Talk:General Behavior Inventory
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lkf119, Sbstanger.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Suggested next additions[edit]
Several quick thoughts:
The GBI has been around for decades, and it was the focus of one of the most extensive and systematic programs of validation of any questionnaire. The original work by Depue, Klein, and colleagues needs to get added and discussed, along with the various longitudinal studies (Angst, Lewinsohn, and Alloy & Abramson all have used it in major longitudinal projects).
There should be links to the full PDF and manual from Depue, along with the 7 Up-7 Down, and mention that others have used short forms.
The Johnson et al. review of it in Hunsley & Mash Guide to Assessments That Work is a high quality review source. Editors can use it liberally as a citation for any of the material that it covers.
The parent report should be broken out separately, along with mention of the full length, the 10M (and its mention in the PhenX Toolkit, as well as its use in the LAMS longitudinal project), and the sleep scale. These could either be sections in this page, or links to separate pages. The separate pages would be more work in the short term, but probably easier for users to navigate.
The GBI definitely warrants the attention given its long pedigree, exceptional psychometrics (esp. reliability and criterion validity, as well as sensitivity to treatment effects), favorable reviews, and translations into several languages. Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 13:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- Hi @Eyoungstrom:, thanks for the suggestions. I am working towards revamping this page to include your suggested edits. If you have the time, take a look at my Sandbox and provide some suggestions. I will ping you again once your edits have been included on my Sandbox, and will send along another ping on the Talk page before I revamp this page. Ongmianli (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Longer Term Additions[edit]
The GBI probably needs a Wikiversity presence, with an annotated bibliography about it, and maybe an archive of different versions (if they can easily be gathered). Discussion about case versus Likert type scoring could go there, too.
Depue is still alive, but retiring. It would be neat to reach out to him for ideas and comments, while he's still available. rad5@cornell.edu
There will be figures generated from some meta-analyses that will be CC-BY-SA attribution, and they could be worth dropping into Wikiversity or Wikipedia, showing where the GBI compares to other measures for these constructs.
Depue also has a model of psychobiological underpinnings of personality and mood that would warrant pages down the road -- he was thinking RDoC type thoughts a couple decades ahead of the initiative.
Hi, I have rewritten the article to reflect the style of writing as indicated in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Medical_tests. I would appreciate any comments! I also plan to rewrite the Wikipedia pages of other psychological assessments in this format to reflect WP:MEDRS.
@Eyoungstrom:, I have also incorporated some of your edits into the article. I am working towards incorporating all of these edits. If anyone could help provide the links to those sources that Eyoungstrom has indicated, that would be swell!
P.S. I'm still confused over the type of content to include in the subsection of "Research" and "Mechanism", and would love any input on this front! Thanks! Ongmianli (talk) 17:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Mian! I like the strategy of trying to use existing frameworks where possible. MEDRS has a long history on Wikipedia. It's a good first approximation.
Some of the sections about testing from it are different from conventions in psychological assessment, though. "Adverse Effects" and "Mechanism" are two obvious cases. These are rarely talked about in psychology, and the issues are likely to apply to methods generally, not to specific instruments. For example, "Adverse Effects" from filling out questionnaires could include making the person upset (mood induction?) or loss of confidentiality. Those are not just issues for the GBI, but for many questionnaires. Similarly, the "mechanism of action" is interpretation of the question and frame, retrospective memory, filtering based on social desirability and context, and then responding. Again, these are not GBI-specific; they apply to measures generally. [The parent/caregiver and teacher report variations raise interesting issues of subject-observer differences, such as the fundamental attribution bias in social psychology, or cross-informant agreement issues as they are often discussed in personality and clinical psychology].
I wonder about handling this by: (a) Writing separate pages about "Mechanism_questionnaire" and "Mechanism_informant_checklist" to discuss the cognitive processes involved (and "AdverseEffects_questionnaire", etc.). Then link internally to that page for all questionnaires as appropriate. That would be a good use of the DRY principle ("Don't Repeat Yourself"), and upgrades to the mechanism or adverse effect page would improve the content for all linked pages, too. (b) demoting these as sections in the template. For psychological assessments, these shouldn't be major headings, but a cross-cutting theme. Alternately, they could stay as major headings (which would be different than the norm in psychology, but not a bad thing), but be very brief -- basically just a link to the DRY mechanism and DRY adverse effect page, with perhaps a comment if there is any tweak or additional consideration. For the GBI, all the usual self-report concerns would apply, and the high reading level would be a more unusual additional consideration. Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 13:22, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
External links modified[edit]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on General Behavior Inventory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150927153032/http://www2.massgeneral.org:80/schoolpsychiatry/screeningtools_table.asp to http://www2.massgeneral.org/schoolpsychiatry/screeningtools_table.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Animation error[edit]
In File:GBI_PPP_GIF_file.gif, the number of sections in the triangle change from four to three for the "Process" frame of the animation. Is this an error? It might also be worth having the overall triangle remain in the same positions in the different frames. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 00:24, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
