Bjerreboel1200

e., all VA veterans with at least 2 complete BAM-R administrations reflected in the medical record; N = 22,453). Findings suggest that the 4-factor structure is superior to the commonly used 3-factor structure for both model fit and stability over two occasions of measurement and should be the factor structure used for clinical and research purposes pending further measure revisions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).The Cognitive Bias Scale (CBS; Gaasedelen, Whiteside, Altmaier, Welch, & Basso, 2019) was developed as a Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) indicator of poor performance on Performance Validity Tests (PVTs) in a neuropsychological context. The current study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of the CBS in a forensic disability sample through a series of analyses by comparing it to other PAI validity scales and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)-2-RF overreporting scales with an emphasis on the Response Bias Scale (RBS), which guided the development of the CBS. The participants in this study were drawn from an archival dataset containing 588 consecutive civil disability claimants. Findings showed the RBS and the CBS yielded similar patterns of negative correlations to PVTs, with RBS effect sizes being somewhat larger in most comparisons. Results of ANOVAs showed that the RBS produced the largest effect sizes in distinguishing between incentive only versus probable/definite malingered neurocognitive dysfunction (MND) groups, followed by the CBS. Estimates of sensitivity and specificity were comparable between the RBS and CBS at liberal cut scores, but the RBS was more specific to detecting Probable/Definite MND at more conservative cutoffs. Hierarchical logistic regression analyses showed that RBS accounted for 6% variance over CBS in the probable/definite MND classification, whereas the CBS accounted for 2% variance beyond the RBS. Overall, the results of this study support the utility of the CBS as the most effective PAI validity scale for detecting MND in a civil disability sample, and the RBS generally outperformed the CBS to some degree in all analyses. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).Social anhedonia, or the loss of motivation in and pleasure from social engagement, is an important feature in understanding the etiology and outcome of various psychopathologies. While the Revised Social Anhedonia Scale (RSAS) represents one of the most commonly used self-report measures of social anhedonia, little is known regarding the construct comparability across populations. We examined measurement invariance of the full and brief RSAS in a diverse, international sample of 14,064 participants across nine epidemiological dimensions, including gender, age, ethnicity, education, community income, continent, migrant status, ethnic density, and urbanicity. Both the full and brief RSAS, as represented by a three-factor structure, achieved metric invariance for all dimensions. The full version showed considerable scalar noninvariance for ethnicity and continent, which was significantly reduced in the brief version. see more These findings suggest that while the scales measure the same construct across diverse groups, mean comparisons are only appropriate for the brief, and not the full, version. Future research may consider using the brief RSAS to ensure cross-national comparability. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).It is still debated whether suppressing the retrieval of unwanted memories causes forgetting and whether this constitutes a beneficial mechanism. To shed light on these 2 questions, we scrutinize the evidence for such suppression-induced forgetting (SIF) and examine whether it is deficient in psychological disorders characterized by intrusive thoughts. Specifically, we performed a focused meta-analysis of studies that have used the think/no-think procedure to test SIF in individuals either affected by psychological disorders or exhibiting high scores on related traits. Overall, across 96 effects from 25 studies, we found that avoiding retrieval leads to significant forgetting in healthy individuals, with a small to moderate effect size (0.28, 95% CI [0.14, 0.43]). Importantly, this effect was indeed larger than for more anxious (-0.21, 95% CI [-0.41, -0.02]) or depressed individuals (0.05, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.29])-though estimates for the healthy may be inflated by publication bias. In contrast, individuals with a stronger repressive coping style showed greater SIF (0.42, 95% CI [0.32, 0.52]). Furthermore, moderator analyses revealed that SIF varied with the exact suppression mechanism that participants were instructed to engage. For healthy individuals, the effect sizes were considerably larger when instructions induced specific mechanisms of direct retrieval suppression or thought substitution than when they were unspecific. These results suggest that intact suppression-induced forgetting is a hallmark of psychological well-being, and that inducing more specific suppression mechanisms fosters voluntary forgetting. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).Although examples can be structured to emphasize diagnostic features of concepts, novice learners tend to focus on irrelevant surface features and struggle to encode deeper structures. Experiment 1 examined whether pretesting-answering questions about content before it is studied-could enhance learners' noticing of diagnostic features, making them easier to process during subsequent study. Participants studied statistical concepts with examples that emphasized surface details or deep structure, and then classified new examples of these concepts. Studying examples that emphasized deep structure increased classification performance compared to examples that emphasized surface details. Moreover, taking pretests prior to studying the examples increased classification performance and eliminated differential benefits of studying structure versus surface examples. Experiment 2 examined whether pretesting serves a role beyond directing attention. After studying different statistical concepts with only surface-emphasizing examples, classification performance was better when participants actually took pretests compared to being given the correct responses.