Behav Res Methods        ISSN: 1554-351X


  48 in total

1.  Implicit attitude measures: consistency, stability, and convergent validity.

Authors:  W A Cunningham; K J Preacher; M R Banaji
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2001-03

2.  Internal reliability of measures of substance-related cognitive bias.

Authors:  Alia F Ataya; Sally Adams; Emma Mullings; Robbie M Cooper; Angela S Attwood; Marcus R Munafò
Journal:  Drug Alcohol Depend       Date:  2011-09-29       Impact factor: 4.492

3.  Phenomenological Characteristics of Attentional Biases Towards Threat: A Critical Review.

Authors:  Josh M Cisler; Amy K Bacon; Nathan L Williams
Journal:  Cognit Ther Res       Date:  2009-04

4.  Relevance is in the eye of the beholder: attentional bias to relevant stimuli in children.

Authors:  Suzanne Broeren; Kathryn J Lester
Journal:  Emotion       Date:  2012-11-19

5.  Fleeting reliability in the dot-probe task.

Authors:  Angus Chapman; Christel Devue; Gina M Grimshaw
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2017-11-20

Review 6.  Cognitive biases in anxiety disorders and their effect on cognitive-behavioral treatment.

Authors:  M G Craske; D C Pontillo
Journal:  Bull Menninger Clin       Date:  2001

7.  A Question of Control? Examining the Role of Control Conditions in Experimental Psychopathology using the Example of Cognitive Bias Modification Research.

Authors:  Simon E Blackwell; Marcella L Woud; Colin MacLeod
Journal:  Span J Psychol       Date:  2017-10-26       Impact factor: 1.264

8.  Psychometric properties of reaction time based experimental paradigms measuring anxiety-related information-processing biases in children.

Authors:  H M Brown; T C Eley; S Broeren; C Macleod; M Rinck; J A Hadwin; K J Lester
Journal:  J Anxiety Disord       Date:  2013-11-25

9.  Unreliable Yet Still Replicable: A Comment on LeBel and Paunonen (2011).

Authors:  Maarten De Schryver; Sean Hughes; Yves Rosseel; Jan De Houwer
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2016-01-13
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.