Advertisement

Child & Youth Care Forum

, Volume 47, Issue 5, pp 769–770 | Cite as

Correction to: Social Interpretation Bias in Children and Adolescents with Anxiety Disorders: Psychometric Examination of the Self-report of Ambiguous Social Situations for Youth (SASSY) Scale

  • Araceli GonzalezEmail author
  • Michelle Rozenman
  • Audra K. Langley
  • Philip C. Kendall
  • Golda S. Ginsburg
  • Scott Compton
  • John T. Walkup
  • Boris Birmaher
  • Anne Marie Albano
  • John Piacentini
Author Correction

Correction to: Child Youth Care Forum (2017) 46:395–412  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-016-9381-y

The original version of this article unfortunately contains the following errors. This has been corrected with this Erratum.

The text citation of Miers, A.C. et al. (2008) on page 397 and its reference has to be corrected as Waite, P., Codd, J., & Creswell, C. (2015).

“Waite, P., Codd, J., & Creswell, C. (2015). Interpretation of ambiguity: Differences between children and adolescents with and without an anxiety disorder. Journal of Affective Disorders, 188, 194–201.”

And in the same page first para, the text begins with “assessment of interpretations with youth potential responses to approach or avoid (e.g., Miers et al. 2008) resulting in a measure of interpretation and goal selection” should read as “assessment of interpretations with youth potential responses to approach or avoid (e.g., Waite et al. 2015) resulting in a measure of interpretation and goal selection”

Also, under section “Current Assessment of Interpretation Bias”, the sentence “Other self-report measures of interpretation bias either provide qualitative data with the potential to endorse more than one response and follow up with queries about selection of avoidant goals (i.e., Miers et al. 2008), which assesses both interpretation bias and goal selection stages of information processing.” should read as

“Other self-report measures of interpretation bias either provide qualitative data with the potential to endorse more than one response and follow-up with queries about behavioral responses (i.e., Waite et al. 2015), which assesses both interpretation bias and goal selection stages of information processing.”

In addition, the authors would like to clarify that Dr. Miers and colleagues developed the Adolescents’ Interpretation and Belief Questionnaire (AIBQ). To prevent misrepresentation of the AIBQ, the AIBQ (Miers et al. 2008) assesses three interpretations of ambiguous social and non-social situations: positive, negative and neutral. These interpretations are assessed independently from each other, using a 5-point Likert rating scale. Following the rating of each of these three interpretations per situation, the respondent is asked to choose which interpretation they believe the most. The instrument does not require the respondent to choose an approach or an avoidant strategy and hence does not require goal selection. In addition, the AIBQ provides quantitative, not qualitative, data about interpretations of different valence and does not ask follow-up questions about avoidant goals.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Araceli Gonzalez
    • 1
    Email author
  • Michelle Rozenman
    • 2
  • Audra K. Langley
    • 2
  • Philip C. Kendall
    • 3
  • Golda S. Ginsburg
    • 4
  • Scott Compton
    • 5
  • John T. Walkup
    • 6
  • Boris Birmaher
    • 7
  • Anne Marie Albano
    • 8
  • John Piacentini
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyCalifornia State University, Long BeachLong BeachUSA
  2. 2.Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human BehaviorUniversity of California, Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyTemple UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA
  4. 4.UConn HealthFarmingtonUSA
  5. 5.Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral SciencesDuke University Medical CenterDurhamUSA
  6. 6.Division of Child and Adolescent PsychiatryWeill Cornell Medical CollegeNew YorkUSA
  7. 7.Western Psychiatric Institute and ClinicsUniversity of Pittsburgh Medical CenterPittsburghUSA
  8. 8.Department of PsychiatryColumbia University Medical CenterNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations