Mini-sfide
supportate dalla scienza.
Le nostre mini-sfide derivano da una serie di test basati sulle neuroscienze, sottoposti a peer-review e validati dalla comunità scientifica internazionale nel corso degli anni. Ciò garantisce che l’esperienza basata su mini-sfide sia, in realtà, un processo di valutazione fondato su principi scientifici.
Bland, A. R., Roiser, J. P., Mehta, M. A., Schei, T. S., Boland, H., Campbell-Meiklejohn, D., et al. EMOTICOM: a neuropsychological test battery to evaluate emotional, motivational and social cognition. Front. Behav. Neurosci 2016; 10:25.
Amy R. Bland, Jonathan P. Roiser, Mitul A. Mehta, Thea Schei, Barbara J. Sahakian, Trevor W. Robbins, Rebecca Elliott. Cooperative Behavior in the Ultimatum Game and Prisoner’s Dilemma Depends on Players’ Contributions. