LIVIVO - The Search Portal for Life Sciences

zur deutschen Oberfläche wechseln
Advanced search

Search results

Result 1 - 8 of total 8

Search options

  1. Article ; Online: Validation of the reading the mind in the eyes test requires an interpretable factor model.

    Higgins, Wendy C / Savalei, Victoria / Polito, Vince / Ross, Robert M

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

    2023  Volume 120, Issue 52, Page(s) e2303706120

    MeSH term(s) Eye ; Theory of Mind
    Language English
    Publishing date 2023-12-18
    Publishing country United States
    Document type Letter
    ZDB-ID 209104-5
    ISSN 1091-6490 ; 0027-8424
    ISSN (online) 1091-6490
    ISSN 0027-8424
    DOI 10.1073/pnas.2303706120
    Database MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE

    More links

    Kategorien

  2. Article ; Online: Three threats to the validity of the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test: A commentary on.

    Higgins, Wendy C / Ross, Robert M / Polito, Vince / Kaplan, David M

    Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews

    2023  Volume 147, Page(s) 105088

    MeSH term(s) Humans ; Eye ; Neuropsychological Tests ; Theory of Mind
    Language English
    Publishing date 2023-02-12
    Publishing country United States
    Document type Journal Article ; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't ; Comment
    ZDB-ID 282464-4
    ISSN 1873-7528 ; 0149-7634
    ISSN (online) 1873-7528
    ISSN 0149-7634
    DOI 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2023.105088
    Database MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE

    More links

    Kategorien

  3. Article ; Online: Construct validity evidence reporting practices for the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test: A systematic scoping review.

    Higgins, Wendy C / Kaplan, David M / Deschrijver, Eliane / Ross, Robert M

    Clinical psychology review

    2023  Volume 108, Page(s) 102378

    Abstract: The Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test (RMET) is one of the most influential measures of social cognitive ability, and it has been used extensively in clinical populations. However, questions have been raised about the validity of RMET scores. We ... ...

    Abstract The Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test (RMET) is one of the most influential measures of social cognitive ability, and it has been used extensively in clinical populations. However, questions have been raised about the validity of RMET scores. We conducted a systematic scoping review of the validity evidence reported in studies that administered the RMET (n = 1461; of which 804 included at least one clinical sample) with a focus on six key dimensions: internal consistency, test-retest reliability, factor structure, convergent validity, discriminant validity, and known group validity. Strikingly, 63% of these studies failed to provide validity evidence from any of these six categories. Moreover, when evidence was reported, it frequently failed to meet widely accepted validity standards. Overall, our results suggest a troubling conclusion: the validity of RMET scores (and the research findings based on them) are largely unsubstantiated and uninterpretable. More broadly, this project demonstrates how unaddressed measurement issues can undermine a voluminous psychological literature.
    MeSH term(s) Humans ; Reproducibility of Results ; Cognition ; Affective Symptoms ; Eye ; Social Skills
    Language English
    Publishing date 2023-12-28
    Publishing country United States
    Document type Systematic Review ; Journal Article ; Review ; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
    ZDB-ID 604577-7
    ISSN 1873-7811 ; 0272-7358
    ISSN (online) 1873-7811
    ISSN 0272-7358
    DOI 10.1016/j.cpr.2023.102378
    Database MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE

    More links

    Kategorien

  4. Article ; Online: The "Reading the Mind in the Eyes" Test Shows Poor Psychometric Properties in a Large, Demographically Representative U.S. Sample.

    Higgins, Wendy C / Ross, Robert M / Langdon, Robyn / Polito, Vince

    Assessment

    2022  Volume 30, Issue 6, Page(s) 1777–1789

    Abstract: The Reading the Mind in the Eyes test (RMET) is a widely used measure of theory of mind (ToM). Despite its popularity, there are questions regarding the RMET's psychometric properties. In the current study, we examined the RMET in a representative U.S. ... ...

    Abstract The Reading the Mind in the Eyes test (RMET) is a widely used measure of theory of mind (ToM). Despite its popularity, there are questions regarding the RMET's psychometric properties. In the current study, we examined the RMET in a representative U.S. sample of 1,181 adults. Key analyses included conducting an exploratory factor analysis on the full sample and examining whether there is a different factor structure in individuals with high versus low scores on the 28-item autism spectrum quotient (AQ-28). We identified overlapping, but distinct, three-factor models for the full sample and the two subgroups. In all cases, each of the three models showed inadequate model fit. We also found other limitations of the RMET, including that nearly a quarter of the RMET items did not meet the criteria for inclusion in the RMET that were established in the original validation study. Due to the RMET's weak psychometric properties and the uncertain validity of individual items, as indicated by our study and previous studies, we conclude that significant caution is warranted when using the RMET as a measure of ToM.
    MeSH term(s) Adult ; Humans ; Psychometrics ; Theory of Mind ; Intelligence Tests ; Affective Symptoms ; Factor Analysis, Statistical
    Language English
    Publishing date 2022-09-19
    Publishing country United States
    Document type Journal Article ; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
    ZDB-ID 1362144-0
    ISSN 1552-3489 ; 1073-1911
    ISSN (online) 1552-3489
    ISSN 1073-1911
    DOI 10.1177/10731911221124342
    Database MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE

