Comparison between Japanese online and standard administrations of the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale 2 and effects of post‐warning

Abstract

Purpose This study aimed to develop the Japanese online version of the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale 2 (GSS2). The effects of post‐warning and free recall on suggestibility were also examined. Methods A total of 442 people aged between 20 and 59 years took the Japanese online version of the GSS2, and their scores were compared with those obtained via administration of the Japanese standard version in a previous study and those of the British normative sample. The influence of post‐warning (a technique in which the participant is given an apology for the incorrect negative feedback provided on the first day) and free recall instruction on suggestibility was examined in 10 out of the 20 GSS test questions 2 days after the administration of the online GSS2. Results There were no differences in Yield2, Shift, and Total suggestibility scored between the Japanese online and standard versions of the GSS2. The difference in Yield1 scores between the two versions was also small. However, there were significant differences between the Japanese online and British versions in all GSS scores other than Total suggestibility. Further, post‐warning and free recall effectively avoided an increased number of misled responses to leading questions. Conclusions The results obtained demonstrate the validity of the Japanese online version of the GSS2. It was also found that certain instructions could be used to prevent further response suggestibility when any misleading questions were provided.

Psychometric Properties of a German Online Version of the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale 1

“…Furthermore, consistent with previous studies, Yield 2 and Shift were highly correlated, whereas Yield 1 and Shift correlated moderately. The Yield 1, Yield 2, Shift, and total suggestibility scores of the GSS 1 in the present study were significantly lower compared to previous studies on the GSS 1 (Gudjonsson, 1997;Reutemann, 2006;vom Schemm et al, 2006;Gubi-Kelm and Schmidt, 2018;Wachi et al, 2019). As Gorassini et al (2006) found similarly low Yield scores in their English online GSS 1, this discrepancy might be attributed to the online format.…”

“…Furthermore, we investigated factorial validity, configural, metric, and scalar invariance across gender and research institutions by means of multiple-group CFAs. Reliability measures were found to be comparable to faceto-face versions of the GSS 1 (Gudjonsson, 1984;Gubi-Kelm and Schmidt, 2018), but no reliability data were reported in previous online GSS studies (Gorassini et al, 2006;Wachi et al, 2019). When based on factor scores, the reliability of Yield 1 increases but is still questionable, whereas the reliabilities of Yield 2 and Shift are acceptable (George and Mallery, 2003).…”

“…Both online versions compared their online data with the original English version of the British normative sample (Gudjonsson, 1997). Although both studies revealed increased Shift and lower Yield scores for the online GSS compared to the standard version, both studies conclude that the online GSS is applicable and suitable for practical or research purposes (Gorassini et al, 2006;Wachi et al, 2019).…”

“…One approach toward this direction is to perform computer-aided testing. The GSS 1 have already been adapted into an English online version (Gorassini et al, 2006) and the GSS 2 into a Japanese online version (Wachi et al, 2019). Both online versions compared their online data with the original English version of the British normative sample (Gudjonsson, 1997).…”

“…According to the manual, the 20 GSS 1 questions can be asked after the immediate recall stage (Gudjonsson, 1984(Gudjonsson, , 1997. The online procedure has already been applied in previous studies (Gorassini et al, 2006;Wachi et al, 2019). The 50-min delay interval and delayed recall stage were not tested here (but see Gubi-Kelm and Schmidt, 2018).…”