Frischholz Edward J, Tryon Warren W, Spiegel Herbert, Fisher Stanley
a Columbia University.
Am J Clin Hypn. 2015;57(2):129-36. doi: 10.1080/00029157.2015.967069.
Hilgard's comment raises some important issues, although many of these have little to do with the primary purpose of the study under discussion. This purpose was to objectively examine the relationship between three conceptually and operationally different procedures for measuring hypnotic responsivity. Hilgard's concern over the magnitude of the correlation between the HIP and SHSS:C is unfounded. A cross-validated correlation of .66 was found between the HIP and SHSS:C in a new sample of 44 student volunteers. This demonstrates that the HIP correlates about the same with SHSS:C as the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility. Hilgard's conception of the Eye-Roll (ER) hypothesis is clarified. Evidence which utilizes all cases in the correlational analysis is presented in support of the ER hypothesis. Happily, we all agree on a new methodology which will be definitive in testing the validity of the ER hypothesis.
希尔加德的评论提出了一些重要问题，尽管其中许多问题与正在讨论的研究的主要目的关系不大。该研究的目的是客观地考察三种在概念和操作上不同的测量催眠反应性的程序之间的关系。希尔加德对哈佛群体催眠易感性量表（HIP）和斯坦福催眠感受性量表：临床版（SHSS:C）之间相关性大小的担忧是没有根据的。在一个由44名学生志愿者组成的新样本中，发现HIP和SHSS:C之间的交叉验证相关性为0.66。这表明HIP与SHSS:C的相关性与哈佛群体催眠易感性量表大致相同。希尔加德对眼球转动（ER）假设的概念得到了澄清。在相关分析中使用所有案例的证据被提出来支持ER假设。令人高兴的是，我们都认同一种新的方法，这种方法将对检验ER假设的有效性具有决定性作用。
