Top

Tip

Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel

Gepubliceerd in:

17-02-2021 | Original Article

The Reliability and Validity of Response-Based Measures of Attention Bias

Auteurs: Emily E. E. Meissel, Huiting Liu, Elizabeth S. Stevens, Travis C. Evans, Jennifer C. Britton, Allison M. Letkiewicz, Stewart A. Shankman

Gepubliceerd in: Cognitive Therapy and Research | Uitgave 1/2022

Abstract

Background

Attentional bias to threat is a fundamental transdiagnostic component and potential vulnerability factor for internalizing psychopathologies. However, the measurement of attentional bias, such as traditional scores from the dot-probe paradigm, evidence poor reliability and do not measure intra-individual variation in attentional bias.

Methods

The present study examined, in three independent samples, the psychometric properties of a novel attentional bias (AB) scoring method of the dot-probe task based on responses to individual trials. For six AB scores derived using the response-based approach, we assessed the internal consistency, test–retest reliability, familial associations, and external validity (using Social Anxiety Disorder, a disorder strongly associated with attentional bias to threatening faces).

Results

Compared to traditional AB scores, response-based scores had generally better internal consistency (range of Cronbach’s alphas: 0.68–0.92 vs. 0.41–0.71), higher test–retest reliabilities (range of Pearson’s correlations: 0.26–0.77 vs. − 0.05 to 0.35), and were more strongly related in family members (range of ICCs: 0.11–0.27 vs. 0–0.05). Furthermore, three response-based scores added incremental validity beyond traditional scores and gender in the external validators of current and lifetime Social Anxiety Disorder.

Conclusions

Findings indicate that response-based AB scores from the dot-probe task have better psychometric properties than traditional scores.

vorige artikel Using Network Theory for Psychoeducation in Eating Disorders

volgende artikel Higher Order Repetitive Negative Thinking Is More Robustly Related to Depression, Anxiety, and Mania Than Measures of Rumination or Worry

Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers

This Stimulus Onset Asynchrony was established from previous research (20–50 ms; Egloff and Hock 2003; Mathews et al. 1996) and piloted before data collection to ensure that the images disappeared before conscious awareness.

We explored whether AB would vary under ‘threat’ and ‘safe’ contexts (order of safe and threat were counterbalanced). During the threatening context, participants heard random presentations of a woman screaming or nails scraping on slate (see Neumann et al. 2008; who used these sounds as unconditioned stimuli in Pavlovian conditioning). The traditional and response-based measures of AB were comparable under threat vs. safe contexts (all p’s > 0.16) as were the reliabilities. Thus, for ease of presentation of results and to increase power, all analyses combined trials from threat and safe contexts.

Amir, N., Elias, J., Klumpp, H., & Przeworski, A. (2003). Attentional bias to threat in social phobia: Facilitated processing of threat or difficulty disengaging attention from threat? Behaviour Research and Therapy, 41, 1325–1335. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(03)00039-1. CrossRefPubMed

Amir, N., Prouvost, C., & Kuckertz, J. M. (2012). Lack of a benign interpretation bias in social anxiety disorder. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 41(2), 119–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/16506073.2012.662655. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Bantin, T., Stevens, S., Gerlach, A. L., & Hermann, C. (2016). What does the facial dot-probe task tell us about attentional processes in social anxiety? A systematic review. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 50, 40–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2015.04.009. CrossRefPubMed

Bar-Haim, Y., Lamy, D., Pergamin, L., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & van Ijzendoorn, M. H. (2007). Threat-related attentional bias in anxious and nonanxious individuals: a meta-analytic study. Psychological Bulletin, 133(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.1. CrossRefPubMed

Cisler, J. M., & Koster, E. H. W. (2010). Mechanisms of attentional biases towards threat in anxiety disorder: An integrative review. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(2), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2009.11.003.Mechanisms. CrossRef

Clark, D., & Wells, A. (1995). A cognitive model of social phonia. In Social phobia (p. 69). New York.

