Zech Nina, Riegel Bjoern, Rasch Bjoern, Peter Burkhard, Hansen Ernil
Department of Anesthesiology, University Hospital Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.
Private Practitioner, Hohenwestedt, Germany.
Front Psychol. 2024 Jul 31;15:1422920. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1422920. eCollection 2024.
The HGSHS:A is one of the most commonly used measures of hypnotic suggestibility. However, this test suffers from low feasibility due to a time requirement exceeding 1 h, and from a questionable representation of the normal population. Recently, a short version of HGSHS-5:G was developed and published, and now the first results are available. The scope of this investigation was to verify the assumption of equally positioned and normally distributed scores, resulting in equally sized suggestibility groups in a number of different studies with full or short versions of HGSHS, and to compare the results of the 11-item score with the 5-item score, the latter being calculated from either the full version or the short version test.
Data from 21 studies with testing for HGSHS were analyzed, 15 using the HGSHS:A full version and six using the HGSHS-5:G short version, for a total of 2,529 data sets. Position and distribution of both the 11-item score and the 5-item score were tested. Linear regression analysis was used to compare the two scores, as well as cross-table and weighted Cohen's kappa to determine the match of grouping into low and high suggestibility. To evaluate contributing factors to the observed differences in the study results, a multifactorial analysis of variance was performed.
In the different studies, position and distribution of scores, as well as group sizes for low and high suggestibles, varied. All score distributions were found to be non-normal and shifted to the right from the middle score; the shift was more extensive with the 11-item score. The correlation between both scores calculated from full version tests was moderate ( = 0.69), as was the match of suggestibility grouping (κ = 0.58). Studies using the short version involving less student-dominated populations showed sufficient agreement with the full version, but lower scores were caused by an increase in the zero score.
A normal population is not represented in most applications of HGSHS, and grouping into low and high suggestibles varies, mainly due to different positions of score distributions. A direct comparison of full and short versions of HGSHS tested in the same subjects is still missing.
哈佛群体催眠易感性量表A（HGSHS:A）是最常用的催眠易感性测量方法之一。然而，该测试存在可行性低的问题，因为测试时间超过1小时，且对正常人群的代表性存疑。最近，开发并发表了HGSHS-5:G的简短版本，现在已有首批结果。本研究的范围是验证在多项使用HGSHS完整版或简短版的不同研究中，分数处于同等位置且呈正态分布这一假设是否成立，进而形成同等规模的易感性分组，并比较11项得分与5项得分的结果，5项得分由完整版或简短版测试计算得出。
分析了21项进行HGSHS测试的研究数据，其中15项使用HGSHS:A完整版，6项使用HGSHS-5:G简短版，共计2529个数据集。对11项得分和5项得分的位置及分布进行了测试。使用线性回归分析比较这两个得分，以及使用交叉表和加权科恩kappa系数来确定低易感性和高易感性分组的匹配情况。为评估导致研究结果中观察到差异的影响因素，进行了多因素方差分析。
在不同研究中，得分的位置和分布以及低易感性和高易感性的组规模各不相同。所有得分分布均呈非正态，且从中位数得分向右偏移；11项得分的偏移更为明显。完整版测试计算出的两个得分之间的相关性中等（r = 0.69），易感性分组的匹配度也中等（κ = 0.58）。使用简短版且学生主导人群较少的研究与完整版显示出足够的一致性，但得分较低是由于零分增加所致。
HGSHS的大多数应用并未体现正常人群的情况，低易感性和高易感性分组各不相同，主要是由于得分分布位置不同。仍缺少在同一受试者中对HGSHS完整版和简短版进行直接比较的研究。
