17-02-2021 | Original Article
The Reliability and Validity of Response-Based Measures of Attention Bias
- Tijdschrift:
- Cognitive Therapy and Research
Belangrijke opmerkingen
Supplementary Information
The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-021-10212-w) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
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.