Clarke, P. J. F., MacLeod, C., & Guastella, A. J. (2013). Assessing the role of spatial engagement and disengagement of attention in anxiety-linked attentional bias: A critique of current paradigms and suggestions for future research directions. Anxiety Stress and Coping, 26(1), 1–19. CrossRef

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Crawford, J., Cayley, C., Lovibond, P. F., Wilson, P. H., & Hartley, C. (2011). Percentile norms and accompanying interval estimates from an australian general adult population sample for self-report mood scales (BAI, BDI, CRSD, CES-D, DASS, DASS-21, STAI-X, STAI-Y, SRDS, and SRAS). Australian Psychologist, 46(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-9544.2010.00003.x. CrossRef

Egloff, B., & Hock, M. (2003). Assessing attention allocation toward threat-related stimuli: A comparison of the emotional Stroop task and the attentional probe task. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 475–483. CrossRef

Evans, T. C., Bar-Haim, Y., Fox, N. A., Pine, D. S., & Britton, J. C. (2020). Neural mechanisms underlying heterogeneous expression of threat-related attention in social anxiety. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 132, 103657. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2020.103657.

Evans, T. C., & Britton, J. C. (2018). Improving the psychometric properties of dot-probe attention measures using response-based computation. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2018.01.009. CrossRefPubMed

Evans, T. C., Walukevich, K. A., & Britton, J. C. (2016). Vigilance-avoidance and disengagement are differentially associated with fear and avoidant behaviors in social anxiety. Journal of Affective Disorders, 199, 124–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2016.04.003. CrossRefPubMed

Evans, T. C., Walukevich, K. A., Seager, I., & Britton, J. C. (2018). A psychometric comparison of anxiety-relevant attention measures. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 31(5), 539–554. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2018.1489536.

Eysenck, M. W., Santos, R., & Calvo, M. G. (2007). Anxiety and cognitive performance: Attentional control theory. Emotion, 7(2), 336–353. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.7.2.336. CrossRefPubMed

First, M. B., Williams, J. B. W., Karg, R. S., & Spitzer, R. L. (2015). Structured clinical interview for DSM-5: Research version (SCID-5 for DSM-5, research version; SCID-5-RV). Arlington: American Psychiatric Association.

Fox, E. (2002). Processing emotional facial expressions: The role of anxiety and awareness. Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 2(1), 52–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930143000527. CrossRef

Gorka, S. M., Hee, D., Lieberman, L., Mittal, V. A., Phan, K. L., & Shankman, S. A. (2016). Reactivity to uncertain threat as a familial vulnerability factor for alcohol use disorder. Psychological Medicine, 46(16), 3349–3358. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291716002415. CrossRefPubMed

Hakamata, Y., Lissek, S., Bar-Haim, Y., Britton, J. C., Fox, N., Leibenluft, E., et al. (2010). Attention bias modification treatment: A meta-analysis towards the establishment of novel treatment for anxiety. Biological Psychiatry, 76(October 2009), 211–220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11103-011-9767-z.Plastid. CrossRef

Hettema, J. M., Neale, M. C., & Kendler, K. S. (2001). A review and meta-analysis of the genetic epidemiology of anxiety disorders. American Journal of Psychiatry, 158(10), 1568–1578. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.158.10.1568. CrossRef

Iacoviello, B. M., Wu, G., Abend, R., Murrough, J. W., Feder, A., Fruchter, E., et al. (2014). Attention bias variability and symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 27, 232–239. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Kappenman, E. S., Farrens, J. L., Luck, S. J., & Proudfit, G. H. (2014). Behavioral and ERP measures of attentional bias to threat in the dot-probe task: Poor reliability and lack of correlation with anxiety. Frontiers in Psychology, 5(December), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01368. CrossRef

Kappenman, E. S., Macnamara, A., & Proudfit, G. H. (2015). Electrocortical evidence for rapid allocation of attention to threat in the dot-probe task. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 10, 577–583. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsu098. CrossRefPubMed

Kendler, K. S. (2006). Reflections on the relationship between psychiatric genetics and psychiatric nosology. American Journal of Psychiatry, 163(July), 1138–1146. CrossRef

