Equivalent short forms of the Situational Feature Recognition Test 2: Psychometric properties and analysis of interform equivalence and test–retest reliability

Abstract

ObjectiveTo obtain two equivalent short forms of the “Situational Feature Recognition Test, Version 2,” a social perception test, and their psychometric properties.MethodsPatients with schizophrenia (n = 101) were assessed at two different times. Statistical analyses were performed as follows: (1) Cronbach's alpha was used to assess reliability; (2) Spearman correlations, Wilcoxon signed‐rank test, and a 2 (form) × 2 (time) repeated measures multivariate analysis of variance were used to analyse interform equivalence; (3) Sensitivity to change was studied by a 2 (group) × 2 (time) repeated measures multivariate analysis of variance; (4) Spearman correlations were employed to assess test–retest reliability, convergent and discriminant validity, and relationship with functionality and symptoms.ResultsThe short forms showed good internal consistency at both times. Significant and moderate correlation between forms was found along with no statistically significant form x time interaction. Hits and false positives of both forms were moderately correlated at both times. Group x time interaction was significant especially for hits when assessing sensitivity to change. Both forms were significantly correlated with other social cognition domains and with functionality.ConclusionsResults of this study support the use of short forms of the Situational Feature Recognition Test, Version 2 especially in clinical trials and longitudinal studies among patients with schizophrenia.

Measuring Disability in Consumers of mental health services – psychometric properties of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) in Ghana

“…The higher the reliability, the more we can trust that the measurement scale score is an accurate reflection of actual individual differences (Hayes & Coutts, 2020). The reliability is measured through an analysis of test‐retest, split‐half reliability, congeneric estimates and internal consistency (Gómez‐Gastiasoro et al ., 2019; Siddi et al ., 2018). These estimates are estimated using coefficients such as MS, LCRC, lambda‐2, McDonald’s Omega, Cronbach's alpha and Spearman correlations coefficient (Bakolis et al ., 2019; Hayes & Coutts, 2020; Riou et al ., 2016).…”

Review of analysis techniques in mental health research with consumer instruments – a guide for researchers

“…For construct validity, convergent and discriminant validity were assessed. Some papers described the assessment of convergent validity by comparing constructs that were theoretically similar to determine their inter-correlations (Eklund et al , 2018; Eline et al , 2014; Gómez‐Gastiasoro et al , 2019). For instance, Eklund et al (2018) reported in a study that quality of life and self-mastery constructs were theoretically similar to self-esteem and so could be suitable to assess convergent validity.…”

“…For instance, Eklund et al (2018) reported in a study that quality of life and self-mastery constructs were theoretically similar to self-esteem and so could be suitable to assess convergent validity. The discriminant validity is also assessed by comparing constructs that are theoretically different and thus show low or no correlation (Eline et al , 2014; Gómez‐Gastiasoro et al , 2019). Specifically, discriminant validity was used to determine whether constructs that were not in the same model were truly distinct (Riou et al , 2016).…”

“…In most papers the reliability of consumer measures were assessed using internal consistency (Gruber et al , 2018; Shankman et al , 2018), test–retest reliability (Eline et al , 2014; Ferentinos et al , 2019; Fu et al , 2013; Gómez‐Gastiasoro et al , 2019; Gruber et al , 2018; Henderson et al , 2011; Li-Yu and Su-Ting, 2011; Shankman et al , 2018), split-half reliability (Gruber et al , 2018) and congeneric estimate reliability (Eline et al , 2018). Nine papers described that the internal consistency measures the extent to which items within a scale are inter-correlated with one another and thus could measure the same concept (Bakolis et al , 2019; Gómez‐Gastiasoro et al , 2019; Henderson et al , 2011; Jeglinsky et al , 2018; Li-Yu and Su-Ting, 2011; Riou et al , 2016; Vaingankar et al , 2016). Some papers measured the internal consistency using the Cronbach’s alpha (Fu et al , 2013; Gómez‐Gastiasoro et al , 2019; Jeglinsky et al , 2018; Riou et al , 2016; Siddi et al , 2018; Tan and Fernandez, 2018; Vaingankar et al , 2016), Spearman correlations coefficient (Riou et al , 2016; Tan and Fernandez, 2018) and Omega (Thelin et al , 2017).…”

“…Nine papers described that the internal consistency measures the extent to which items within a scale are inter-correlated with one another and thus could measure the same concept (Bakolis et al , 2019; Gómez‐Gastiasoro et al , 2019; Henderson et al , 2011; Jeglinsky et al , 2018; Li-Yu and Su-Ting, 2011; Riou et al , 2016; Vaingankar et al , 2016). Some papers measured the internal consistency using the Cronbach’s alpha (Fu et al , 2013; Gómez‐Gastiasoro et al , 2019; Jeglinsky et al , 2018; Riou et al , 2016; Siddi et al , 2018; Tan and Fernandez, 2018; Vaingankar et al , 2016), Spearman correlations coefficient (Riou et al , 2016; Tan and Fernandez, 2018) and Omega (Thelin et al , 2017). The internal consistency has a value ranging from 0 to 1 (values > 0.7 are generally considered as acceptable) (Bakolis et al , 2019; Riou et al , 2016).…”