Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Background And Objectives: The counter-app method is often used to assess the frequency of intrusions. The method requires the participants to press a button on a smartphone whenever an intrusion occurs during a predefined time period. We evaluated the convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity of the counter-app method in two studies.
Methods: In the first study, we assessed the frequency of intrusions with a counter-app method, thought-sampling method, and a retrospective measure in N = 77 students. Additionally, we assessed retrospectively-estimated duration, percentage of time, intensity, and intrusiveness of intrusions. The second study (N = 65) was identical to the first except the thinking-aloud method replaced the thought-sampling method, and additionally we assessed behavioral neutralizing.
Results: The counter-app frequency was positively correlated with the convergent (thought-sampling and thinking-aloud frequencies, and retrospectively-estimated frequencies of intrusions) and predictive (behavioral neutralizing) validity criteria. The correlations between counter-app frequency and discriminant validity criteria (retrospectively-estimated duration, percentage of time, intensity, and intrusiveness of intrusions) were not smaller than the correlations between counter-app frequency and convergent validity criteria.
Limitations: We evaluated the predictive validity of the counter-app method using a criterion typical of obsessive-compulsive disorder research. Thus, the result for predictive validity might not transfer to other areas.
Conclusions: Our findings support convergent and predictive, but not discriminant, validity of the counter-app method. The counter-app method can validly assess the frequency of intrusions but is not appropriate if the study requires the differentiation of frequency from other constructs such as duration.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2022.101775 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!