Klein, D. N., Shankman, S. A., Lewinsohn, P. M., Rohde, P., & Seeley, J. R. (2004). Family study of chronic depression in a community sample of young adults. American Journal of Psychiatry, 161(4), 646–653. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.161.4.646. CrossRef

Kruijt, A. W., Field, A. P., & Fox, E. (2016). Capturing dynamics of biased attention: Are new attention variability measures the way forward? PLoS ONE, 11(11), e0166600. CrossRef

Kruijt, A. W., Parsons, S., & Fox, E. (2019). A meta-analysis of bias at baseline in RCTs of attention bias modification: No evidence for dot-probe bias towards threat in clinical anxiety and PTSD. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 128(6), 563–573. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000406. CrossRefPubMed

Lavie, N. (1995). Perceptual load as a necessary condition for selective attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21(3), 451–468. https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-1523.21.3.451. CrossRefPubMed

Lovibond, S., & Lovibond, P. (1995). Manual for the depression anxiety stress scales. Sydney: The Psychology Foundation of Australia Inc.

MacLeod, C., & Hagan, R. (1992). Individual differences in the selective processing of threatening information, and emotional responses to a stressful life event. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 30(2), 151–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(92)90138-7. CrossRefPubMed

MacLeod, C., Mathews, A., & Tata, P. (1986). Attentional bias in emotional disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 95(1), 15–20. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.95.1.15. CrossRefPubMed

MacLeod, C., Rutherford, E., Campbell, L., Ebsworthy, G., & Holker, L. (2002). Selective attention and emotional vulnerability: Assessing the causal basis of their association through the experimental manipulation of attentional bias. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 111(1), 107–123. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.111.1.107. CrossRefPubMed

Mansell, W., Clark, D. M., Ehlers, A., Chen, Y., Mansell, W., Clark, D. M., et al. (1999). Social anxiety and attention away from emotional faces. Cognition and Emotion, 13(6), 673–690. https://doi.org/10.1080/026999399379032. CrossRef

Mathews, A., Ridgeway, V., & Williamson, D. A. (1996). Evidence for attention to threatening stimuli in depression. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 34(9), 695–705. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(96)00046-0. CrossRefPubMed

McGraw, K. O., & Wong, S. P. (1996). Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychological Methods, 1(1), 30–46. CrossRef

Mittlböck, M., & Schemper, M. (1996). Explained variation for logistic regression. Statistics in Medicine, 15(19), 1987–1997. CrossRef

Mogg, K., & Bradley, B. P. (1999). Orienting of attention to threatening facial expressions presented under conditions of restricted awareness. Cognition and Emotion, 13(6), 713–740. https://doi.org/10.1080/026999399379050. CrossRef

Mogg, K., Philippot, P., & Bradley, B. P. (2004). Selective attention to angry faces in clinical social phobia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 113(1), 160. CrossRef

National Advisory Mental Health Council Workgroup on Tasks and Measures for Research Domain Criteria. (2016). Behavioral assessment methods for RDoC constructs. Retrieved from https://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/advisory-boards-and-groups/namhc/reports/behavioral-assessment-methods-for-rdoc-constructs.shtml.

Neumann, D. L., & Waters, A. M. (2006). The use of an unpleasant sound as an unconditional stimulus in a human aversive Pavlovian conditioning procedure. Biological Psychology, 73, 175–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2006.03.004. CrossRefPubMed

Neumann, D. L., Waters, A. M., & Westbury, H. R. (2008). The use of an unpleasant sound as the unconditional stimulus in aversive Pavlovian conditioning experiments that involve children and adolescent participants. Behavior Research Methods, 40(2), 622–625. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.2.622.

