The aim of the study was to test convergent/discriminant validity of two measures of cognitive reflection, cognitive reflection test (CRT) and belief bias syllogisms (BBS) and to investigate whether their distinctive characteristic of luring participants into giving wrong intuitive responses explains their relationships with various abilities and disposition measures. Our results show that the same traits largely account for performance on both non-lure task, the Berlin Numeracy Test (BNT), and CRT and explain their correlations with other variables. These results also imply that the predictive validity of CRT for wide range of outcomes does not stem from lures. Regarding the BBS, we found that its correlations with other measures were substantially diminished once we accounted for the effects of BNT. This also implies that the lures are not the reason for the correlation between BBS and these measure. We conclude that the lures are not the reason why cognitive reflection tasks correlate with different outcomes. Our results call into question an original definition of CRT as a measure of ability or disposition to resist reporting first response that comes to mind, as well as the validity of results of studies showing “incremental validity” of CRT over numeracy.

The paper discusses the relevance of sufficient psychometric standards for dementia rating scales. The concurrent, convergent and construct validity of the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE), the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS) and the CAMCOG are assessed. The Clinical Global Impressions and the Global Deterioration Scale are used as global scales. The concurrent and convergent validity are satisfactory. The construct validity expressed by the Cronbach and Loevinger coefficient are very good for all scales and subscales. The Mokken's single item coefficients show that the MMSE has the best individual hierarchical fit, the item reading can be left out. The ADAS is less uni-dimensional, eight items can be left out. The CAMCOG consists of too many items to apply the Mokken's single item coefficients or the Loevinger coefficient. Instead, the CAMCOG subscales are analyzed. This results in a possible reduction of the CAMCOG by 30 items to a total of 35 items. The factor analysis reveals two factors in both the MMSE and the ADAS while the number of observations does not allow a factor analysis of the CAMCOG to be performed.

The identification of dysfunctional patterns in individuals’ interpersonal interactions is a cornerstone of psychotherapy. The Inventory of Interpersonal Problems (IIP-32) is one of the most used measures to explore individuals’ interpersonal styles. However, an IIP-32 Portuguese version is missing. Therefore, this study describes a preliminary psychometric study of an IIP-32 Portuguese version in a nonclinical sample. In a cross-sectional correlational design, 250 participants (M age = 20.67, SD = 4.88, males = 33, females = 217) were assessed with self-report questionnaires. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA), convergent, and divergent validities of the IIP-32 were tested with the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI). Relationships with symptomatology were also tested with the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI-53). The EFA showed a theoretically coherent eight-factor structure. Almost all of the IIP-32 subscales were positively correlated with personal discomfort and with BSI-53 subscales. Vindictive/self-centred, socially inhibited, domineering/controlling and self-sacrificing subscales predicted symptomatology. Promising preliminary psychometric properties were found that may support the IIP-32 as a reliable instrument to assess interpersonal styles. However, more research is required to deepen the analysis of the IIP-32 in the Portuguese population.

Nutrient profiling (NP) is a method for evaluating the healthfulness of foods. Although many NP models exist, most have not been validated. This study aimed to examine the content and construct/convergent validity of five models from different regions: Australia/New Zealand (FSANZ), France (Nutri-Score), Canada (HCST), Europe (EURO) and Americas (PAHO). Using data from the 2013 UofT Food Label Information Program (n15342 foods/beverages), construct/convergent validity was assessed by comparing the classifications of foods determined by each model to a previously validated model, which served as the reference (Ofcom). The parameters assessed included associations (Cochran–Armitage trend test), agreement (κ statistic) and discordant classifications (McNemar’s test). Analyses were conducted across all foods and by food category. On the basis of the nutrients/components considered by each model, all models exhibited moderate content validity. Although positive associations were observed between each model and Ofcom (all Ptrend<0·001), agreement with Ofcom was ‘near perfect’ for FSANZ (κ=0·89) and Nutri-Score (κ=0·83), ‘moderate’ for EURO (κ=0·54) and ‘fair’ for PAHO (κ=0·28) and HCST (κ=0·26). There were discordant classifications with Ofcom for 5·3 % (FSANZ), 8·3 % (Nutri-Score), 22·0 % (EURO), 33·4 % (PAHO) and 37·0 % (HCST) of foods (all P<0·001). Construct/convergent validity was confirmed between FSANZ and Nutri-Score v. Ofcom, and to a lesser extent between EURO v. Ofcom. Numerous incongruencies with Ofcom were identified for HCST and PAHO, which highlights the importance of examining classifications across food categories, the level at which differences between models become apparent. These results may be informative for regulators seeking to adapt and validate existing models for use in country-specific applications.

The n-back task is a widely used neuroimaging paradigm for studying the neural basis of working memory (WM); however, its neuropsychometric properties have received little empirical investigation. The present study merged clinical neuropsychology and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to explore the construct validity of the letter variant of the n-back task (LNB) and to further identify the task-evoked networks involved in WM. Construct validity of the LNB task was investigated using a bootstrapping approach to correlate LNB task performance across clinically validated neuropsychological measures of WM to establish convergent validity, as well as measures of related but distinct cognitive constructs (i.e., attention and short-term memory) to establish discriminant validity. Independent component analysis (ICA) identified brain networks active during the LNB task in 34 healthy control participants, and general linear modeling determined task-relatedness of these networks. Bootstrap correlation analyses revealed moderate to high correlations among measures expected to converge with LNB (|ρ|≥0.37) and weak correlations among measures expected to discriminate (|ρ|≤0.29), controlling for age and education. ICA identified 35 independent networks, 17 of which demonstrated engagement significantly related to task condition, controlling for reaction time variability. Of these, the bilateral frontoparietal networks, bilateral dorsolateral prefrontal cortices, bilateral superior parietal lobules including precuneus, and frontoinsular network were preferentially recruited by the 2-back condition compared to 0-back control condition, indicating WM involvement. These results support the use of the LNB as a measure of WM and confirm its use in probing the network-level neural correlates of WM processing. (JINS, 2014, 20, 1–15)