Method of test administration as a factor in test validity: The use of a personality questionnaire in the prediction of cancer and coronary heart disease

R. Grossarth-Maticek, H. J. Eysenck, G. J. Boyle

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

15 Citations (Scopus)
15 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

This study examines the predictive accuracy of four different methods of administration of a questionnaire designed to predict cancer and coronary heart disease (CHD) in healthy probands. The method of administration uses the establishment of trust and the explanation of questions as variables in all four possible combinations, i.e. trust and explanation, trust only, explanation only, and neither, the prediction being that the combination of trust and explanation would produce the most accurate prediction, the treatment using neither the worst prediction, with methods using either trust alone or explanation alone intermediate. The criterion was the successful prediction of cancer and CHD. A total population of 3563 men and women was used, and followed up over 15 years, death certificates being used to establish cause of death. As predicted, the combination of trust and explanation did best, use of neither worst. Explanation seemed more important than trust, and the combination seemed to have a synergistic effect. It is apparent that method of administration had an important effect on the outcome of the experiment.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)705-710
Number of pages6
JournalBehaviour Research and Therapy
Volume33
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1995

Fingerprint

Coronary Disease
Personality
Neoplasms
Death Certificates
Surveys and Questionnaires
Cause of Death
Population

Cite this

@article{9940256b53114fdab198529431c506ca,
title = "Method of test administration as a factor in test validity: The use of a personality questionnaire in the prediction of cancer and coronary heart disease",
abstract = "This study examines the predictive accuracy of four different methods of administration of a questionnaire designed to predict cancer and coronary heart disease (CHD) in healthy probands. The method of administration uses the establishment of trust and the explanation of questions as variables in all four possible combinations, i.e. trust and explanation, trust only, explanation only, and neither, the prediction being that the combination of trust and explanation would produce the most accurate prediction, the treatment using neither the worst prediction, with methods using either trust alone or explanation alone intermediate. The criterion was the successful prediction of cancer and CHD. A total population of 3563 men and women was used, and followed up over 15 years, death certificates being used to establish cause of death. As predicted, the combination of trust and explanation did best, use of neither worst. Explanation seemed more important than trust, and the combination seemed to have a synergistic effect. It is apparent that method of administration had an important effect on the outcome of the experiment.",
author = "R. Grossarth-Maticek and Eysenck, {H. J.} and Boyle, {G. J.}",
year = "1995",
doi = "10.1016/0005-7967(94)00091-W",
language = "English",
volume = "33",
pages = "705--710",
journal = "Behavioral Assessment",
issn = "0005-7967",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "6",

}

Method of test administration as a factor in test validity : The use of a personality questionnaire in the prediction of cancer and coronary heart disease. / Grossarth-Maticek, R.; Eysenck, H. J.; Boyle, G. J.

In: Behaviour Research and Therapy, Vol. 33, No. 6, 1995, p. 705-710.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Method of test administration as a factor in test validity

T2 - The use of a personality questionnaire in the prediction of cancer and coronary heart disease

AU - Grossarth-Maticek, R.

AU - Eysenck, H. J.

AU - Boyle, G. J.

PY - 1995

Y1 - 1995

N2 - This study examines the predictive accuracy of four different methods of administration of a questionnaire designed to predict cancer and coronary heart disease (CHD) in healthy probands. The method of administration uses the establishment of trust and the explanation of questions as variables in all four possible combinations, i.e. trust and explanation, trust only, explanation only, and neither, the prediction being that the combination of trust and explanation would produce the most accurate prediction, the treatment using neither the worst prediction, with methods using either trust alone or explanation alone intermediate. The criterion was the successful prediction of cancer and CHD. A total population of 3563 men and women was used, and followed up over 15 years, death certificates being used to establish cause of death. As predicted, the combination of trust and explanation did best, use of neither worst. Explanation seemed more important than trust, and the combination seemed to have a synergistic effect. It is apparent that method of administration had an important effect on the outcome of the experiment.

AB - This study examines the predictive accuracy of four different methods of administration of a questionnaire designed to predict cancer and coronary heart disease (CHD) in healthy probands. The method of administration uses the establishment of trust and the explanation of questions as variables in all four possible combinations, i.e. trust and explanation, trust only, explanation only, and neither, the prediction being that the combination of trust and explanation would produce the most accurate prediction, the treatment using neither the worst prediction, with methods using either trust alone or explanation alone intermediate. The criterion was the successful prediction of cancer and CHD. A total population of 3563 men and women was used, and followed up over 15 years, death certificates being used to establish cause of death. As predicted, the combination of trust and explanation did best, use of neither worst. Explanation seemed more important than trust, and the combination seemed to have a synergistic effect. It is apparent that method of administration had an important effect on the outcome of the experiment.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0029067082&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/0005-7967(94)00091-W

DO - 10.1016/0005-7967(94)00091-W

M3 - Article

VL - 33

SP - 705

EP - 710

JO - Behavioral Assessment

JF - Behavioral Assessment

SN - 0005-7967

IS - 6

ER -