    More links

    Kategorien

  5. Article ; Online: Responding to unethical research: the importance of transparency.

    Rogers, Wendy A / Higgins, Wendy C / Ballantyne, Angela / Lipworth, Wendy

    Journal of medical ethics

    2020  Volume 46, Issue 10, Page(s) 691–692

    MeSH term(s) China ; Ethics, Research ; Humans
    Keywords covid19
    Language English
    Publishing date 2020-09-14
    Publishing country England
    Document type Journal Article ; Comment
    ZDB-ID 194927-5
    ISSN 1473-4257 ; 0306-6800
    ISSN (online) 1473-4257
    ISSN 0306-6800
    DOI 10.1136/medethics-2020-106878
    Database MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE

    More links

    Kategorien

  6. Article ; Online: Against the use and publication of contemporary unethical research: the case of Chinese transplant research.

    Higgins, Wendy C / Rogers, Wendy A / Ballantyne, Angela / Lipworth, Wendy

    Journal of medical ethics

    2020  Volume 46, Issue 10, Page(s) 678–684

    Abstract: Recent calls for retraction of a large body of Chinese transplant research and of Dr Jiankui He's gene editing research has led to renewed interest in the question of publication, retraction and use of unethical biomedical research. In Part 1 of this ... ...

    Abstract Recent calls for retraction of a large body of Chinese transplant research and of Dr Jiankui He's gene editing research has led to renewed interest in the question of publication, retraction and use of unethical biomedical research. In Part 1 of this paper, we briefly review the now well-established consequentialist and deontological arguments for and against the use of unethical research. We argue that, while there are potentially compelling justifications for use under some circumstances, these justifications fail when unethical practices are ongoing-as in the case of research involving transplantations in which organs have been procured unethically from executed prisoners. Use of such research displays a lack of respect and concern for the victims and undermines efforts to deter unethical practices. Such use also creates moral taint and renders those who use the research complicit in continuing harm. In Part 2, we distinguish three dimensions of 'non-use' of unethical research: non-use of published unethical research, non-publication, and retraction and argue that all three types of non-use should be upheld in the case of Chinese transplant research. Publishers have responsibilities to not publish contemporary unethical biomedical research, and where this has occurred, to retract publications. Failure to retract the papers implicitly condones the research, while uptake of the research through citations rewards researchers and ongoing circulation of the data in the literature facilitates subsequent use by researchers, policymakers and clinicians.
    MeSH term(s) Biomedical Research ; China ; Ethics, Research ; Humans ; Organ Transplantation ; Research Personnel
    Language English
    Publishing date 2020-07-01
    Publishing country England
    Document type Journal Article
    ZDB-ID 194927-5
    ISSN 1473-4257 ; 0306-6800
    ISSN (online) 1473-4257
    ISSN 0306-6800
    DOI 10.1136/medethics-2019-106044
    Database MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE

    More links

    Kategorien

  7. Article: Responding to unethical research: the importance of transparency

    Rogers, Wendy A. / Higgins, Wendy C. / Ballantyne, Angela / Lipworth, Wendy

    Journal of Medical Ethics

    Abstract: More generally, while China is a global leader in science and technology, growing concerns about plagiarism, fabrication, falsification and inappropriate authorship are now so widespread as to create general wariness about the reliability and validity of ...

    Abstract More generally, while China is a global leader in science and technology, growing concerns about plagiarism, fabrication, falsification and inappropriate authorship are now so widespread as to create general wariness about the reliability and validity of Chinese scientific research 6 To adequately address concerns about research integrity and misconduct, China needs to commit to transparency and openness in science and in government 7 Caplan speaks to this point in his call for full transparency in consent to organ donation in China (with written and video evidence);attestations by researchers about maintaining proper standards in consent;and openness of transplant centres to independent external audit 2 We support these points and propose a blockchain protected database with international access and monitoring, to ensure transparency and traceability of all organs used for transplant in China and elsewhere [ ]we wish to clarify that in the passage cited by Goldstein and Peterson regarding ongoing ethical breaches, we are referring to the ongoing human rights violation of forced organ harvesting Given the gravity of the abuses, there is particular urgency in stopping them, which warrants retraction of existing papers and an effective ban on publishing new research [ ]China has an organ donation and transplantation system that is transparent, independently auditable by the international community and allows each organ to be traced, it is not possible to have confidence that forced organ harvesting has ceased
    Keywords covid19
    Publisher WHO
    Document type Article
    Note WHO #Covidence: #830659
    Database COVID19

    Kategorien

  8. Article ; Online: Responding to unethical research

    Rogers, Wendy A / Higgins, Wendy C / Ballantyne, Angela / Lipworth, Wendy

    the importance of transparency

    2020  

    Keywords COVID-19 ; Coronavirus ; covid19
    Language English
    Publishing country au
    Document type Article ; Online
    Database BASE - Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (life sciences selection)

    More links

    Kategorien

To top