Older adult psychopathology: international comparisons of self-reports, collateral reports, and cross-informant agreement

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
L.A. Rescorla ◽  
M.Y. Ivanova ◽  
T.M. Achenbach ◽  
Vera Almeida ◽  
Meltem Anafarta-Sendag ◽  
...  

ABSTRACT Objectives: To conduct international comparisons of self-reports, collateral reports, and cross-informant agreement regarding older adult psychopathology. Participants: We compared self-ratings of problems (e.g. I cry a lot) and personal strengths (e.g. I like to help others) for 10,686 adults aged 60–102 years from 19 societies and collateral ratings for 7,065 of these adults from 12 societies. Measurements: Data were obtained via the Older Adult Self-Report (OASR) and the Older Adult Behavior Checklist (OABCL; Achenbach et al., 2004). Results: Cronbach’s alphas were .76 (OASR) and .80 (OABCL) averaged across societies. Across societies, 27 of the 30 problem items with the highest mean ratings and 28 of the 30 items with the lowest mean ratings were the same on the OASR and the OABCL. Q correlations between the means of the 0–1–2 ratings for the 113 problem items averaged across all pairs of societies yielded means of .77 (OASR) and .78 (OABCL). For the OASR and OABCL, respectively, analyses of variance (ANOVAs) yielded effect sizes (ESs) for society of 15% and 18% for Total Problems and 42% and 31% for Personal Strengths, respectively. For 5,584 cross-informant dyads in 12 societies, cross-informant correlations averaged across societies were .68 for Total Problems and .58 for Personal Strengths. Mixed-model ANOVAs yielded large effects for society on both Total Problems (ES = 17%) and Personal Strengths (ES = 36%). Conclusions: The OASR and OABCL are efficient, low-cost, easily administered mental health assessments that can be used internationally to screen for many problems and strengths.

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Zola ◽  
David M. Condon ◽  
William Revelle

Despite their added benefits, informant-reports are largely underutilized in personality research. We demonstrate the feasibility of collecting informant-reports online, where researchers have unprecedented access to large, global populations. Using an entirely free, opt-in procedure tied to an existing personality survey, we collected 1,554 informant-reports for 921 unique targets, in conjunction with over 158,000 self-reports. Informant-reports showed a strong correspondence to self-reported traits at three levels of analysis: among the Big Five domains, the lower-level SPI-27 factors (Condon, 2018), and at the item-scale level. Among the Big Five, self-informant agreement ranged between .63 and .72, except for Openness (.42). Higher informant-ratings of Extraversion were positively associated with all Big Five self-ratings in the direction of social desirability. Across the Big Five and the 27 lower-order traits, agreement was strongest between self-reports of compassion and informant-reports of agreeableness (.74) and weakest between self-reported emotional expressiveness and informant-reported emotional stability (.02). Agreement between informants was roughly equivalent for all of the Big Five traits (.29 to .35) and attractiveness (.37), though agreement between informants for perceived intelligence was non-significant. In addition, we empirically identified the self-report items that best predict what informants say about targets, highlighting the features of self-reported personality that are most readily confirmed by informants. Finally, we discuss group level differences of participants who interacted with the informant-report system at various levels. In general, participants who sought and provided informant reports are more open and agreeable than the general sample, though targets’ personality did not affect whether or not invited informants provided ratings.


Author(s):  
Jianghong Liu ◽  
Fanghong Dong ◽  
Christopher M. Lee ◽  
Jenny Reyes ◽  
Masha Ivanova

Given the global public health burden of mental illness, there is a critical need for culturally validated psychopathology assessment tools that perform well in diverse societies. This study examines the psychometric properties of the Adult Self-Report (ASR) and Adult Behavioral Checklist (ABCL) from the Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessments in adults in China. Chinese adults (N = 1276) and their spouses completed the ASR and ABCL, respectively. We conducted confirmatory factor analysis on 99 ASR items and 93 ABCL items. Estimators of model fit confirmed that both measures demonstrated excellent fit (e.g., root mean square error of approximation = 0.016 and 0.018, respectively). Syndrome loadings on both measures were satisfactory but generally higher on the ASR. Neither gender nor education had significant effects, but there were informant x gender effects on most problem scales. Cross-informant agreement correlations between the ASR and ABCL were medium to large. Findings from this novel sample of Chinese adults are consistent with previous validation studies supporting the dimensionality, syndrome structure, gender differences, and inter-informant agreement of the ASR and ABCL. Our findings contribute to the cross-cultural understanding of mental health assessment and offer a psychometrically sound approach to measuring adult psychopathology in Chinese populations.


