Evaluating the Reliability of Attention Bias and Attention Bias Variability Measures in the Dot-Probe Task Among People With Social Anxiety Disorder

The dot-probe task is a widely used experimental paradigm that evaluates attention biases within anxiety disorders. Considerable research has focused on improving the reliability of dot-probe scores because the task's original attention bias index has shown very low test-retest reliability. The...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Psychological assessment 2020-09, Vol.32 (9), p.883-888
Hauptverfasser: Molloy, Anthony, Anderson, Page L.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 888
container_issue 9
container_start_page 883
container_title Psychological assessment
container_volume 32
creator Molloy, Anthony
Anderson, Page L.
description The dot-probe task is a widely used experimental paradigm that evaluates attention biases within anxiety disorders. Considerable research has focused on improving the reliability of dot-probe scores because the task's original attention bias index has shown very low test-retest reliability. The current study serves as a replication and extension of Price et al. (2015), who systematically examined the effects of methodological choices on reliability of dot-probe task results. Fifty-six adults diagnosed with social anxiety disorder were asked to complete a facial dot-probe task twice, approximately 1 week apart. Test-retest reliability and internal consistency were examined for 10 dot-probe attention bias indices across 55 sets of outlier cutoffs. Both Pearson's r and intraclass correlation coefficients were used. Trial-level bias score indices of mean bias toward threat and attention bias variability, which measure attention bias dynamically using individual pairs of trials, demonstrated the highest reliability and were less sensitive to changes in outlier cutoffs as compared with the dot probe's classic attention bias index and others. Results demonstrate the potential for post hoc outlier cutoff selection to artificially inflate reliability, particularly for unreliable indices. A priori cutoff selection is recommended for future research. Intraclass correlation coefficients are also recommended for assessment of reliability because Pearson's r does not account for poor agreement between scores. Public Significance Statement This study examined the reliability of different data analytic strategies for the dot-probe task, a computer task designed to measure attention bias toward threat within anxiety disorders. It found the highest reliability for methods that measure temporal fluctuations in attention bias and found that methods of handling outlier values can substantially affect estimates of reliability.
doi_str_mv 10.1037/pas0000912
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2412208635</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2411768451</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a379t-32573d1d6f80669ac0b56be460941d25c246df400e3609c1a18f17eafe3adb4e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp90c1uFSEUB3BiNLZWNz6AIXFjNKMwMMywvP1SkxobrR87coY5Y6ncYQSm8b6HDyz11pp0IRvIye_8gRxCHnP2kjPRvpohsbI0r--QXa6FrriQX--WM5OsEo1mO-RBSheMcSm65j7ZEXVTN0KKXfLr6BL8AtlN32g-R_oBvYPeeZc3NIx0lTNO2YWJ7jtIFKbhdukzxJuGdwhpiZiom_6EHYZcncbQIz2D9J2u1qHccoph9ki_uHxOPwbrwNPV9NNh6T90KcQB40NybwSf8NH1vkc-HR-dHbypTt6_fnuwOqlAtDpX5RetGPigxo4ppcGyvlE9SsW05EPd2FqqYZSMoSgly4F3I28RRhQw9BLFHnm2zZ1j-LFgymbtkkXvYcKwJFNLXtesU6Ip9OktehGWOJXXFSWlarmW3f8V563qZMOLer5VNoaUIo5mjm4NcWM4M1cTNf8mWvCT68ilX-NwQ_-OsIAXWwAzmDltLMTsrMdklxjLpK7CijbadJ0QvwHI56rl</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2411768451</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Evaluating the Reliability of Attention Bias and Attention Bias Variability Measures in the Dot-Probe Task Among People With Social Anxiety Disorder</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>EBSCOhost APA PsycARTICLES</source><creator>Molloy, Anthony ; Anderson, Page L.</creator><contributor>Ben-Porath, Yossef S</contributor><creatorcontrib>Molloy, Anthony ; Anderson, Page L. ; Ben-Porath, Yossef S</creatorcontrib><description>The dot-probe task is a widely used experimental paradigm that evaluates attention biases within anxiety disorders. Considerable research has focused on improving the reliability of dot-probe scores because the task's original attention bias index has shown very low test-retest reliability. The current study serves as a replication and extension of Price et al. (2015), who systematically examined the effects of methodological choices on reliability of dot-probe task results. Fifty-six adults diagnosed with social anxiety disorder were asked to complete a facial dot-probe task twice, approximately 1 week apart. Test-retest reliability and internal consistency were examined for 10 dot-probe attention bias indices across 55 sets of outlier cutoffs. Both Pearson's r and intraclass correlation coefficients were used. Trial-level bias score indices of mean bias toward threat and attention bias variability, which measure attention bias dynamically using individual pairs of trials, demonstrated the highest reliability and were less sensitive to changes in outlier cutoffs as compared with the dot probe's classic attention bias index and others. Results demonstrate the potential for post hoc outlier cutoff selection to artificially inflate reliability, particularly for unreliable indices. A priori cutoff selection is recommended for future research. Intraclass correlation coefficients are also recommended for assessment of reliability because Pearson's r does not account for poor agreement between scores. Public Significance Statement This study examined the reliability of different data analytic strategies for the dot-probe task, a computer task designed to measure attention bias toward threat within anxiety disorders. It found the highest reliability for methods that measure temporal fluctuations in attention bias and found that methods of handling outlier values can substantially affect estimates of reliability.