Comparability and Validity of the Online and In-Person Administrations of the Inventory of Problems-29
| Autor: | Alessandro Zennaro, Luciano Giromini, Donald J. Viglione, Gerald Young, Claudia Pignolo, Eric Y. Drogin |
|---|---|
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Rok vydání: | 2021 |
| Předmět: |
Malingering
genetic structures Comparability education IOP-29 Online Symptom validity assessment Teleassessment Psychometric equivalence medicine.disease Article Test (assessment) Psychiatry and Mental health Symptom validity test medicine Psychology Law Equivalence (measure theory) Clinical psychology |
| Zdroj: | Psychological Injury and Law |
| ISSN: | 1938-9728 1938-971X |
| Popis: | While the psychometric equivalence of computerized versus paper-and-pencil administration formats has been documented for some tests, so far very few studies have focused on the comparability and validity of test scores obtained via in-person versus remote administrations, and none of them have researched a symptom validity test (SVT). To contribute to fill this gap in the literature, we investigated the scores of the Inventory of Problems-29 (IOP-29) generated by various administration formats. More specifically, Study 1 evaluated the equivalence of scores from nonclinical individuals administered the IOP-29 remotely (n = 146) versus in-person via computer (n = 140) versus in-person via paper-and-pencil format (n = 140). Study 2 reviewed published IOP-29 studies conducted using remote/online versus in-person, paper-and-pencil test administrations to determine if remote testing could adversely influence the validity of IOP-29 test results. Taken together, our findings suggest that the effectiveness of the IOP-29 is preserved when alternating between face-to-face and online/remote formats. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
Full text from SpringerLink