Is there a substitute for Structured Interview assessments of Type A behaviour?

Abstract

Discriminant analyses, attempting to predict the Type A behaviour categorization achieved by means of the Structured Interview (SI), were carried out on the responses of 93 British males to the Jenkins Activity Survey and the Framingham Scale, together with information regarding their smoking habits, alcohol consumption, tea and coffee drinking and obesity levels, all of which have been suggested as risk factors for coronary heart disease. Where classification agreements with the SI were found to be above 50 per cent, classification functions based on the discriminant analyses were calculated from the responses of 36 additional male subjects. The actual SI categories were compared with the predicted categories for this second subject group. The results indicated that no reliable and robust alternative was available to predict the SI categorization. The implications of these results for the substitution of the SI by self-report questionnaires are discussed.

Neuroticism and Type A Behavior Pattern in Healthy Italian Blue-Collar Workers

“…In our blue-collar sample, the JAS type A score failed to differentiate subjects who were defined as type A l, A2, and non-A by the SI. Similar results have been found by O'Looney et al [16]. If the SI is the gold standard to classi fy TABP, then the validity of the JAS Italian Version results weak and so it cannot be recommended as a reli able test for the assessment of TABP.…”

“…We also examined how type A subjects are characterized according to the Italian version of the Jenkins Activity Survey (JAS). O'Looney and Harding [ 15] and O'Looney et al [ 16] concluded that the assessment of type A behavior with JAS requires some caution, possibly because the SI can assess both content and behavior. The JAS has been used in a number of pre vious Italian studies [17][18][19] but never with the SI to assess TABP.…”

The Dimensionality of Type A Behavior within a Stressful Work Simulation

“…A second consistent finding is that the Structured Interview predicts coronary heart disease better than self-report measures do (Bennett & Carroll, 1989;Booth-Kewley & Friedman, 1987;Davis & Cowles, 1985;Friedman & Powell, 1984;O'Looney, Harding, & Eiser, 1985;Yarnold & Bryant, 1988). This finding has been attributed to the fact that the Stmctured Interview, unlike most other Type A measures, focuses on overt behaviors (Davis & Cowles, 1985;Glass, 1977).…”