Duken Sascha B, Moriya Jun, Hirsch Colette, Woud Marcella L, van Bockstaele Bram, Salemink Elske
Department of Clinical Psychology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Faculty of Sociology, Kansai University, Suita, Japan.
Behav Res Methods. 2025 Jan 7;57(1):48. doi: 10.3758/s13428-024-02576-0.
People with social anxiety disorder tend to interpret ambiguous social information in a negative rather than positive manner. Such interpretation biases may cause and maintain anxiety symptoms. However, there is considerable variability in the observed effects across studies, with some not finding a relationship between interpretation biases and social anxiety. Poor psychometric properties of interpretation bias measures may explain such inconsistent findings. We evaluated the internal consistency, test-retest reliability, convergent validity, and concurrent validity of four interpretation bias measures, ranging from more implicit and automatic to more explicit and reflective: the probe scenario task, the recognition task, the scrambled sentences task, and the interpretation and judgmental bias questionnaire. Young adults (N = 94) completed interpretation bias measures in two sessions separated by one week. Psychometric properties were poor for the probe scenario and not acceptable for the recognition task. The reliability of the scrambled sentences task and the interpretation and judgmental bias questionnaire was good, and they correlated highly with social anxiety and each other, supporting their concurrent and convergent validity. However, there are methodological challenges that should be considered when measuring interpretation biases, even if psychometric indices suggest high measurement validity. We also discuss likely reasons for poor psychometric properties of some tasks and suggest potential solutions to improve the assessment of implicit and automatic biases in social anxiety in future research.
社交焦虑障碍患者倾向于以消极而非积极的方式解读模糊的社交信息。这种解读偏差可能会引发并维持焦虑症状。然而,各研究中观察到的效应存在相当大的差异,有些研究并未发现解读偏差与社交焦虑之间存在关联。解读偏差测量方法的心理测量特性不佳可能解释了这些不一致的研究结果。我们评估了四种解读偏差测量方法的内部一致性、重测信度、收敛效度和同时效度,这些方法从更隐性和自动的到更显性和反思性的依次为:探测情景任务、识别任务、打乱句子任务以及解读与判断偏差问卷。年轻成年人(N = 94)在相隔一周的两个阶段完成了解读偏差测量。探测情景任务的心理测量特性较差,识别任务的则不可接受。打乱句子任务以及解读与判断偏差问卷的信度良好,它们与社交焦虑之间以及彼此之间都高度相关,支持了它们的同时效度和收敛效度。然而,即使心理测量指标表明测量效度较高,在测量解读偏差时仍存在一些方法学挑战需要考虑。我们还讨论了一些任务心理测量特性不佳的可能原因,并提出了潜在的解决方案,以便在未来研究中改进对社交焦虑中隐性和自动偏差的评估。