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Price, R. B., Kuckertz, J. M., Siegle, G. J., Ladouceur, C. D., Silk, J. S., Ryan, N. D., et al. (2015). Empirical recommendations for improving the stability of the Dot-Probe Task in clinical research. Psychological Assessment, 27(2), 365–376. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000036. CrossRefPubMed

Robins, E., & Guze, S. B. (1970). Establishment of diagnostic validity in psychiatric illness: Its application to schizophrenia. American Journal of Psychiatry, 126(7), 983–987. CrossRef

Rodebaugh, T. L., Scullin, R. B., Langer, J. K., Dixon, D. J., Huppert, J. D., Bernstein, A., et al. (2016). Unreliability as a threat to understanding psychopathology: The cautionary tale of attentional bias. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 125(6), 840–851. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000184. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Schmukle, S. C. (2005). Unreliability of the dot probe task. European Journal of Personality, 19(7), 595–605. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.554. CrossRef

Shankman, S. A., & Klein, D. N. (2003). The relation between depression and anxiety: an evaluation of the tripartite, approach-withdrawal and valence-arousal models. Clinical Psychology Review, 23, 605–637. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7358(03)00038-2. CrossRefPubMed

Shankman, S. A., Lerner, D., Funkhouser, C. J., Klein, D. N., & Davila, J. (2018). Reliability and validity of severity dimensions of psychopathology assessed using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM - 5 (SCID). International Journal of Methods in Psychiatry Research. https://doi.org/10.1002/mpr.1590. CrossRef

Shechner, T., Britton, J. C., Pérez-edgar, K., & Bar-haim, Y. (2012). Attention biases, anxiety, and development: Toward or away from threats or rewards? Depress Anxiety, 29(4), 282–294. https://doi.org/10.1002/da.20914.Attention. CrossRefPubMed

Shrout, P. E. (1998). Measurement reliability and agreement in psychiatry. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 7(3), 301–317. https://doi.org/10.1177/096228029800700306.

Spielberg, J. M., De Leon, A. A., Bredemeier, K., Heller, W., Engels, A. S., Warren, S. L., et al. (2013). Anxiety type modulates immediate versus delayed engagement of attention-related brain regions. Brain and Behavior, 3(5), 532–551. https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.157. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Staugaard, S. R. (2009). Reliability of two versions of the dot-probe task using photographic faces. Psychology Science Quarterly, 51(3), 339–350.

Tottenham, N., Tanaka, J., Leon, A., McCarry, T., Nurse, M., Hare, T., et al. (2009). The NimStim set of facial expressions: Judgments from untrained research participants. Psychiatry Research, 168(3), 242–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2008.05.006.The. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Waechter, S., Nelson, A. L., Wright, C., Hyatt, A., & Oakman, J. (2014). Measuring attentional bias to threat: Reliability of dot probe and eye movement indices. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 38(3), 313–333. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-013-9588-2. CrossRef

Weinberg, A., Liu, H., Hajcak, G., & Shankman, S. A. (2016). Blunted neural response to rewards as a vulnerability factor for depression: Results from a family study. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 124(4), 878–889. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000081.Blunted. CrossRef

Zubin, J., & Spring, B. (1977). Vulnerability: A new view of schizophrenia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 86(2), 103–126. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-843X.86.2.103. CrossRefPubMed

Zvielli, A., Bernstein, A., & Koster, E. H. W. (2015). Temporal dynamics of attentional bias. Clinical Psychological Science, 3(5), 772–788. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702614551572. CrossRef

Titel: The Reliability and Validity of Response-Based Measures of Attention Bias
Auteurs: Emily E. E. Meissel
Huiting Liu
Elizabeth S. Stevens
Travis C. Evans
Jennifer C. Britton
Allison M. Letkiewicz
Stewart A. Shankman
Publicatiedatum: 17-02-2021
Uitgeverij: Springer US
Gepubliceerd in: Cognitive Therapy and Research / Uitgave 1/2022
Print ISSN: 0147-5916
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2819
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-021-10212-w

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Tip

Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 1/2022

Empathic Communication Among Women with High or Low Social Anxiety

Higher Order Repetitive Negative Thinking Is More Robustly Related to Depression, Anxiety, and Mania Than Measures of Rumination or Worry

Effects of Cognitive Restructuring and Defusion for Coping with Difficult Thoughts in a Predominantly White Female College Student Sample

Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and Pain in Veterans: Indirect Association Through Anxiety Sensitivity

Psychological Distress and Physical Health Symptoms in the Latinx Population During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Exploring the Role of Anxiety Sensitivity

Evaluating the Role of Anxiety Sensitivity on Behavioral Health Outcomes among Latinx Persons