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1040-3590</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1939-134X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1037/pas0000912</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32525343</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: American Psychological Association</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Adult ; Anxiety ; Anxiety Disorders ; Attentional Bias ; Bias ; Clinical trials ; Cutting Scores ; Female ; Human ; Humans ; Internal Consistency ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Neuropsychological Tests ; Phobia, Social - diagnosis ; Reliability ; Reproducibility of Results ; Social anxiety ; Social networks ; Social Phobia ; Task ; Test Bias ; Test Construction ; Test-Retest Reliability ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>Psychological assessment, 2020-09, Vol.32 (9), p.883-888</ispartof><rights>2020 American Psychological Association</rights><rights>2020, American Psychological Association</rights><rights>Copyright American Psychological Association Sep 2020</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a379t-32573d1d6f80669ac0b56be460941d25c246df400e3609c1a18f17eafe3adb4e3</citedby><orcidid>0000-0001-6861-4605</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32525343$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Ben-Porath, Yossef S</contributor><creatorcontrib>Molloy, Anthony</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Anderson, Page L.</creatorcontrib><title>Evaluating the Reliability of Attention Bias and Attention Bias Variability Measures in the Dot-Probe Task Among People With Social Anxiety Disorder</title><title>Psychological assessment</title><addtitle>Psychol Assess</addtitle><description>The dot-probe task is a widely used experimental paradigm that evaluates attention biases within anxiety disorders. Considerable research has focused on improving the reliability of dot-probe scores because the task's original attention bias index has shown very low test-retest reliability. The current study serves as a replication and extension of Price et al. (2015), who systematically examined the effects of methodological choices on reliability of dot-probe task results. Fifty-six adults diagnosed with social anxiety disorder were asked to complete a facial dot-probe task twice, approximately 1 week apart. Test-retest reliability and internal consistency were examined for 10 dot-probe attention bias indices across 55 sets of outlier cutoffs. Both Pearson's r and intraclass correlation coefficients were used. Trial-level bias score indices of mean bias toward threat and attention bias variability, which measure attention bias dynamically using individual pairs of trials, demonstrated the highest reliability and were less sensitive to changes in outlier cutoffs as compared with the dot probe's classic attention bias index and others. Results demonstrate the potential for post hoc outlier cutoff selection to artificially inflate reliability, particularly for unreliable indices. A priori cutoff selection is recommended for future research. Intraclass correlation coefficients are also recommended for assessment of reliability because Pearson's r does not account for poor agreement between scores. Public Significance Statement This study examined the reliability of different data analytic strategies for the dot-probe task, a computer task designed to measure attention bias toward threat within anxiety disorders. It found the highest reliability for methods that measure temporal fluctuations in attention bias and found that methods of handling outlier values can substantially affect estimates of reliability.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Anxiety</subject><subject>Anxiety Disorders</subject><subject>Attentional Bias</subject><subject>Bias</subject><subject>Clinical trials</subject><subject>Cutting Scores</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Human</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Internal Consistency</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Neuropsychological Tests</subject><subject>Phobia, Social - diagnosis</subject><subject>Reliability</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Social anxiety</subject><subject>Social networks</subject><subject>Social Phobia</subject><subject>Task</subject><subject>Test Bias</subject><subject>Test Construction</subject><subject>Test-Retest Reliability</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>1040-3590</issn><issn>1939-134X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp90c1uFSEUB3BiNLZWNz6AIXFjNKMwMMywvP1SkxobrR87coY5Y6ncYQSm8b6HDyz11pp0IRvIye_8gRxCHnP2kjPRvpohsbI0r--QXa6FrriQX--WM5OsEo1mO-RBSheMcSm65j7ZEXVTN0KKXfLr6BL8AtlN32g-R_oBvYPeeZc3NIx0lTNO2YWJ7jtIFKbhdukzxJuGdwhpiZiom_6EHYZcncbQIz2D9J2u1qHccoph9ki_uHxOPwbrwNPV9NNh6T90KcQB40NybwSf8NH1vkc-HR-dHbypTt6_fnuwOqlAtDpX5RetGPigxo4ppcGyvlE9SsW05EPd2FqqYZSMoSgly4F3I28RRhQw9BLFHnm2zZ1j-LFgymbtkkXvYcKwJFNLXtesU6Ip9OktehGWOJXXFSWlarmW3f8V563qZMOLer5VNoaUIo5mjm4NcWM4M1cTNf8mWvCT68ilX-NwQ_-OsIAXWwAzmDltLMTsrMdklxjLpK7CijbadJ0QvwHI56rl</recordid><startdate>202009</startdate><enddate>202009</enddate><creator>Molloy, Anthony</creator><creator>Anderson, Page L.