Psychiatric symptoms and response quality to self-rated personality tests: Evidence from the PsyCoLaus study

Abstract

Despite the fact that research has demonstrated consistent associations between self-rated measures of personality dimensions and mental disorders, little has been undertaken to investigate the relation between psychiatric symptoms and response patterns to self-rated tests. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between psychiatric symptoms and response quality using indices from our functional method. A sample of 1,784 participants from a Swiss population-based cohort completed a personality inventory (NEO-FFI) and a symptom checklist of 90 items (SCL-90-R). Different indices of response quality were calculated based on the responses given to the NEO-FFI. Associations among the responses to indices of response quality, sociodemographic characteristics and the SCL-90-R dimensions were then established. Psychiatric symptoms were associated with several important differences in response quality, questioning subjects' ability to provide valid information using self-rated instruments. As suggested by authors, psychiatric symptoms seem associated with differences in personality scores. Nonetheless, our study shows that symptoms are also related to differences in terms of response patterns as sources of differences in personality scores. This could constitute a bias for clinical assessment. Future studies could still determine whether certain subpopulations of subjects are more unable to provide valid information to self-rated questionnaires than others.

Validation of the Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness (MAIA-2) questionnaire in hospitalized patients with major depressive disorder

“…In terms of theoretical mechanisms, it is possible that there is an interplay between psychopathological symptomology and the properties of internal consistency reliability: it has been shown that reliability of a self-report Likert scale may be affected by “insufficient effort responding” (careless responding styles), for example by “straightlining” identical responses or giving random ratings [ 37 ], resulting in biased estimates of internal consistency [ 38 ]. Accordingly, recent research has shown that psychiatric symptoms are associated with less consistent response patterns on self-rated scales [ 39 ]. Consequently, we argue that the potential heterogeneity across pre- and post-treatment reliability estimates might be attributed to depression-related psychopathology (e.g.…”

“…Reliability estimates were calculated pre- and post-treatment to allow for the detection of potential effects of psychiatric symptom burden on internal consistency. There is preliminary evidence that careless response styles are common in psychiatric patients, which in turn may affect internal consistency estimates of Likert scales (see discussion below) [ 37 – 39 ]. Accordingly, we expected appropriate post-treatment reliabilities for all scales (ω ≥ .70) and hypothesized a qualitative trend towards lower estimates for the pre-treatment condition.…”

Does Cognitive Functioning Predict Chronic Pain in Older Adult? Results From the CoLaus|PsyCoLaus Longitudinal Study

“…20 Participants were reassessed approximately 5 (Follow-up 1, FU1) and 10 years (Follow-up 2, FU2) after the first investigation at baseline. 16,17 The present analyses are based on data from the first and second follow-ups. FU1 was carried out between 2009 and 2013, and FU2 between 2013 and 2017.…”

Dysfunctional self-reported interoception predicts residual symptom burden of fatigue in major depressive disorder: an observational study

“…The study included a relatively homogenous sample of severely depressed patients and did not recruit patients from ambulatory settings with lower fatigue symptom severity, which leads to selection bias. Pre-assessments could therefore be subject to insufficient effort responding on self-report measures (e.g., straight lining, random responding), which has been linked to psychiatric symptom burden, and inflates type II errors by decreasing the size of estimated correlations [ 64 , 65 ]. f) “Is the measurement reliability for either variable (or both) low?” (p. 264).…”