No abstract

The Scrambled Sentences Task (SST) is frequently used to assess interpretation biases (IBs). However, neither the range of its applications nor the quality of the empirical evidence it provides has been systematically examined. This systematic review investigates the types of samples and disorders in which the SST has been applied and evaluates its psychometric properties. The databases PubMed and EBSCOhost (including PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, PSYNDEX, MEDLINE) were examined (last search: March 2021) and 89 studies from 86 manuscripts were included. Results showed that the SST has been applied predominantly in unselected samples or those with elevated levels of subsyndromal symptoms, with about a third of the studies applying the SST in a clinical population. While the SST was initially developed to assess depression-related IBs, its use has now been extended to many other disorders, in particular anxiety disorders. The convergent validity of the SST was found to be good, yet results concerning divergent validity were more mixed with high correlations across disorders between the SST and trait-anxiety in particular, questioning its specificity. Reliability was generally sufficient, yet seldom reported. Questions for future research concern the SST’s test-retest reliability and its relationship with other direct or indirect measures of IBs.

Background Cognitive models of panic disorder (PD) highlight the role of panic-related associations and interpretations. However, results are mixed and rely on specific measures. This study examined panic-related associations and interpretations using established and new paradigms in individuals varying on anxiety sensitivity (AS). Methods Associations were measured using a priming task and a novel Single Target Implicit Association Test (STIAT); interpretations were assessed using the Interpretation Bias Questionnaire (IBQ) and a novel Scrambled Sentences Task (SST). Symptoms were assessed via a provocation task (Straw Breathing Task, SBT). Results Panic-related interpretations correlated with AS and other PD-related measures. Of the association tasks, only the priming task correlated with one of the other PD-related measures. Panic-related interpretations assessed via the SST, but not priming, STIAT, and IBQ, predicted SBT reactivity. The relationship between AS and SBT reactivity was mediated by panic-related interpretations. Conclusions Our data provide support for panic-related interpretations as an important cognitive mechanism.

No abstract

Theoretical models of sexual desire emphasize the role of cognitive processes. Empirical results, however, are mostly based on self-report measures. This study used three indirect measures to assess sexuality-related associations (via a Single Target Implicit Association Test; STIAT), and sexuality-related interpretations (via a Scrambled Sentences Task, SST; and a scenario task) in 263 women (Mage = 27.90, SD = 8.27) with varying levels of sexual desire. Correlational analyses revealed that the STIAT did not correlate with sexual desire, whereas the SST and the scenario task were significantly associated with sexual desire. Further, the SST and the scenario task, but not the STIAT, explained additional variance in sexual desire above other relevant variables (i.e., age, depressive symptoms, and sexual distress measured via self-report). To conclude, indirect measures can provide additional and unique information on sexuality-related associations and interpretations above self-report measures. Specifically, we found evidence for the predictive validity of the newly established SST, and can further validate the scenario task. Future studies should assess the causal mechanism underlying sexuality-related interpretations, e.g., by evaluating whether these can be changed via cognitive bias modification techniques or psychological treatments.