A Rasch Analysis of the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form C

Abstract

The psychometric structure of the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form C (SHSS:C) was tested in a Rasch analysis using data from 279 subjects. The Rasch model is the model of choice because it justifies the use of the sum of the item scores as a measure for the underlying construct. Rasch analysis revealed that use of a single sum score (number of suggestions passed) to express hypnotic ability is not sufficiently justified. However, the omission of the mosquito-hallucination and anosmia items (Items 3 and 9) rendered this short 10-item form of the SHSS:C sufficiently compatible with requirements of one-dimensionality, local stochastic independence,and equi-discriminability. Hence, the 10-item form justifies use of a sum score.

Taxometric evidence for a dimensional latent structure of hypnotic suggestibility

“…A similar limitation pertains to the limited suggestion content of the HGSHS:A (Shor & Orne, 1962). The HGSHS:A includes multiple suggestions with poor psychometric properties (Näring et al, 2004;Sadler & Woody, 2004), suggestions that appear to involve greater compliant responding (Bowers et al, 1988), suggestions that lack ecological validity (Acunzo & Terhune, 2021;Barnier et al, 2021), and numerous other confounds (Acunzo & Terhune, 2021). Most of these limitations are not unique to the HGSHS:A and warrant greater attention to the optimization of hypnotic suggestibility measurement more broadly.…”

“…Liu, 2016). In addition, nearly all investigations of the latent structure of hypnotic suggestibility have been restricted to behavioural hypnotic suggestibility scores (Näring et al, 2004;Oakman & Woody, 1996;Terhune, 2015;Woody et al, 2005). Despite their utility, these scales are limited in the extent to which they capture the classic suggestion effect, an attenuation in the sense of agency pertaining to one's response to hypnotic suggestions (P. Bowers et al, 1988;Polito et al, 2015Polito et al, , 2018Weitzenhoffer, 1974Weitzenhoffer, , 1980.…”

Taxometric evidence for a dimensional latent structure of hypnotic suggestibility

“…A similar limitation pertains to the limited suggestion content of the HGSHS:A (Shor & Orne, 1962). The HGSHS:A includes multiple suggestions with poor psychometric properties (Näring et al, 2004;Sadler 1988), suggestions that lack ecological validity (Acunzo & Terhune, in press; Barnier et al, in press), and numerous other confounds (Acunzo & Terhune, in press). Most of these limitations are not unique to the HGSHS:A and warrant greater attention to the optimization of hypnotic suggestibility measurement more broadly.…”

“…Liu, 2016). In addition, nearly all investigations of the latent structure of hypnotic suggestibility have been restricted to behavioural hypnotic suggestibility scores (Näring et al, 2004;Oakman & Woody, 1996;Terhune, 2015;Woody et al, 2005). Despite their utility, these scales are limited in the extent to which they capture the classic suggestion effect, an attenuation in the sense of agency pertaining to one's response to hypnotic suggestions (P. Bowers et al, 1988;Polito et al, 2015Polito et al, , 2018Weitzenhoffer, 1974Weitzenhoffer, , 1980.…”

The Relationship of Cognitive Impairment to Hypnotic Susceptibility in a Sample of Elderly: A Pilot Study

“…The hypnotic suggestions included in the study (see Table 1.) were those that have been shown to be non-duplicative and excluded the mosquito hallucination and the anosmia hallucination (Naring, Hoogduin, & Keijser, 2004). Standard procedures were followed although all items were administered to every subject.…”