Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T17:50:46.445Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An analysis of the re-test artefact in longitudinal studies of psychiatric symptoms and personality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 July 2009

A. F. Jorm ,
P. Duncan-Jones  and
R. Scott
A. F. Jorm*
Affiliation:
NH & MRC Social Psychiatry Research Unit, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia
P. Duncan-Jones
Affiliation:
NH & MRC Social Psychiatry Research Unit, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia
R. Scott
Affiliation:
NH & MRC Social Psychiatry Research Unit, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia
*
1Address for correspondence: Dr A. F. Jorm, NH & MRC Social Psychiatry Research Unit, Australian National University, GPO Box 4, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Synopsis

When general population samples are assessed on two occasions with psychiatric symptom or personality measures, a mean change in scores towards less psychopathology is often observed. This re-test artefact is a potential threat to the validity of longitudinal studies. Data from a longitudinal general population study were analysed to discover under what circumstances the re-test artefact occurs. It was found that the artefact is unrelated to the time lag between occasions, being equally strong at intervals ranging from 4 to 34 weeks. However, the artefact did not occur for all measures, but was confined to those assessing negative self-characteristics and administered orally by an interviewer. These findings are consistent with both the ‘mechanical responding’ and ‘social desirability’ hypotheses of the re-test artefact.

Type
Research Article
Information
Psychological Medicine , Volume 19 , Issue 2 , May 1989 , pp. 487 - 493
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aneshensel, C. S., Estrada, A. L., Hansell, M. J. & Clark, V. A. (1987). Social psychological aspects of reporting behaviour: I lfetime depressive episode reports. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 28, 232–246.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bedford, A., Foulds, G. A. & Sheffield, B. F. (1976). A new personal disturbance scale (DSSI/sAD). British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 15 387–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, G. W., Craig, T. K. J. & Harris, T. O. (1985). Depression: distress or disease? Some epidemiological considerations. British Journal of Psychiatry 147, 612–622.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buss, A. H. & Plomin, R. (1975). A Temperament Theory of Personality Development. Wiley: New York Google Scholar
Braithwaite, V. A. (1987). The Scale of Emotional Arousability: bridging the gap between the neuroticism construct and its measurement. Psychological Medicine 17, 217–225.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bromet, E. J., Dunn, L. O., Connell, M. M., Dew, M. A & Schulberg, H. C. (1986). Long-term reliability of diagnosing lifetime major depression in a community sample. Archives of General Psychiatry 43, 435–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crowne, D. P. & Marlowe, D. (1964). The Approval Motive: Studies in Evaluative Dependence. Wiley New York.Google Scholar
Duncan-Jones, P. (unpublished). Short, Stable Measures of E & N For Australian General Populations. NH & MRC Social Psychiatry Research Unit: Canberra.Google Scholar
Eysenck, H. J. & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1964). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Inventory London University Press: London.Google Scholar
Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M. F. & Buss, A. H. (1975). Public and private self-consciousness: assessment and theory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 43, 522–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Headey, B & Wearing, A. J. (1981). Australians' priorities satisfactions and well-being. Monograph in Public Policy Studies No. 4, Department of Community Welfare Service, University of Melbourne: Melbourne.Google Scholar
Henderson, A. S., Byrne, D. G. & Duncan-Jones, P. (1981). Neurosis and the Social Environment. Academic Press: New York.Google Scholar
Mehrabian, A. (1970). The developments and validation of measures of affiliative tendency and sensitivity to rejection. Educational and Psychological Measurement 30, 417–428 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mehrabian, A. (1976). Questionnaire measures of affiliative tendency and sensitivity to rejection. Psychological Reports 38, 199–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sturt, E., Bebbington, P., Hurry, J. & Tennant, C. (1981). The Present State Examination used by interviewers from a Survey Agency: report from the MRC Camberwell Community Survey. Psychological Medicine 11, 185–192.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Watson, D. & Clark, L. A. (1984). Negative affectivity: The disposition to experience aversive emotional states. Psychological Bulletin 96, 465–490.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Willson, V. L. & Putnam, R. R. (1982). A meta-analysis of pretest sensitization effects in experimental design. American Educational Research Journal 19, 249–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar