Giromini Luciano, Pignolo Claudia, Young Gerald, Drogin Eric Y, Zennaro Alessandro, Viglione Donald J
Department of Psychology, University of Turin, Via Verdi 10, 10123 Torino, TO Italy.
Glendon College, York University, Toronto, Canada.
Psychol Inj Law. 2021;14(2):77-88. doi: 10.1007/s12207-021-09406-0. Epub 2021 Apr 5.
While the psychometric equivalence of computerized versus paper-and-pencil administration formats has been documented for some tests, so far very few studies have focused on the comparability and validity of test scores obtained via in-person versus remote administrations, and none of them have researched a symptom validity test (SVT). To contribute to fill this gap in the literature, we investigated the scores of the Inventory of Problems-29 (IOP-29) generated by various administration formats. More specifically, Study 1 evaluated the equivalence of scores from nonclinical individuals administered the IOP-29 remotely ( = 146) versus in-person via computer ( = 140) versus in-person via paper-and-pencil format ( = 140). Study 2 reviewed published IOP-29 studies conducted using remote/online versus in-person, paper-and-pencil test administrations to determine if remote testing could adversely influence the validity of IOP-29 test results. Taken together, our findings suggest that the effectiveness of the IOP-29 is preserved when alternating between face-to-face and online/remote formats.
虽然一些测试已证明计算机化施测形式与纸笔施测形式在心理测量学上具有等效性,但迄今为止,很少有研究关注通过面对面施测与远程施测获得的测试分数的可比性和有效性,而且没有一项研究对症状效度测试(SVT)进行过研究。为了填补文献中的这一空白,我们调查了各种施测形式产生的问题清单-29(IOP-29)的分数。更具体地说,研究1评估了通过远程方式(n = 146)、通过计算机面对面方式(n = 140)以及通过纸笔形式面对面方式(n = 140)施测IOP-29的非临床个体的分数等效性。研究2回顾了已发表的使用远程/在线与面对面纸笔测试施测方式进行的IOP-29研究,以确定远程测试是否会对IOP-29测试结果的有效性产生不利影响。综合来看,我们的研究结果表明,当在面对面和在线/远程形式之间交替时,IOP-29的有效性得以保持。