Уважаемые коллеги, доброго времени суток! Представляем вам бразильское научное издание Psychology and Neuroscience. Журнал имеет четвёртый квартиль, издаётся в Casa do Psicologo, находится в открытом доступе, его SJR за 2022 г. равен 0,221, печатный ISSN - 1984-3054, электронный - 1983-3288, предметные области - Неврология (общие вопросы), Нейропсихология и физиологическая психология. Вот так выглядит обложка:
Редактором является Даниэл Мограби, контактные данные - danielmograbi@puc-rio.br.
К публикации принимаются статьи, охватывающие все области пересечения психологии и нейробиологии. Журнал состоит из пяти тематических разделов:
- Психофизика и восприятие,
- Поведение/системы/
- Когнитивная пластичность и развитие нервной системы,
- Клиническая и экспериментальная нейропсихология,
- Нейропсихофармакология.
Адрес издания - https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/pne/
Пример статьи, название - Examining the effect of repeat administration, alternate versions, and performance validity on letter fluency tests in a mixed clinical sample. Заголовок (Abstract)
Objective: This study was designed to compare different versions of the letter fluency test (FAS/CFL), evaluate the effect of repeat administration and the classification accuracy of traditional and novel cutoffs as performance validity tests (PVTs). Method: Archival data were collected from a mixed clinical sample (n = 64) of patients physician-referred for neuropsychological assessment (MAge = 43.2; MEducation = 14.1). Sensitivity and specificity of various letter fluency cutoffs were calculated against various psychometric definitions of invalid performance. Results: There was no difference between the FAS and CFL on total score and phonemic clusters. Learning effects were small and limited to the CFL. A T score of ≤ 33 on the FAS and ≤ 35 on CFL was specific (.89–.98), but relatively insensitive (.27–.45). Likewise, ≤ 4 phonemic clusters were associated with high specificity (.88–.94) but variable sensitivity (.22–.60) and were orthogonal to self-reported anxiety and depression. A raw score of ≤ 7 (FAS) or ≤ 8 (CFL) on the trial F had comparable classification accuracy (.18–.44 sensitivity at .91–.98 specificity). Failure on multiple validity cutoffs had near-ceiling specificity (.92–1.00). Declining output was similar in valid and invalid response sets. Conclusions: FAS and CFL are psychometrically equivalent versions of the letter fluency test and are relatively robust to learning effects on serial testing. Both can function as effective embedded PVTs, although they are limited by low and variable sensitivity. Process variables had mixed results as predictors of performance validity. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved)
