Pain Reactivity and Kinesthetic Aftereffect

Parker

et al. 1976

Critics of Kinesthetic Aftereffect (KAF.) recommend abandoning it as a personality measure largely because of poor test-retest reliability. Although no test can be valid if lacking true reliability, to discard a measure because of poor retest reliability is an oversimplification of validation procedures.This pitfall is exemplified here by a reexamination of KAE.KAE scores involve measures before (pretest) and after (test) aftereffect induction. Internal analysis of a KAE study showed: differential bias is present; its locus is the second session pretest; its form makes secondsession pretest scores functionally more similar to first-and second-session test scores and functionally more dissimilar to first-session pretest scores.Given this second session bias, the retest correlation tells us nothing about the true reliability of a one-session KAE score. However, if a measure possesses external validity, it must to some degree show true reliability. Based upon a literature review of one-session KAE validity studies, we conclude that one session KAE scores are valid and hence show true reliability. KAE remains a promising personality measure. The Kinesthetic Aftereffect (KAE) task has been damned as a personality measure for poor retest reliability and questionable validity. This paper demonstrates that KAE's low reliability can be explained by systematic bias effects which follow the first session. When the validity evidence is reevaluated in the light of such bias effects, "questionable" validity disappears. Thus, KAE is reinstated as a personality measure.Of course, no test can be valid if it lacks true reliability. But to discard a measure primarily on the basis of poor test-retest reliability is an oversimplification of validation procedures. This practical pitfall in the evaluation of a personality variable is highlighted here. KAE and the Stimulus Intensity Modulation Hypothesis KAE refers to changes from pretest (P ) to test (T ) in tactual-n n kinesthetic judgments of the width of a test block (T) which occur after rubbing an inducing block (1) which differs in width from T. It has long been known that a general effect occurs with the Y~E task: size judgments increase from pretest to test trials when the inducing block is smaller than the test block (Small Block KAE) and size judgments decrease from pretest to test when the inducing block is larger than the test block (Large Block KAE) (e.g., Bakan & Thompson, 1962;Weintraub, Green, & Herzog, 1973). People, however, differ widely in the degree to which--or even whether or not--they show this general effect. These individual differences are the focus of interest when KAE is used as a personality index.Petrie (1967) and Silverman (1968)

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 62%

Section: Multidimensional Scaling Analysis the Guttman-lingoes Smallmentioning

confidence: 73%

When “Reliability” Fails, Must a Measure Be Discarded?—the Case of Kinesthetic Aftereffect

Parker

et al. 1976

“…Collins, and Solomon (1958), Poser (1960), Ryan and Foster (1967) and Sweeney (1966) each reported findings consistent with the view that Reducers show greater pain tolerance than Augmenters.…”

supporting

confidence: 66%

Stimulus Intensity Modulation: A Perceptual‐cognitive Approach to Life Style in the Elderly1

1974

Gerontological research and theory have largely ignored individual differences and been remarkably unconcerned about the possibility that individuality in processes reflected in perceptual‐cognitive style may mediate differences in important domains of attitudes and behaviors in the elderly. It was here hypothesized that various aspects of life‐style (including engagement) reflect the postulated dimension of modulation (i.e., augmenting vs. reducing) of stimulus intensity. Using the Kinesthetic Aftereffects (KAE) task as the index of stimulus intensity modulation (SIM), a consistent pattern of significant relationships was found between KAE and varied aspects of life style, including the behaviors studied by Engagement Theorists. These findings support the formulation that in the elderly, SIM, as indexed by KAE, can predict individual differences in various aspects of life style. Implications for aging, and the construct of “engagement,” are discussed.

“…At the other extreme, people who judged the standard block as relatively larger after as compared to before stimulation are called Augmenters because they presumably magnify the subjective intensity of incoming stimulation; they are therefore Early validity studies supported this view. For example, under the high intensity stimulation of pain, Reducers showed greater tolerance than Augmenters (Petrie, Co1lins t & Solomon, 1958;Poser, 1960;Sweeney, 1966). However, when the stimulus situation involved the very low intensity stimulation of sensory deprivation, Reducers were found to be less tolerant (Petrie et al t 1958) and physically more active (Sa1es t 1971) than Augmenters.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In another variant of the KAE task, the subject simultaneously rubs two stimulus blocks--a larger one with one hand, a smaller with the other (e.g., Spilker & Callaway, 1969).. this paper is delimited to reliability and validity issues which arise when the one-hand procedure is used and does not consider issues arising with employment of the two-hand variant. Solomon, 1958;Poser, 1960;Sweeney, 1966 We contend that first-session KAE scores possess true test reliability because they have demonstrated concurrent and construct validity relationships with personality and cognitive variables. Our view is based on logical and empirical grounds.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Kinesthetic Aftereffect: Can This Simple Tactual Task Really Predict Personality Attributes?

Kostin

et al. 1975

This Bulletin is a draft for interoffice circulation.Corrections and suggestions for revision are solicited.The Bulletin should not be cited as a reference without the specific permission of the authors. It is automatically superseded upon formal publication of the material. has been abandoned by many investigators because of poor retest reliability and intermittent validity. In challenging this current consensus, we argue: first session KAE is valid; poor retest reliability simply reflects later-session bias; hence, multi-session studies should not be used to assess validity without taking this bias into account.Those recent studies which failed to support KAE validity were each multi-session in design. If our bias contention is correct, these studies should be ignored and the claim of intermittent validity is thus rebutted. Reanalysis of the most recent major multi-session, nonsupportive validity study (Weintraub, Green, & Herzog, 1973) As of 1970, the Kinesthetic Aftereffect (KAE) taskw8s regarded as measuring an important personality variable-individual differences in reactivity to stimulus intensity--and was believed to predict a wide range of behaviors (e.g. Petrie, 1967). Today, this task has been abandoned by many researchers because of abysmally poor test-retest reliability and marginal and/or intermittent validity findings (cf.below). At this crucial stage in the history of this variable, the present paper challenges the current critical consensus and presents an alternative conceptualization which reinstates KAE as a measure of a promdsing personality construct as follows:(1) We review the critique of the KAE task based on its poor test-retest reliability and then challenge this critique on logicalempirical grounds. Low test-retest reliability is here reinterpreted to indicate not that KAE scores are invalid, but rather that second-(and later-) session scores are biased. Therefore,only the firstsession scores provide unbiased measures of the dimension tapped by this task. It is thus concluded that multi-session studies should not be used to assess validity without taking this bias explicitly into account.(2) We reexamine the KAE validity literature in light of thisconclusion. We here demonstrate that those recent studies Which failed to show positive research findings each involved KAE scores from In the Petrie (1967) procedure, the subject rubs a stimulus block with one hand while he rests the other. In another variant of the KAE task, the subject simultaneously rubs two stimulus blocks--a larger one with one hand, a smaller with the other (e.g., Spilker & Callaway, 1969).. this paper is delimited to reliability and validity issues which arise when the one-hand procedure is used and does not consider issues arising with employment of the two-hand variant. Solomon, 1958;Poser, 1960;Sweeney, 1966 We contend that first-session KAE scores possess true test reliability because they have demonstrated concurrent and construct validity relationships with personality and cognitive variables. Our view is ba...