Method of test administration as a factor in test validity: the use of a personality questionnaire in the prediction of cancer and coronary heart disease

R. Grossarth-Maticek, European Center for Peace and Development, University for Peace (United Nations)
H. J. Eysenck, Institute of Psychiatry, University of London
Gregory J. Boyle, Bond University

Article comments

Grossarth-Maticek, R., Eysenck, H. J., Boyle, G. J. (1995) Method of test administration as a factor in test validity: the use of a personality questionnnaire in the prediction of cancer and coronary heart disease. Behaviour Research and Therapy. Vol 33, Issue 6, pp. 705-710.

Access journal homepage.
Copyright ©Elsevier, 1995 Ltd. All rights reserved.

Abstract

This study examines the predictive accuracy of four different methods of administration of a questionnaire designed to predict cancer and coronary heart disease (CHD) in healthy probands. The method of administration uses the establishment of trust and the explanation of questions as variables in all four possible combinations, i.e. trust and explanation, trust only, explanation only, and neither, the prediction being that the combination of trust and explanation would produce the most accurate prediction, the treatment using neither the worst prediction, with methods using either trust alone or explanation alone intermediate. The criterion was the successful prediction of cancer and CHD. A total population of 3563 men and women was used, and followed up over 15 years, death certificates being used to establish cause of death. As predicted, the combination of trust and explanation did best, use of neither worst. Explanation seemed more important than trust, and the combination seemed to have a synergistic effect. It is apparent that method of administration had an important effect on the outcome of the experiment.