Dataset Information

Emotion Recognition Ability Test Using JACFEE Photos: A Validity/Reliability Study of a War Veterans' Sample and Their Offspring.

ABSTRACT: Emotion recognition is very important for social interaction. Several mental disorders influence facial emotion recognition. War veterans and their offspring are subject to an increased risk of developing psychopathology. Emotion recognition is an important aspect that needs to be addressed in this population. To our knowledge, no test exists that is validated for use with war veterans and their offspring. The current study aimed to validate the JACFEE photo set to study facial emotion recognition in war veterans and their offspring. The JACFEE photo set was presented to 135 participants, comprised of 62 male war veterans and 73 war veterans' offspring. The participants identified the facial emotion presented from amongst the possible seven emotions that were tested for: anger, contempt, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness, and surprise. A loglinear model was used to evaluate whether the agreement between the intended and the chosen emotions was higher than the expected. Overall agreement between chosen and intended emotions was 76.3% (Cohen kappa = 0.72). The agreement ranged from 63% (sadness expressions) to 91% (happiness expressions). The reliability by emotion ranged from 0.617 to 0.843 and the overall JACFEE photo set Cronbach alpha was 0.911. The offspring showed higher agreement when compared with the veterans (RR: 41.52 vs 12.12, p < 0.001), which confirms the construct validity of the test. The JACFEE set of photos showed good validity and reliability indices, which makes it an adequate instrument for researching emotion recognition ability in the study sample of war veterans and their respective offspring.

SUBMITTER: Castro-Vale I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4493014 | biostudies-other | 2015

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the convergent validity of the six-minute stepper test (6MST) with the variables used in the diagnosis of sarcopenia (appendicular muscle mass, handgrip strength and six-meter gait speed test), as well as to evaluate test-retest reliability and safety when applied to hospitalized elderly patients. Finally, we aimed to compare the performance in the 6MST between hospitalized elderly patients and healthy elderly from the community.Materials and methodsObservational and cross-sectional study. Elderly patients admitted to a private hospital and healthy elderly from the community were recruited. On the first day, the patients included underwent the following assessments: anthropometric, handgrip strength (HGS), six-meter gait speed test (6GST) and 6MST. On the second day, before breakfast, patients underwent body composition assessment. The healthy elderly were evaluated on a single day and performed only anthropometric assessment and 6MST.Results30 hospitalized patients (age 71.0±7.9 years) and 15 healthy elderly (age 68.1±5.8 years) were included. There was a high correlation of 6MST with 6GST (r = 0.78; p<0.001), moderate correlation with HGS (r = 0.59; p<0.001) and low correlation with appendicular muscle mass (r = 0.45; p = 0.01). There was no statistical difference between the first and second 6MST performed by hospitalized elderly (196.2±91.0 cycles vs. 191.3±103.7 cycles; p = 0.66), in addition to an excellent agreement between these measures (ICC = 0.90; 95% IC 0.78-0.95). Only one adverse event (3.3%) occurred in the sample.Conclusion6MST showed convergent validity with the functional variables used in the diagnosis of sarcopenia. In addition, excellent test-retest reliability was observed, which indicates the need for a single assessment in hospitalized elderly patients. The prevalence of adverse events during the application of the test is low, without resulting in clinical symptoms; therefore, the test is considered safe for this population. In addition, hospitalized elderly patients perform worse in the 6MST compared to healthy elderly from the community.

Project description:BackgroundThe Ruff Figural Fluency Test (RFFT) is a valid but time-consuming and labour-intensive cognitive paper-and-pencil test. A digital RFFT was developed that can be conducted independently using an iPad and Apple Pencil and RFFT scores are computed automatically. We investigated the validity and reliability of this digital RFFT.MethodsWe randomly allocated participants to the digital or paper-and-pencil RFFT. After the first test, the other test was performed immediately (cross-over). Participants were invited for a second digital RFFT 1 week later. For the digital RFFT, an (automatic) algorithm and two independent raters (criterion standard) assessed the number of unique designs (UD) and perseverative errors (PE). These raters also assessed the paper-and-pencil RFFT. We used Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), sensitivity, specificity, %-agreement, Kappa, and Bland-Altman plots.ResultsWe included 94 participants (mean (SD) age 39.9 (14.8), 73.4% follow-up). Mean (SD) UD and median (IQR) PE of the digital RFFT were 84.2 (26.0) and 4 (2-7.3), respectively. Agreement between manual and automatic scoring of the digital RFFT was high for UD (ICC = 0.99, 95% CI 0.98, 0.99, sensitivity = 0.98; specificity = 0.96) and PE (ICC = 0.99, 95% CI 0.98, 0.99; sensitivity = 0.90, specificity = 1.00), indicating excellent criterion validity. Small but significant differences in UD were found between the automatic and manual scoring (mean difference: - 1.12, 95% CI - 1.92, - 0.33). Digital and paper-and-pencil RFFT had moderate agreement for UD (ICC = 0.73, 95% CI 0.34, 0.87) and poor agreement for PE (ICC = 0.47, 95% CI 0.30, 0.62). Participants had fewer UD on the digital than paper-and-pencil RFFT (mean difference: - 7.09, 95% CI - 11.80, - 2.38). The number of UD on the digital RFFT was associated with higher education (Spearman's r = 0.43, p < 0.001), and younger age (Pearson's r = - 0.36, p < 0.001), showing its ability to discriminate between different age categories and levels of education. Test-retest reliability was moderate (ICC = 0.74, 95% CI 0.61, 0.83).ConclusionsThe automatic scoring of the digital RFFT has good criterion and convergent validity. There was low agreement between the digital RFFT and paper-and-pencil RFFT and moderate test-retest reliability, which can be explained by learning effects. The digital RFFT is a valid and reliable instrument to measure executive cognitive function among the general population and is a feasible alternative to the paper-and-pencil RFFT in large-scale studies. However, its scores cannot be used interchangeably with the paper-and-pencil RFFT scores.

Dataset Information

Emotion Recognition Ability Test Using JACFEE Photos: A Validity/Reliability Study of a War Veterans' Sample and Their Offspring.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets