1991
DOI: 10.1037/1040-3590.3.2.213
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Validity of the computerized interpretive report for the Marital Satisfaction Inventory: A customer satisfaction study.

Abstract: This study examined the validity and clinical utility of the computerized interpretive report for the Marital Satisfaction Inventory (MSI), as rated by a national sampleof 60 marital therapists. Individual accuracy and utility ratings were obtained for separate narrative sections of the computerized report in which Barnum effects were controlled by comparing bona fide interpretive paragraphs with bogus narratives. In addition, "halo" effects were controlled by interweaving bogus and bona fide interpretive sect… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

1994
1994
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Upon receiving the report, participants rated it on 10 seven-point Likert-type scale dimensions assessing the following CBTI characteristics: conciseness, confirmation of therapist's impressions of the client, usefulness for diagnosis and/or treatment, accuracy, provision of new information, presence of contradictory information, organization and clarity, presence of useless information, omission of important information, and appropriateness of diagnostic considerations. This rating scale was designed to be similar to other rating scales used in previous CBTI validation research (e.g., Green, 1982;Hoover & Snyder, 1991;Webb et al, 1970). Upon completing the ratings, raters were informed whether they had rated an authentic or modal report; if the latter, the rater was then sent the corresponding authentic report.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Upon receiving the report, participants rated it on 10 seven-point Likert-type scale dimensions assessing the following CBTI characteristics: conciseness, confirmation of therapist's impressions of the client, usefulness for diagnosis and/or treatment, accuracy, provision of new information, presence of contradictory information, organization and clarity, presence of useless information, omission of important information, and appropriateness of diagnostic considerations. This rating scale was designed to be similar to other rating scales used in previous CBTI validation research (e.g., Green, 1982;Hoover & Snyder, 1991;Webb et al, 1970). Upon completing the ratings, raters were informed whether they had rated an authentic or modal report; if the latter, the rater was then sent the corresponding authentic report.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Clearly, the evaluation of acceptability of reports/test outputs needs to be tied to their adequacy in fulfilling their intended purpose (e.g., overall recommendation in selection or accurate descriptive statements of individuals' behavior). Although methods such as interweaving bogus and real narratives has been attempted (Hoover & Snyder, ), the evidence more generally provided from this type of study tends to fall into the category of user acceptability studies rather than providing direct evidence of the validity of interpretation. However, if particular outputs provide information that test users find more acceptable, it is reasonable to infer that such outputs are more likely to be used.…”
Section: Differences In Interpretations and The Heuristics And Biasesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although some studies have tried to control for the Barnum Effect by contrasting ratings of bogus and actual CBTI's, Snyder and colleagues (1990) noted that even this methodology can be compromised by "halo effects." Hoover and Snyder (1991) tried to reduce the confound by interweaving bogus statements with real statements within a single report (using the Marital Satisfaction Inventory), but this methodology has been infrequently used by other researchers for studying other measures (Snyder, 2000). Other methodological considerations can help improve future consumer satisfaction validity studies: rate specific statements and paragraphs in addition to the global narrative, assess interrater reliability, use a large representative sample of users, and tap a range of behaviors covered by the interpretive system (Moreland, 1985;Snyder, 2000;Snyder et al, 1990).…”
Section: Validity Of Automated Assessmentmentioning
confidence: 99%