2006 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 131-139 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juliane Degner ◽  
Dirk Wentura ◽  
Klaus Rothermund

Abstract: We review research on response-latency based (“implicit”) measures of attitudes by examining what hopes and intentions researchers have associated with their usage. We identified the hopes of (1) gaining better measures of interindividual differences in attitudes as compared to self-report measures (quality hope); (2) better predicting behavior, or predicting other behaviors, as compared to self-reports (incremental validity hope); (3) linking social-cognitive theories more adequately to empirical research (theory-link hope). We argue that the third hope should be the starting point for using these measures. Any attempt to improve these measures should include the search for a small-scale theory that adequately explains the basic effects found with such a measure. To date, small-scale theories for different measures are not equally well developed.


GeroPsych ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-52
Author(s):  
Matthew C. Costello ◽  
Shane J. Sizemore ◽  
Kimberly E. O’Brien ◽  
Lydia K. Manning

Abstract. This study explores the relative value of both subjectively reported cognitive speed and gait speed in association with objectively derived cognitive speed. It also explores how these factors are affected by psychological and physical well-being. A group of 90 cognitively healthy older adults ( M = 73.38, SD = 8.06 years, range = 60–89 years) were tested in a three-task cognitive battery to determine objective cognitive speed as well as measures of gait speed, well-being, and subjective cognitive speed. Analyses indicated that gait speed was associated with objective cognitive speed to a greater degree than was subjective report, the latter being more closely related to well-being than to objective cognitive speed. These results were largely invariant across the 30-year age range of our older adult sample.


2014 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 231-237 ◽  
Author(s):  
Markus Quirin ◽  
Regina C. Bode

Self-report measures for the assessment of trait or state affect are typically biased by social desirability or self-delusion. The present work provides an overview of research using a recently developed measure of automatic activation of cognitive representation of affective experiences, the Implicit Positive and Negative Affect Test (IPANAT). In the IPANAT, participants judge the extent to which nonsense words from an alleged artificial language express a number of affective states or traits. The test demonstrates appropriate factorial validity and reliabilities. We review findings that support criterion validity and, additionally, present novel variants of this procedure for the assessment of the discrete emotions such as happiness, anger, sadness, and fear.


2017 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 283-290
Author(s):  
김다정 ◽  
이동우 ◽  
Kyung-Ja Oh ◽  
CHOI, JI YOUNG
Keyword(s):  

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carl Pierre Jago ◽  
Karen R. Dobkins

To appeal to the opposite gender, previous research indicates that men emphasize their wealth, status, and ambition, whereas women emphasize their physical attractiveness. Such behavior seems surprising given previous surveys in which men and women reported these traits to be less important than others such as trustworthiness, intelligence, and warmth. We addressed one potential reason for any disconnect, which is that men’s and women’s beliefs about what the opposite gender prefers are misguided—according to the opposite genders’ self-reports. Using a new method, we asked participants to both self-report the traits they prefer in a romantic partner and to indicate what they imagine the opposite gender prefers. The results reveal striking discrepancies between what people report wanting in a potential partner and what the opposite gender imagines they want. Additionally, women appear to be better at imagining men’s preferences, and we discuss several reasons why this might be the case.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-26
Author(s):  
Traci A. Bekelman ◽  
Corby K. Martin ◽  
Susan L. Johnson ◽  
Deborah H. Glueck ◽  
Katherine A. Sauder ◽  
...  

