Evaluation of reliability and validity of the Serbian Aphasia Screening Test.

PURPOSE: A rise in strokes worldwide means that the number of people affected by aphasia is increasing. Early and accurate diagnosis of aphasia is crucial for recovery. Presently, there are no dedicated screening tests tailored for evaluating aphasia in Serbian-speaking individuals. This paper presents and describes the psychometric properties of the Serbian Aphasia Screening Test (SAST), a novel aphasia screening tool designed specifically for Serbian speakers. This initiative fills the gap in aphasia assessment tools for the Serbian population, providing a comprehensive and culturally sensitive approach to the evaluation of language disorders. METHOD: Data using the SAST were collected from 240 participants: 120 Serbian speakers with aphasia after stroke compared to 120 neurotypical individuals. The assessment included the following subtests: conversation, verbal automatized sequences, auditory comprehension, visual confrontation naming, responsive naming, repetition of words, repetition of sentences, oral word reading, oral sentence reading, reading comprehension, and writing. The main objectives were to ascertain the psychometric qualities of the SAST, including inter-rater reliability of scoring, test-retest reliability, reliability of the individual subtests, overall test reliability, and inter-correlations among subtests. Additionally, the study evaluated the discriminatory capability of the SAST in distinguishing between individuals with aphasia and neurotypical controls, as well as between individuals with different types of aphasia. RESULTS: The findings revealed that the SAST has excellent inter-rater reliability, test-retest reliability, and internal consistency. There were statistically significant differences between individuals with aphasia and neurotypical controls on all SAST subtests. Furthermore, the study identified significant differences in language profiles among participants with different types of aphasia. The significant correlations between scores on the SAST and on the Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination (BDAE) suggest good convergent validity of the SAST. CONCLUSIONS: The results underscore the robust psychometric properties of this novel screening assessment (SAST) and its ability to effectively discriminate between diverse linguistic abilities within different aphasia syndromes in Serbian speaking individuals.

The desirability bias in personality-related syllogistic reasoning.

INTRODUCTION: The belief-bias effect is a tendency to evaluate syllogistic statements based on believability rather than on formal logic validity. Following this rationale, the study examines desirability bias as the tendency to evaluate syllogistic conclusions based on their desirability when reasoning is conducted on personality-relevant categorical syllogisms. METHODS: For this purpose, 60 syllogisms were constructed based on the items of the Big Five questionnaire. Syllogisms were subsequently categorized as desirable (e.g., "I empathize with others") and undesirable (e.g., "I am passive") based on their conclusion. In each task, the second premise and the conclusion were formulated in the first person to increase a respondent's identification with the content. A total of 300 university students (Mage = 20.08, SD = 2.02) participated in the study. RESULTS: A 2 (syllogism validity: valid, invalid) × 2 (syllogism desirability: desirable, undesirable) repeated measures ANOVA was employed. The analysis showed a greater tendency to accept desirable conclusions on valid syllogisms (valid desirable rather than valid undesirable) and reject undesirable conclusions on invalid syllogisms (invalid undesirable rather than invalid desirable). CONCLUSION: These findings have implications for socially desirable responding in cognitive tasks, which may be further developed as a source of self-relevant content as well as for further extension of belief bias in the form of desirability bias.

One Hundred and Sixty-One Days in the Life of the Homopandemicus in Serbia: The Contribution of Information Credibility and Alertness in Predicting Engagement in Protective Behaviors.

COVID-19 pandemic is a long-lasting process associated with dynamic changes within society and in individual psychological responses. Effective communication of measures by credible sources throughout the epidemic is one of the crucial factors for the containment of the disease, and the official communication about pandemics is straightforwardly directed toward changes in behavior via engagement in (self-)protective measures. Calls for the adherence to these measures are aimed at the general population, but people's reactions to these calls vary depending on, for example, their individual differences in cognitive and emotional responses to the situation. The focus of our study was the general narrative about the epidemic as conveyed by both state officials and media outlets in times of decreased social contacts due to the quarantine, in which relying on these sources of information is even more pivotal. Our aim was to explore the stability of the proposed mediational model during the course of the epidemic in Serbia. In the model, we tested the relationship between perceived credibility of information (PCI) and two types of protective behavior-the actual self-protective behavior (ASPB) and the hypothetical protective behavior (HPB), as well as the potential mediating role of alertness in these relationships time-wise. A cross-sectional study (N = 10,782, female = 79.1%) was being administered daily during the first epidemic wave and in three more 2-week time frames during the second wave. Based on the variability of these measures during the first epidemic wave, three stages of psychological responses were mapped (acute, adaptation, and relaxation stage), which were observed, with some deviations, also in the second wave. The mediational model was relatively robust after the initial few weeks, but the strength of pairwise relationships was more changeable. With both types of protective behaviors, the predictive power of PCI was partially mediated through alertness. This suggests that, while individual differences in cognitive and affective responses are important, so is coherent, focused, and credible communication in all stages of the epidemic, which emphasizes the communality aspect of the social containment of the infection. Our findings can thus be valuable in informing the planning of effective future communication.

What drives us to be (ir)responsible for our health during the COVID-19 pandemic? The role of personality, thinking styles, and conspiracy mentality.

The study aimed to investigate the role of personality, thinking styles, and conspiracy mentality in health-related behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic, i.e., recommended health behaviors according to COVID-19 guidelines and engagement in pseudoscientific practices related to COVID-19. Basic personality space was defined by the HEXACO model complemented by Disintegration, which represents psychotic-like experiences and behaviors reconceptualized as a personality trait. Mediation analyses conducted on a convenient sample from the general population recruited via social media and by snowballing (N = 417) showed that engagement in pseudoscientific behaviors was predicted by high Disintegration. However, this relationship was entirely mediated by high experiential and low rational thinking styles. Adherence to health practices recommended by COVID-19 guidelines was predicted by high Honesty traits, while low Disintegration had both direct and indirect effects through conspiracy mentality.

Irrational beliefs differentially predict adherence to guidelines and pseudoscientific practices during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In the coronavirus "infodemic," people are exposed to official recommendations but also to potentially dangerous pseudoscientific advice claimed to protect against COVID-19. We examined whether irrational beliefs predict adherence to COVID-19 guidelines as well as susceptibility to such misinformation. Irrational beliefs were indexed by belief in COVID-19 conspiracy theories, COVID-19 knowledge overestimation, type I error cognitive biases, and cognitive intuition. Participants (N = 407) reported (1) how often they followed guidelines (e.g., handwashing, physical distancing), (2) how often they engaged in pseudoscientific practices (e.g., consuming garlic, colloidal silver), and (3) their intention to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. Conspiratorial beliefs predicted all three outcomes in line with our expectations. Cognitive intuition and knowledge overestimation predicted lesser adherence to guidelines, while cognitive biases predicted greater adherence, but also greater use of pseudoscientific practices. Our results suggest an important relation between irrational beliefs and health behaviors, with conspiracy theories being the most detrimental.

Individual Differences in Anchoring Effect: Evidence for the Role of Insufficient Adjustment.

Although the anchoring effect is one of the most reliable results of experimental psychology, researchers have only recently begun to examine the role of individual differences in susceptibility to this cognitive bias. Yet, first correlational studies yielded inconsistent results, failing to identify any predictors that have a systematic effect on anchored decisions. The present research seeks to remedy methodological shortcomings of foregoing research by employing modified within-subject anchoring procedure. Results confirmed the robustness of phenomenon in extended paradigm and replicated previous findings on anchor's direction and distance as significant experimental factors of the anchoring effect size. Obtained measures of individual differences in susceptibility to anchoring were fairly reliable but shared only small portion of variability with intelligence, cognitive reflection, and basic personality traits. However, in a group of more reflective subjects, substantial negative correlation between intelligence and anchoring was detected. This finding indicates that, at least for some subjects, effortful cognitive process of adjustment plays role in the emergence of the anchoring effect, which is in line with expectations of dual-process theories of human reasoning.