Open to interpretation? Inconsistent reporting of lifetime nonsuicidal self-injury across two common assessments

© 2020 american psychological association. Nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI) is typically assessed using either single-item questionnaires or checklists of common behaviors, but preliminary research suggests that checklists produce higher lifetime prevalence rates. In 2 preregistered studies (combined n = 1,364), we tested whether memory cueing afforded by behavioral checklists accounts for this discrepancy. Participants reported their lifetime NSSI history using both a single-item and a checklist, with presentation order randomized across participants. Nearly a third of participants reported inconsistent NSSI histories on the 2 assessments, with participants 1.57 times more likely to report an NSSI history on a checklist than on a single-item. Counter to the memory account, this discrepancy was evident even when participants completed the checklist first, suggesting that the increased prevalence estimates captured by checklists are unlikely to simply reflect memory facilitation. Across the 2 samples, 12.5% of participants would have been incorrectly screened out in 2-step assessments; these participants were more likely to have engaged in NSSI historically, less likely to self-injure by cutting, and (in Study 2 only) were more likely to be men. These studies suggest that the inconsistencies across 2 of the most common NSSI assessments arise because people dissimilar to the lay conceptualization of self-injury are less likely to endorse a single-item, even when they have affirmed engaging in self-injury behaviors on a checklist. We argue that single-item and checklist assessments capture different aspects of NSSI, such that future research should distinguish between behaviorally identified NSSI assessed with behavioral checklists and self-identified NSSI assessed with single-item assessments.

Open to interpretation? Inconsistent reporting of lifetime nonsuicidal self-injury across two common assessments

© 2020 american psychological association. Nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI) is typically assessed using either single-item questionnaires or checklists of common behaviors, but preliminary research suggests that checklists produce higher lifetime prevalence rates. In 2 preregistered studies (combined n = 1,364), we tested whether memory cueing afforded by behavioral checklists accounts for this discrepancy. Participants reported their lifetime NSSI history using both a single-item and a checklist, with presentation order randomized across participants. Nearly a third of participants reported inconsistent NSSI histories on the 2 assessments, with participants 1.57 times more likely to report an NSSI history on a checklist than on a single-item. Counter to the memory account, this discrepancy was evident even when participants completed the checklist first, suggesting that the increased prevalence estimates captured by checklists are unlikely to simply reflect memory facilitation. Across the 2 samples, 12.5% of participants would have been incorrectly screened out in 2-step assessments; these participants were more likely to have engaged in NSSI historically, less likely to self-injure by cutting, and (in Study 2 only) were more likely to be men. These studies suggest that the inconsistencies across 2 of the most common NSSI assessments arise because people dissimilar to the lay conceptualization of self-injury are less likely to endorse a single-item, even when they have affirmed engaging in self-injury behaviors on a checklist. We argue that single-item and checklist assessments capture different aspects of NSSI, such that future research should distinguish between behaviorally identified NSSI assessed with behavioral checklists and self-identified NSSI assessed with single-item assessments.

Open to interpretation? Inconsistent reporting of lifetime non-suicidal self-injury across two common assessments

Non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI) is typically assessed using either single-item questionnaires or checklists of common behaviours, but preliminary research suggests that checklists produce higher lifetime prevalence rates. In two pre-registered studies (combined n = 1364), we tested whether memory cueing afforded by behavioural checklists accounts for this discrepancy. Participants reported their lifetime NSSI history using both a single-item and a checklist, with presentation order randomised across participants. Nearly a third of participants reported inconsistent NSSI histories on the two assessments, with participants 1.57 times more likely to report an NSSI history on a checklist than on a single-item. Counter to the memory account, this discrepancy was evident even when participants completed the checklist first, suggesting that the increased prevalence estimates captured by checklists are unlikely to simply reflect memory facilitation. Across the two samples, 12.5% of participants would have been incorrectly screened out in two-step assessments; these participants were more likely to have engaged in NSSI historically, less likely to self-injure by cutting, and (in Study 2 only) were more likely to be men. These studies suggest that the inconsistencies across two of the most common NSSI assessments arise because people dissimilar to the lay conceptualisation of self-injury are less likely to endorse a single-item, even when they have affirmed engaging in self-injury behaviours on a checklist. We argue that single-item and checklist assessments capture different aspects of NSSI, such that future research should distinguish between behaviourally-identified NSSI assessed with behavioural checklists and self-identified NSSI assessed with single-item assessments.

Benefits and Costs of Context Reinstatement in Episodic Memory: An ERP Study

This study investigated context-dependent episodic memory retrieval. An influential idea in the memory literature is that performance benefits when the retrieval context overlaps with the original encoding context. However, such memory facilitation may not be driven by the encoding–retrieval overlap per se but by the presence of diagnostic features in the reinstated context that discriminate the target episode from competing episodes. To test this prediction, the encoding–retrieval overlap and the diagnostic value of the context were manipulated in a novel associative recognition memory task. Participants were asked to memorize word pairs presented together with diagnostic (unique) and nondiagnostic (shared) background scenes. At test, participants recognized the word pairs in the presence and absence of the previously encoded contexts. Behavioral data show facilitated memory performance in the presence of the original context but, importantly, only when the context was diagnostic of the target episode. The electrophysiological data reveal an early anterior ERP encoding–retrieval overlap effect that tracks the cost associated with having nondiagnostic contexts present at retrieval, that is, shared by multiple previous episodes, and a later posterior encoding–retrieval overlap effect that reflects facilitated access to the target episode during retrieval in diagnostic contexts. Taken together, our results underscore the importance of the diagnostic value of the context and suggest that context-dependent episodic memory effects are multiple determined.