Harvard Medical School, Department of Health Care Policy, USA; National University of Singapore, Department of Psychology, Singapore.
Center for Technology and Behavioral Health, Geisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College, USA.
J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry. 2024 Mar;82:101918. doi: 10.1016/j.jbtep.2023.101918. Epub 2023 Oct 20.
Cognitive bias theories posit that generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) and social anxiety disorder (SAD) are entwined with attention bias toward threats, commonly indexed by faster response time (RT) on threat-congruent (vs. threat-incongruent) trials on the visual dot probe. Moreover, although smartphone ecological momentary assessment (EMA) of the visual dot probe has been developed, their psychometric properties are understudied. This study thus aimed to assess the reliability of 8 smartphone-delivered visual dot probe attention bias and related indices in persons with and without GAD and SAD.
Community-dwelling adults (n = 819; GAD: 64%; SAD: 49%; Mixed GAD and SAD: 37%; Non-GAD/SAD Controls: 24%) completed a five-trial smartphone-delivered visual dot probe for a median of 60 trials (12 sessions x 5 trials/session) and an average of 100 trials (20 sessions x 5 trials/session).
As hypothesized, Global Attention Bias Index, Disengagement Effect, and Facilitation Bias had low-reliability estimates. However, retest-reliability and internal reliability were good for Trial-Level Bias Scores (TLBS) (Bias Toward Treat: intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) = 0.626-0.644; split-half r = 0.640-0.670; Attention Bias Variability: ICCs = 0.507-0.567; split-half r = 0.520-0.580) and (In)congruent RTs. Poor retest-reliability and internal reliability estimates were consistently observed for all traditional attention bias and related indices but not TLBS.
Our visual dot probe EMA should have administered ≥320 trials to match best-practice guidelines based on similar laboratory studies.
Future research should strive to examine attention bias paradigms beyond the dot-probe task that evidenced meaningful test-retest reliability properties in laboratory and real-world naturalistic settings.
认知偏差理论认为，广泛性焦虑障碍（GAD）和社交焦虑障碍（SAD）与对威胁的注意力偏向有关，通常表现为在视觉点探测任务中，对威胁一致（vs. 威胁不一致）的试验反应时间（RT）更快。此外，尽管已经开发了智能手机的生态瞬时评估（EMA）来评估视觉点探测，但它们的心理计量特性仍有待研究。因此，本研究旨在评估智能手机提供的 8 种视觉点探测注意力偏差及其相关指标在 GAD 和 SAD 患者及无 GAD/SAD 对照组中的可靠性。
社区居民成年人（n=819；GAD：64%；SAD：49%；混合 GAD 和 SAD：37%；非 GAD/SAD 对照组：24%）完成了智能手机提供的五次视觉点探测任务，中位数为 60 次试验（12 次会话×5 次试验/会话），平均 100 次试验（20 次会话×5 次试验/会话）。
正如假设的那样，全局注意力偏差指数、脱离效应和促进偏差的可靠性估计值较低。然而，试验水平偏差得分（TLBS）的重测可靠性和内部可靠性较好（偏向处理：组内相关系数（ICCs）=0.626-0.644；分半信度 r=0.640-0.670；注意力偏差可变性：ICCs=0.507-0.567；分半信度 r=0.520-0.580）和（不一致）RT。所有传统的注意力偏差和相关指标的重测可靠性和内部可靠性估计值均较差，但 TLBS 除外。
我们的视觉点探测 EMA 应该至少进行 320 次试验，以根据类似的实验室研究符合最佳实践指南。
未来的研究应努力检验注意力偏差范式，超越点探测任务，在实验室和现实自然环境中表现出有意义的测试重测可靠性特性。
