| Reference : The methodology of mental stress testing in cardiovascular research. |
| Scientific journals : Article | |||
| Social & behavioral sciences, psychology : Animal psychology, ethology & psychobiology Social & behavioral sciences, psychology : Neurosciences & behavior Social & behavioral sciences, psychology : Theoretical & cognitive psychology Social & behavioral sciences, psychology : Treatment & clinical psychology Human health sciences : Psychiatry | |||
| http://hdl.handle.net/10993/4638 | |||
| The methodology of mental stress testing in cardiovascular research. | |
| English | |
| Steptoe, Andrew [> >] | |
Vögele, Claus  [University of Luxembourg > Faculty of Language and Literature, Humanities, Arts and Education (FLSHASE) > Integrative Research Unit: Social and Individual Development (INSIDE) >] | |
| 1991 | |
| Circulation | |
| Lippincott Williams & Wilkins | |
| 83 | |
| Suppl II | |
| 14 - 24 | |
| Yes (verified by ORBilu) | |
| International | |
| 0009-7322 | |
| 1524-4539 | |
| Hagerstown | |
| MD | |
| [en] Many issues related to the selection, reliability, and validity of mental stress testing in cardiovascular research are discussed. Five categories of mental stress testing are distinguished: problem-solving tasks, information-processing tasks, psychomotor tasks, affective conditions, and aversive or painful conditions. A series of practical and theoretical criteria are outlined for the selection of appropriate tests, and the measurement of a range of dependent variables is emphasized. The temporal stability of cardiovascular responses to mental stress tests is examined through an analysis of test-retest correlations (weighted for sample size) in 28 comparisons with intervals between sessions varying from 1 day to more than 1 year. Heart rate reactions to tasks show an average-weighted Z of 0.732 +/- 0.031 (r = 0.62), with Z = 0.575 +/- 0.034 (r = 0.52) for systolic blood pressure and Z = 0.313 +/- 0.035 (r = 0.30) for diastolic blood pressure. It is argued that the validity of mental stress tests can be judged in relation to several different aspects, specifically, methodological, ecological, diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic validities. The nature of these standards is described, and pertinent literature is presented. | |
| Medical Research Council (MRC) | |
| Researchers ; Professionals ; Students | |
| http://hdl.handle.net/10993/4638 |
| File(s) associated to this reference | ||||||||||||||
|
Fulltext file(s):
| ||||||||||||||
All documents in ORBilu are protected by a user license.