</creator><general>American Psychological Association</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7RZ</scope><scope>PHGZM</scope><scope>PHGZT</scope><scope>PKEHL</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6861-4605</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202009</creationdate><title>Evaluating the Reliability of Attention Bias and Attention Bias Variability Measures in the Dot-Probe Task Among People With Social Anxiety Disorder</title><author>Molloy, Anthony ; Anderson, Page L.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a379t-32573d1d6f80669ac0b56be460941d25c246df400e3609c1a18f17eafe3adb4e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Anxiety</topic><topic>Anxiety Disorders</topic><topic>Attentional Bias</topic><topic>Bias</topic><topic>Clinical trials</topic><topic>Cutting Scores</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Human</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Internal Consistency</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Neuropsychological Tests</topic><topic>Phobia, Social - diagnosis</topic><topic>Reliability</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Social anxiety</topic><topic>Social networks</topic><topic>Social Phobia</topic><topic>Task</topic><topic>Test Bias</topic><topic>Test Construction</topic><topic>Test-Retest Reliability</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Molloy, Anthony</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Anderson, Page L.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>APA PsycArticles®</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Psychological assessment</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Molloy, Anthony</au><au>Anderson, Page L.</au><au>Ben-Porath, Yossef S</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Evaluating the Reliability of Attention Bias and Attention Bias Variability Measures in the Dot-Probe Task Among People With Social Anxiety Disorder</atitle><jtitle>Psychological assessment</jtitle><addtitle>Psychol Assess</addtitle><date>2020-09</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>32</volume><issue>9</issue><spage>883</spage><epage>888</epage><pages>883-888</pages><issn>1040-3590</issn><eissn>1939-134X</eissn><abstract>The dot-probe task is a widely used experimental paradigm that evaluates attention biases within anxiety disorders. Considerable research has focused on improving the reliability of dot-probe scores because the task's original attention bias index has shown very low test-retest reliability. The current study serves as a replication and extension of Price et al. (2015), who systematically examined the effects of methodological choices on reliability of dot-probe task results. Fifty-six adults diagnosed with social anxiety disorder were asked to complete a facial dot-probe task twice, approximately 1 week apart. Test-retest reliability and internal consistency were examined for 10 dot-probe attention bias indices across 55 sets of outlier cutoffs. Both Pearson's r and intraclass correlation coefficients were used. Trial-level bias score indices of mean bias toward threat and attention bias variability, which measure attention bias dynamically using individual pairs of trials, demonstrated the highest reliability and were less sensitive to changes in outlier cutoffs as compared with the dot probe's classic attention bias index and others. Results demonstrate the potential for post hoc outlier cutoff selection to artificially inflate reliability, particularly for unreliable indices. A priori cutoff selection is recommended for future research. Intraclass correlation coefficients are also recommended for assessment of reliability because Pearson's r does not account for poor agreement between scores. Public Significance Statement This study examined the reliability of different data analytic strategies for the dot-probe task, a computer task designed to measure attention bias toward threat within anxiety disorders. It found the highest reliability for methods that measure temporal fluctuations in attention bias and found that methods of handling outlier values can substantially affect estimates of reliability.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>American Psychological Association</pub><pmid>32525343</pmid><doi>10.1037/pas0000912</doi><tpages>6</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6861-4605</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1040-3590
ispartof Psychological assessment, 2020-09, Vol.32 (9), p.883-888
issn 1040-3590
1939-134X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2412208635
source MEDLINE; EBSCOhost APA PsycARTICLES
subjects Adolescent
Adult
Anxiety
Anxiety Disorders
Attentional Bias
Bias
Clinical trials
Cutting Scores
Female
Human
Humans
Internal Consistency
Male
Middle Aged
Neuropsychological Tests
Phobia, Social - diagnosis
Reliability
Reproducibility of Results
Social anxiety
Social networks
Social Phobia
Task
Test Bias
Test Construction
Test-Retest Reliability
Young Adult
title Evaluating the Reliability of Attention Bias and Attention Bias Variability Measures in the Dot-Probe Task Among People With Social Anxiety Disorder
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-21T20%3A02%3A30IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Evaluating%20the%20Reliability%20of%20Attention%20Bias%20and%20Attention%20Bias%20Variability%20Measures%20in%20the%20Dot-Probe%20Task%20Among%20People%20With%20Social%20Anxiety%20Disorder&rft.jtitle=Psychological%20assessment&rft.au=Molloy,%20Anthony&rft.date=2020-09&rft.volume=32&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=883&rft.epage=888&rft.pages=883-888&rft.issn=1040-3590&rft.eissn=1939-134X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1037/pas0000912&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2411768451%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2411768451&rft_id=info:pmid/32525343&rfr_iscdi=true