Abstract The limitations of self-report measures of dietary intake are well known. Novel, technology-based measures of dietary intake may provide a more accurate, less burdensome alternative to existing tools. The first objective of this study was to compare participant burden for two technology-based measures of dietary intake among school-age children: the Automated-Self Administered 24-hour Dietary Assessment Tool-2018 (ASA24-2018) and the Remote Food Photography Method (RFPM). The second objective was to compare reported energy intake for each method to the Estimated Energy Requirement for each child, as a benchmark for actual intake. Forty parent-child dyads participated in 2, 3-day dietary assessments: a parent proxy-reported version of the ASA24 and the RFPM. A parent survey was subsequently administered to compare satisfaction, ease of use and burden with each method. A linear mixed model examined differences in total daily energy intake (TDEI) between assessments, and between each assessment method and the EER. Reported energy intake was 379 kcal higher with the ASA24 than the RFPM (p=0.0002). Reported energy intake with the ASA24 was 231 kcal higher than the EER (p = 0.008). Reported energy intake with the RFPM did not differ significantly from the EER (difference in predicted means = −148 kcal, p = 0.09). Median satisfaction and ease of use scores were 5 out of 6 for both methods. A higher proportion of parents reported that the ASA24 was more time consuming than the RFPM (74.4% vs. 25.6%, p = 0.002). Utilization of both methods is warranted given their high satisfaction among parents.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-18
Author(s):  
Pelle Guldborg Hansen ◽  
Erik Gahner Larsen ◽  
Caroline Drøgemüller Gundersen

Abstract Surveys based on self-reported hygiene-relevant routine behaviors have played a crucial role in policy responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. In this article, using anchoring to test validity in a randomized controlled survey experiment during the COVID-19 pandemic, we demonstrate that asking people to self-report on the frequency of routine behaviors are prone to significant measurement error and systematic bias. Specifically, we find that participants across age, gender, and political allegiance report higher (lower) frequencies of COVID-19-relevant behaviors when provided with a higher (lower) anchor. The results confirm that such self-reports should not be regarded as behavioral data and should primarily be used to inform policy decisions if better alternatives are not available. To this end, we discuss the use of anchoring as a validity test relative to self-reported behaviors as well as viable alternatives to self-reports when seeking to behaviorally inform policy decisions.


Author(s):  
Yu-Hsiang Wu ◽  
Elizabeth Stangl ◽  
Octav Chipara ◽  
Anna Gudjonsdottir ◽  
Jacob Oleson ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) is a methodology involving repeated surveys to collect in-situ self-reports that describe respondents' current or recent experiences. Audiology literature comparing in-situ and retrospective self-reports is scarce. Purpose To compare the sensitivity of in-situ and retrospective self-reports in detecting the outcome difference between hearing aid technologies, and to determine the association between in-situ and retrospective self-reports. Research Design An observational study. Study Sample Thirty-nine older adults with hearing loss. Data Collection and Analysis The study was part of a larger clinical trial that compared the outcomes of a prototype hearing aid (denoted as HA1) and a commercially available device (HA2). In each trial condition, participants wore hearing aids for 4 weeks. Outcomes were measured using EMA and retrospective questionnaires. To ensure that the outcome data could be directly compared, the Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile was administered as an in-situ self-report (denoted as EMA-GHABP) and as a retrospective questionnaire (retro-GHABP). Linear mixed models were used to determine if the EMA- and retro-GHABP could detect the outcome difference between HA1 and HA2. Correlation analyses were used to examine the association between EMA- and retro-GHABP. Results For the EMA-GHABP, HA2 had significantly higher (better) scores than HA1 in the GHABP subscales of benefit, residual disability, and satisfaction (p = 0.029–0.0015). In contrast, the difference in the retro-GHABP score between HA1 and HA2 was significant only in the satisfaction subscale (p = 0.0004). The correlations between the EMA- and retro-GHABP were significant in all subscales (p = 0.0004 to <0.0001). The strength of the association ranged from weak to moderate (r = 0.28–0.58). Finally, the exit interview indicated that 29 participants (74.4%) preferred HA2 over HA1. Conclusion The study suggests that in-situ self-reports collected using EMA could have a higher sensitivity than retrospective questionnaires. Therefore, EMA is worth considering in clinical trials that aim to compare the outcomes of different hearing aid technologies. The weak to moderate association between in-situ and retrospective self-reports suggests that these two types of measures assess different aspects of hearing aid outcomes.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document