Comparing the Utility of Scoring Methods for the Hinting Task in a Heterogeneous Clinical Sample

Abstract

The Hinting Task is a popular theory of mind measure that has been criticized due to poor psychometric properties. A revised set of scoring criteria has reduced ceilings effects and improved convergent validity of Hinting Task scores in individuals with psychotic-spectrum disorders and matched non-clinical controls. In the current study, we are the first to compare the psychometric properties of the original and revised criteria in a heterogenous clinical sample not characterized by psychotic-spectrum disorders. Given the stringent nature of the revised criteria, we also test the novel hypothesis that participant verbosity may explain differences in performance across scoring criteria. Participants were 173 patients (65% female; 80% non-Hispanic White; M age = 34.4, SD = 12.9) in a partial hospitalization program. Participants completed the Hinting Task, Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test, Patient Health Questionnaire-9, Prodromal Questionnaire-Brief, and Behavior And Symptom Identification Scale on their first or second day of treatment. Hinting Task performance was scored by independent raters using both criteria. Results demonstrated that revised criteria scores had significantly lower ceiling effects compared to original criteria scores. Convergent validity of Hinting Task performance was partially supported and did not differ between scoring criteria. Revised, but not original scores were impacted by verbosity, such that less verbose participants demonstrated worse performance. In summary, our results suggest that the revised criteria improve one psychometric aspect of the task while simultaneously introducing verbosity as a confounding variable. We recommend controlling for verbosity when implementing the revised criteria in future research.