Bantum Erin O'Carroll, Owen Jason E
Cancer Research Center of Hawaii, University of Hawaii at Manoa, USA.
Psychol Assess. 2009 Mar;21(1):79-88. doi: 10.1037/a0014643.
Psychological interventions provide linguistic data that are particularly useful for testing mechanisms of action and improving intervention methodologies. For this study, emotional expression in an Internet-based intervention for women with breast cancer (n = 63) was analyzed via rater coding and 2 computerized coding methods (Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count [LIWC] and Psychiatric Content Analysis and Diagnosis [PCAD]). Although the computerized coding methods captured most of the emotion identified by raters (LIWC sensitivity = .88; PCAD sensitivity = .83), both over-identified emotional expression (LIWC positive predictive value = .31; PCAD positive predictive value = .19). Correlational analyses suggested better convergent and discriminant validity for LIWC. The results highlight previously unrecognized deficiencies in commonly used computerized content-analysis programs and suggest potential modifications to both programs that could improve overall accuracy of automated identification of emotional expression. Although the authors recognize these limitations, they conclude that LIWC is superior to PCAD for rapid identification of emotional expression in text. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved).
心理干预提供了特别有助于测试作用机制和改进干预方法的语言数据。在本研究中，通过评分者编码和两种计算机化编码方法（语言查询与字数统计[LIWC]和精神科内容分析与诊断[PCAD]）对一项针对乳腺癌女性（n = 63）的基于互联网的干预中的情绪表达进行了分析。尽管计算机化编码方法捕捉到了评分者识别出的大部分情绪（LIWC敏感性 =.88；PCAD敏感性 =.83），但两者都过度识别了情绪表达（LIWC阳性预测值 =.31；PCAD阳性预测值 =.19）。相关性分析表明LIWC具有更好的聚合效度和区分效度。结果凸显了常用计算机化内容分析程序中先前未被认识到的缺陷，并提出了对这两种程序的潜在修改建议，这些修改可能会提高自动识别情绪表达的整体准确性。尽管作者认识到这些局限性，但他们得出结论，在快速识别文本中的情绪表达方面，LIWC优于PCAD。（《心理学文摘数据库记录》（c）2009美国心理学会，保留所有权利）
