“Stumbling” in Responses to Psychological Scales and Support from Clinical Psychologists
##article.authors##
-
Ayako Baba
Health Service Center, Kanazawa University
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1409-3482
https://researchmap.jp/a_baba
-
Kyosuke Bunji
Graduate School of Business Administration, Kobe University
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9512-7439
https://researchmap.jp/K-Bunji
-
Aya Fukushima
Ichimiya Mental Clinic
https://researchmap.jp/AyaFukushima
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51094/jxiv.830Keywords:
Psychological Assessment, Self-reported scale, Client, Clinical Psychologist, QuestionnaireAbstract
This study defines “stumbling in response (hereinafter called "stumbling”)” as the difficulty in giving a valid response about their condition to a certain situation, psychological scale, or item. This study explored the presence, situation, and clinical psychologists’ support for clients’ stumbling in clinical situations from the perspective of clinical psychologists. An open-ended web-based survey of clinical psychologists showed that 99 out of 103 valid respondents noticed stumbling. Qualitative analysis revealed various situations causing stumbling, the diversity of clients’ expressions, clinical psychologists’ support, and different characteristics of stumbling in the collected responses. Quantitative analysis of co-occurrence frequencies and rates showed that the situation was related to stumbling, and that stumbling was related to support. These results are expected to facilitate the development of appropriate methods for stumbling prevention and support.
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.Downloads *Displays the aggregated results up to the previous day.
References
Danielle R. B., & Jason T. S. (2023) Preventing satisficing: A narrative review, International Journal of Social Research Methodology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2023.2239086
DeCastellarnau, A. (2017). A classification of response scale characteristics that affect data quality: A literature review. Quality & Quantity, 52, 1523–1559. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0533-4
堀 洋道 (2001). 監修のことば 堀 洋道 (監修)・山本眞理子 (編) 心理測定尺度集Ⅰ――人間の内面を探る「自己・個人内過程」―― (pp.ⅰ-ⅲ) サイエンス社
川喜田 二郎 (1986). KJ法――渾沌をして語らしめる――. 中央公論社.
厚生労働省 (2015). 公認心理師法 Retrieved March 22, 2024 from https://www.mhlw.go.jp/web/t_doc?dataId=80ab4905&dataType=0&pageNo=1
Kramer, J. M., & Schwartz, A. (2017). Reducing barriers to patient-reported outcome measures for people with cognitive impairments. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 98(8), 1705–1715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2017.03.011
Lee, P., Joo, SH. & Jia, Z. (2022). Opening the black box of the response process to personality faking: An application of item response tree models. Journal of Business and Psychology, 37, 1199–1214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-022-09791-6
宮下 一博 (1998). 序章 質問紙法による人間理解. 鎌原 雅彦・宮下 一博・大野木 裕明・中澤 潤 (編) 心理学マニュアル 質問紙法 (pp. 1–8) 北大路書房
MMPI-3日本版研究会 (2022). MMPI-3日本版マニュアル 三京房
Oppenheimer, D. M., Meyvis, T., & Davidenko, N. (2009). Instructional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 867–872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009
Schwarz, N. (2007). Cognitive Aspects of Survey Methodology. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21(2), 277–287. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1340
Ziegler, M. (2011). Applicant faking: A look into the black box. The Industrial and Organizational Psychologist, 49, 29–36.
Downloads
Posted
Submitted: 2024-07-29 09:42:18 UTC
Published: 2024-07-31 08:49:10 UTC
License
Copyright (c) 2024
Ayako Baba
Kyosuke Bunji
Aya Fukushima
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
