Trial-level bias score versus mean bias score: Comparison of the reliability and external validity using dot-probe task among daily smokers.
Trial-level bias score versus mean bias score: Comparison of the reliability and external validity using dot-probe task among daily smokers.
复制标题
试验水平偏倚评分与平均偏倚评分：在日常吸烟者中使用点探针任务比较可靠性和外部效度。
DOI：
10.1016/j.addbeh.2022.107456
复制
发表时间：
2022
影响因子：
4.4
通讯作者：
Leyro,TeresaM
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Yang,Min-Jeong;Borges,AllisonM;Emery,NoahN;Leyro,TeresaM
注意偏差（AB）是一个个体差异的危险因素，代表了香烟线索吸引一个人注意的程度。AB通常由平均偏倚评分（MBS）索引，理论上假设AB是静态的。然而，MBS的可靠性差，威胁到有效的解释AB上的结果。基于所观察到的试验的时间波动和注意分配的变异性，试验水平偏差分数（TLBS）已被引入作为一个替代指标，在不同人群中有更好的心理测量学特性的证据，相比MBS。然而，这样的证据在日常吸烟者中是有限的。本研究的目的是复制和扩展现存的研究结果在一个样本的日常吸烟者的假设，TLBS相比，MBS，将表现出优越的上级的信度和外部validity. MethodsForeignededday吸烟者完成自我报告，ad-libitum吸烟，和一个点探测任务三次，这是由36对图片刺激的香烟和中性线索，结果TLBS上级内部信度（ICC = 0.79-0.95）和重测信度（ICC = 0.64-0.88）均优于MBS（ICC = 0.31-0.40和0.06-0.16）。然而，无论是MBS或TLBS和吸烟reinforcement.ConclusionsThe目前的研究结果表明，TLBS，相比MBS，是一个更可靠的措施AB之间的日常吸烟者的生物行为和自我报告指数的措施之间的显着关系，而其外部效度的证据是有限的。
IntroductionAttentional bias (AB) is an individual difference risk factor that represents the extent to which cigarette cues capture one’s attention. AB is typically indexed by mean bias score (MBS), theoretically assuming that AB is static. However, poor reliability of MBS has threatened valid interpretation of the results on AB. Based on observed trial-by-trial temporal fluctuation and variability of attentional allocation, trial-level bias score (TLBS) has been introduced as an alternative index with evidence of better psychometric properties in various populations, as compared to MBS. However, such evidence is limited among daily smokers. The current study aimed to replicate and extend extant findings in a sample of daily smokers by hypothesizing that TLBS, as compared to MBS, would demonstrate superior reliability and external validity.MethodsForty-eight daily smokers completed self-reports, ad-libitum smoking, and a dot-probe task three times, which was comprised of 36 pairs of pictorial stimuli of cigarette and neutral cues, yielding 144 total trials.ResultsThe TLBS demonstrated superior internal (range intra class correlation[ICC]= 0.79–0.95) and test-retest reliability (rangeICC= 0.64–0.88) compared to MBS (rangeICC= 0.31–0.40 and 0.06–0.16, respectively). However, few significant relations between either the MBS or TLBS and measures of biobehavioral and self-report indices of smoking reinforcement were observed.ConclusionsThe current findings demonstrate that TLBS, as compared to MBS, is a more reliable measure of AB among daily smokers, while evidence of its external validity is limited.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
4.2
作者：
Begh R;Munafò MR;Shiffman S;Ferguson SG;Nichols L;Mohammed MA;Holder RL;Sutton S;Aveyard P
通讯作者：
Aveyard P
消极认知偏差与抑郁症之间关联的补充材料：症状水平方法
影响因子：
4.6
作者：
Allison Goderwis
通讯作者：
Allison Goderwis
影响因子：
3.8
作者：
Heitmann J;Jonker NC;de Jong PJ
通讯作者：
de Jong PJ
影响因子：
3.7
作者：
Bunnell, Brian E.;Beidel, Deborah C.;Mesa, Franklin
通讯作者：
Mesa, Franklin
影响因子：
16.4
作者：
Berridge, Kent C.;Robinson, Terry E.
通讯作者：
Robinson, Terry E.