Rapport in the context of neuropsychological assessment refers to the interpersonal interaction between the examinee and examiner. The purpose of this study was to improve upon the original Barnett Rapport Questionnaire. Participants consisted of college students (n = 55), middle-aged adults (n = 30), and older adults (n = 99) at a university-affiliated neuropsychology clinic, who were administered a brief test battery. After testing, both examinees (n = 184) and examiners (n = 12) completed items regarding the nature of the interpersonal interaction. Confirmatory factor analyses indicated a two-factor model consisting of nine items found on both the examinee and examiner versions. No age cohort differences were found on the total Barnett Rapport Questionnaire – 2 (BRQ-2) scores for the examiner or examinee version; however, older adults endorsed the positively worded items more than young adults, and examiners endorsed the negatively worded items more for young adult examinees than for older adult examinees. No differences were found by gender or by race/ethnicity. The BRQ-2 promises better usability and improved psychometric qualities for the measurement of rapport in the context of neuropsychological assessment.
AyalonL.Tesch-RömerC. (Eds.). (2018). Contemporary perspectives on ageism: Vol. 19. International perspectives on aging (1st ed.). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73820-8
2.
BarberS. J.MatherM.GatzM. (2015). How stereotype threat affects healthy older adults’ performance on clinical assessments of cognitive decline: The key role of regulatory fit. Journals of Gerontology Series B, 70(6), 891–900. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbv009
3.
BarnettM. D.ParsonsT. D.MooreJ. M. (2019). Measuring rapport in neuropsychological assessment: The Barnett Rapport Questionnaire. Applied Neuropsychology: Adult, 28(5), 556–563. https://doi.org/10.1080/23279095.2019.1663523
4.
BarnettM. D.ParsonsT. D.ReynoldsB. L.BedfordL. A. (2018). Impact of rapport on neuropsychological test performance. Applied Neuropsychology: Adult, 25(3), 258–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/23279095.2017.1293671
5.
BarnettM. D.SawyerJ.MooreJ. (2020). An experimental investigation of the impact of rapport on Stroop test performance. Applied Neuropsychology: Adult, 29(5), 941–945. https://doi.org/10.1080/23279095.2020.1828081
6.
CohenS.KamarckT.MermelsteinR. (1983). A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24(4), 385–396. https://doi.org/10.2307/2136404
7.
CoxD. (2011). The role of neuropsychological testing in the care of older adults. British Columbia Medical Journal, 53(8), 416–420.
8.
DelisD. C.KaplanE.KramerJ. H. (2001). Delis-Kaplan Executive Functions System (D-KEFS). The Psychological Corporation.
9.
FuchsD. (1987). Examiner familiarity effects on test performance: Implications for training and practice. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 7(3), 90–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/027112148700700309
10.
FunkJ. L.RoggeR. D. (2007). Testing the ruler with item response theory: Increasing precision of measurement for relationship satisfaction with the Couples Satisfaction Index. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(4), 572–583. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.21.4.572
11.
HoelterJ. W. (1983). The analysis of covariance structures: Goodness-of-fit indices. Sociological Methods & Research, 11(3), 325–344. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124183011003003
12.
KyriazosT. A. (2018). Applied psychometrics: Sample size and sample power considerations in factor analysis (EFA, CFA) and SEM in general. Psychology, 9, 2207–2230. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2018.98126
13.
LavikK. O.McAleaveyA. A.KvendsethE. K.MoltuC. (2022). Relationship and alliance formation processes in psychotherapy: A dual-perspective qualitative study. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 915932. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.915932
14.
LichtenbergerE. O.KaufmanA. S. (2012). Essentials of WAIS-IV assessment (Vol. 96). Wiley.
15.
LuongG.CharlesS.FingermanK. (2011). Better with age: Social relationships across adulthood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28(1), 9–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407510391362
16.
MalloryA. B. (2022). Dimensions of couples’ sexual communication, relationship satisfaction, and sexual satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Family Psychology, 36(3), 358–371. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000946
17.
McGuire-SnieckusR.McCabeR.CattyJ.HanssonL.PriebeS. (2007). A new scale to assess the therapeutic relationship in community mental health care: STAR. Psychological Medicine, 37(1), 85–95. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291706009299
18.
NovielliJ.KaneL.AshbaughA. R. (2023). Convenience sampling methods in psychology: A comparison between crowdsourced and student samples. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science / Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/cbs0000394
19.
OaklandT.GluttingJ.WatkinsM. W. (2005). Assessment of test behaviors with the WISC-IV. In PrifiteraA.SaklofskeD. H.WeissL. G. (Eds.), WISC-IV clinical use and interpretation: Scientist-practitioner perspectives (pp. 435–463). Elsevier Academic Press.
20.
O’BrienE. L.HessT. M. (2020). Perceived benefits and costs contribute to young and older adults’ selectivity in social relationships. GeroPsych, 33(1), 42–51. https://doi.org/10.1024/1662-9647/a000218
21.
PetersonR. A. (2001). On the use of college students in social science research: Insights from a second-order meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(3), 450–461. https://doi.org/10.1086/323732
22.
RandolphC. (2012). RBANS update: Repeatable battery for the assessment of neuropsychological status manual. PsychCorp.
23.
ScheierM. F.CarverC. S.BridgesM. W. (1994). Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): A reevaluation of the Life Orientation Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(6), 1063–1078. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.6.1063
24.
ShermanE. M. S.TanJ. E.HrabokM. (2023). A compendium of neuropsychological tests: Administration, tests, norms, and commentary (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.
25.
SinclairS. J.BlaisM. A.GanslerD. A.SandbergE.BistisK.LoCiceroA. (2010). Psychometric properties of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale: Overall and across demographic groups living within the United States. Evaluation & the Health Professions, 33(1), 56–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163278709356187
26.
TraceyT. J.KokotovicA. M. (1989). Factor structure of the working alliance inventory. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1(3), 207–210. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.1.3.207
27.
VanderploegR. D. (Ed.). (2014). Clinician’s guide to neuropsychological assessment. Psychology Press.
28.
WeijtersB.CabooterE.SchillewaertN. (2010). The effect of rating scale format on response styles: The number of response categories and response category labels. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27(3), 236–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2010.02.004
29.
WymanM. F.Shiovitz-EzraS.BengelJ. (2018). Ageism in the health care system: Providers, patients, and systems. In AyalonL.Tesch-RömerC. (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on ageism (pp. 193–212). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73820-8_13
30.
ZhaoyangR.SliwinskiM. J.MartireL. M.SmythJ. M. (2018). Age differences in adults’ daily social interactions: An ecological momentary assessment study. Psychology and Aging, 33(4), 607–618. https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000242
