PubMed · 11640638
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
M Putscher. 1992. [Not Available].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11640638/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
The purpose of this study was to examine the central tenets of the processing efficiency theory using psychophysiological measures of attention and effort. Twenty-eight participants were divided equally into either a high or low trait anxiety group. They were then required to perform a simulated driving task while responding to one of four target light-emitting diodes. Cortical activity and dual task performance were recorded under two conditions -- baseline and competition -- with cognitive anxiety being elevated in the competitive session by an instructional set. Although driving speed was similar across sessions, a reduction in P3 amplitude to cue onset in the light detection task occurred for both groups during the competitive session, suggesting a reduction in processing efficiency as participants became more state anxious. Our findings provide more comprehensive and mechanistic evidence for processing efficiency theory, and confirm that increases in cognitive anxiety can result in a reduction of processing efficiency with little change in performance effectiveness.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the factorial invariance of the Somatic Complaints subscale of the Child Behavior Checklist as a measure of Internalizing Behavior Problems across a sample of children with and without spina bifida. METHODS: Multisample confirmatory factor analysis was used to compare mother and father report on the Somatic Complaints subscale across a sample of children with spina bifida and a matched comparison sample of able-bodied children ages 8 through 11 years (N = 68 for mother report in each group; N = 54 for father report in the spina bifida group and 53 for the able-bodied group). RESULTS: Although there were no significant between-group differences in the magnitude of factor loadings, significantly more variance in scores on the Somatic Complaints scale was unrelated to Internalizing Behavior Problems for the spina bifida group, compared to the able-bodied group. There were no between-group differences when father data were analyzed, but the latent variable of Internalizing Behavior Problems explained little variance in the Somatic Complaints scale for either group. CONCLUSIONS: Maternal report of Somatic Complaints on the CBCL does not appear to measure Internalizing Behavior Problems in the same manner across groups of children with and without spina bifida. This suggests that the Somatic Complaints subscale should be interpreted with caution when measuring Internalizing Behavior Problems within this population.