Submited on: 07 Jan 2011 02:48:58 PM GMT
Published on: 08 Jan 2011 07:34:59 PM GMT
 

1 Is the subject of the article within the scope of the subject category? Yes
2 Are the interpretations / conclusions sound and justified by the data? Yes
3 Is this a new and original contribution? Yes
4 Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic? Yes
5 Are structure and length satisfactory? Yes
6 Can you suggest brief additions or amendments or an introductory statement that will increase the value of this paper for an international audience? No
7 Can you suggest any reductions in the paper, or deletions of parts? No
8 Is the quality of the diction satisfactory? Yes
9 Are the illustrations and tables necessary and acceptable? Yes
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? Yes
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • Other Comments:

    This article effectively addresses a problem within the field, i.e. many of the paper and pencil measures of emotional difficulty are easily faked.  Their intent is quite obvious.  The current research presents an empirically supported way of assessing emotional issues in an accurate and precise manner that is virtually impossible to fake.

  • Competing interests:
    no
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    Yes
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    As a practicing psychologist and researcher I often encounter problems with the Beck, and similar measures, in that they are easily altered to suit the needs of the examinee.

  • How to cite:  Silva T .Review of article on Vulnerability of the BDI to Intentional Response Alteration[Review of the article 'A Comparison Of The Vulnerability Of The Beck Depression Inventory And The Modified Stroop Procedure To Intentional Response Alteration ' by Motta R].WebmedCentral 2011;2(4):WMCRW00665
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Review of Lubliner & Motta (2011)
Posted by Dr. Mark Terjesen on 20 Mar 2011 07:19:48 PM GMT

1 Is the subject of the article within the scope of the subject category? Yes
2 Are the interpretations / conclusions sound and justified by the data? Yes
3 Is this a new and original contribution? Yes
4 Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic? Yes
5 Are structure and length satisfactory? Yes
6 Can you suggest brief additions or amendments or an introductory statement that will increase the value of this paper for an international audience? No
7 Can you suggest any reductions in the paper, or deletions of parts? No
8 Is the quality of the diction satisfactory? Yes
9 Are the illustrations and tables necessary and acceptable? Yes
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? Yes
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • Other Comments:

    Given some of the inherent difficulties in self-report measures of affective functioning, this article provides not only helpful information about the psychometric properties of the most frequently utilized measure of depression (the BDI-II) but also addresses some of the concerns with perhaps respondents offering a profile that is not consistent with how they are feeling. The experimental manipulation to determine whether participants are able to respond in a distorted manner may provide some useful information to the researcher and clinician in their choice of assessment instruments. The research design is well thought out, comprehensive, and addresses the specific hypotheses under investigation. Given that the participants were able to manipulate their response patterns on the BDI but not on the Stroop procedure, perhaps researchers and clinicians may wish to consider this fact and consider alternative means of measuring depression within an assessment package. The fact that motivation and as has been shown elsewhere environmental variables may impact responses to the items on the BDI may serve to further underscore the necessity of complementary assessment procedures. The authors describe their results in the context of a number of explanatory models and theories of depression. Further, the authors point out some of the limitations in their design in the fact that depression is not as categorical as was done in the present investigation. Perhaps regression analyses may have been considered to look at both the unique and interacting effects of level of depression and intervention condition.

  • Competing interests:
    No
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    Yes
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    Faculty member in an applied psychology program

  • How to cite:  Terjesen M .Review of Lubliner & Motta (2011)[Review of the article 'A Comparison Of The Vulnerability Of The Beck Depression Inventory And The Modified Stroop Procedure To Intentional Response Alteration ' by Motta R].WebmedCentral 2011;2(3):WMCRW00606
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse