Limits...
Robust associations between the 20-item prosopagnosia index and the Cambridge Face Memory Test in the general population

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

ABSTRACT

Developmental prosopagnosia (DP) is a neurodevelopmental condition, characterized by lifelong face recognition deficits. Leading research groups diagnose the condition using complementary computer-based tasks and self-report measures. In an attempt to standardize the reporting of self-report evidence, we recently developed the 20-item prosopagnosia index (PI20), a short questionnaire measure of prosopagnosic traits suitable for screening adult samples for DP. Strong correlations between scores on the PI20 and performance on the Cambridge Face Memory Test (CFMT) appeared to confirm that individuals possess sufficient insight into their face recognition ability to complete a self-report measure of prosopagnosic traits. However, the extent to which people have insight into their face recognition abilities remains contentious. A lingering concern is that feedback from formal testing, received prior to administration of the PI20, may have augmented the self-insight of some respondents in the original validation study. To determine whether the significant correlation with the CFMT was an artefact of previously delivered feedback, we sought to replicate the validation study in individuals with no history of formal testing. We report highly significant correlations in two independent samples drawn from the general population, confirming: (i) that a significant relationship exists between PI20 scores and performance on the CFMT, and (ii) that this is not dependent on the inclusion of individuals who have previously received feedback. These findings support the view that people have sufficient insight into their face recognition abilities to complete a self-report measure of prosopagnosic traits.

No MeSH data available.


Associations between PI20 scores and performance on the CFMT for (a) the first sample collected at City, University of London (n = 142) and (b) the second sample collected through the University of Reading (n = 283). Both the first (a) and second (b) samples exhibited some indication of positive skewing. Note the frequency values differ between (c) and (d).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC5383837&req=5

RSOS160923F1: Associations between PI20 scores and performance on the CFMT for (a) the first sample collected at City, University of London (n = 142) and (b) the second sample collected through the University of Reading (n = 283). Both the first (a) and second (b) samples exhibited some indication of positive skewing. Note the frequency values differ between (c) and (d).

Mentions: The first sample (n = 142) scored between 23 and 68 on the PI20 (M = 40.10; s.d. = 9.58) and between 45.8 and 100% on the CFMT (M = 80.65; s.d. = 12.79). The second sample (n = 283) scored between 20 and 74 on the PI20 (M = 41.70; s.d. = 10.10) and between 47.2 and 100% on the CFMT (M = 76.80; s.d. = 12.90). Three participants from the first sample, and nine from the second, yielded PI20 scores that exceeded the diagnostic cut-off (more than or equal to 65) suggested in the original study [19]. Crucially, we found highly significant correlations between participants' scores on the PI20 and CFMT in both the first sample, r = −0.394, p < 0.001 (figure 1a) and in the second sample, r = −0.390, p < 0.001 (figure 1b). The participants in these samples had no opportunity to use feedback from formal testing to inform their responses. These findings therefore lend further support to the view that people have sufficient insight into their face recognition abilities to complete a self-report measure of prosopagnosic traits.Figure 1.


Robust associations between the 20-item prosopagnosia index and the Cambridge Face Memory Test in the general population
Associations between PI20 scores and performance on the CFMT for (a) the first sample collected at City, University of London (n = 142) and (b) the second sample collected through the University of Reading (n = 283). Both the first (a) and second (b) samples exhibited some indication of positive skewing. Note the frequency values differ between (c) and (d).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC5383837&req=5

RSOS160923F1: Associations between PI20 scores and performance on the CFMT for (a) the first sample collected at City, University of London (n = 142) and (b) the second sample collected through the University of Reading (n = 283). Both the first (a) and second (b) samples exhibited some indication of positive skewing. Note the frequency values differ between (c) and (d).
Mentions: The first sample (n = 142) scored between 23 and 68 on the PI20 (M = 40.10; s.d. = 9.58) and between 45.8 and 100% on the CFMT (M = 80.65; s.d. = 12.79). The second sample (n = 283) scored between 20 and 74 on the PI20 (M = 41.70; s.d. = 10.10) and between 47.2 and 100% on the CFMT (M = 76.80; s.d. = 12.90). Three participants from the first sample, and nine from the second, yielded PI20 scores that exceeded the diagnostic cut-off (more than or equal to 65) suggested in the original study [19]. Crucially, we found highly significant correlations between participants' scores on the PI20 and CFMT in both the first sample, r = −0.394, p < 0.001 (figure 1a) and in the second sample, r = −0.390, p < 0.001 (figure 1b). The participants in these samples had no opportunity to use feedback from formal testing to inform their responses. These findings therefore lend further support to the view that people have sufficient insight into their face recognition abilities to complete a self-report measure of prosopagnosic traits.Figure 1.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

ABSTRACT

Developmental prosopagnosia (DP) is a neurodevelopmental condition, characterized by lifelong face recognition deficits. Leading research groups diagnose the condition using complementary computer-based tasks and self-report measures. In an attempt to standardize the reporting of self-report evidence, we recently developed the 20-item prosopagnosia index (PI20), a short questionnaire measure of prosopagnosic traits suitable for screening adult samples for DP. Strong correlations between scores on the PI20 and performance on the Cambridge Face Memory Test (CFMT) appeared to confirm that individuals possess sufficient insight into their face recognition ability to complete a self-report measure of prosopagnosic traits. However, the extent to which people have insight into their face recognition abilities remains contentious. A lingering concern is that feedback from formal testing, received prior to administration of the PI20, may have augmented the self-insight of some respondents in the original validation study. To determine whether the significant correlation with the CFMT was an artefact of previously delivered feedback, we sought to replicate the validation study in individuals with no history of formal testing. We report highly significant correlations in two independent samples drawn from the general population, confirming: (i) that a significant relationship exists between PI20 scores and performance on the CFMT, and (ii) that this is not dependent on the inclusion of individuals who have previously received feedback. These findings support the view that people have sufficient insight into their face recognition abilities to complete a self-report measure of prosopagnosic traits.

No MeSH data available.