■HGSHS:A是最常用的催眠暗示指标之一。然而,由于时间要求超过1小时,该测试的可行性较低,来自正常人口的可疑代表。最近,开发并发布了HGSHS-5:G的简短版本,现在第一个结果是可用的。这项调查的范围是验证同等位置和正态分布分数的假设,在许多不同的研究中,使用HGSHS的完整或简短版本,并将11项得分与5项得分的结果进行比较,后者是从完整版本或短版本测试中计算的。
■分析了21项HGSHS测试研究的数据,15使用HGSHS:完整版,6使用HGSHS-5:G短版,共2529个数据集。测试了11项得分和5项得分的位置和分布。线性回归分析用于比较两个得分,以及交叉表和加权科恩的kappa,以确定分组为低暗示性和高暗示性的匹配。为了评估研究结果中观察到的差异的影响因素,进行了多因素方差分析.
■在不同的研究中,分数的位置和分布,以及低暗示和高暗示的团体规模,varieted.发现所有得分分布均为非正态,并从中间得分向右移动;11项得分的变化更为广泛。从完整版测试计算的两个分数之间的相关性是中等的(R2=0.69),暗示性分组的匹配也是如此(κ=0.58)。使用涉及较少学生为主的人群的简短版本的研究显示出与完整版本的一致性,但较低的分数是由零分数的增加引起的。
■在HGSHS的大多数应用中都不代表正常人群,分为低和高暗示性不同,主要是由于分数分布的位置不同。在同一受试者中测试的HGSHS的完整和简短版本的直接比较仍然缺失。
UNASSIGNED: The HGSHS:A is one of the most commonly used measures of hypnotic suggestibility. However, this test suffers from low feasibility due to a time requirement exceeding 1 h, and from a questionable representation of the normal population. Recently, a short version of HGSHS-5:G was developed and published, and now the first results are available. The scope of this investigation was to verify the assumption of equally positioned and normally distributed scores, resulting in equally sized suggestibility groups in a number of different studies with full or short versions of HGSHS, and to compare the results of the 11-item score with the 5-item score, the latter being calculated from either the full version or the short version test.
UNASSIGNED: Data from 21 studies with testing for HGSHS were analyzed, 15 using the HGSHS:A full version and six using the HGSHS-5:G short version, for a total of 2,529 data sets. Position and distribution of both the 11-item score and the 5-item score were tested. Linear regression analysis was used to compare the two scores, as well as cross-table and weighted Cohen\'s kappa to determine the match of grouping into low and high suggestibility. To evaluate contributing factors to the observed differences in the study results, a multifactorial analysis of variance was performed.
UNASSIGNED: In the different studies, position and distribution of scores, as well as group sizes for low and high suggestibles, varied. All score distributions were found to be non-normal and shifted to the right from the middle score; the shift was more extensive with the 11-item score. The correlation between both scores calculated from full version tests was moderate (R 2 = 0.69), as was the match of suggestibility grouping (κ = 0.58). Studies using the short version involving less student-dominated populations showed sufficient agreement with the full version, but lower scores were caused by an increase in the zero score.
UNASSIGNED: A normal population is not represented in most applications of HGSHS, and grouping into low and high suggestibles varies, mainly due to different positions of score distributions. A direct comparison of full and short versions of HGSHS tested in the same subjects is still missing.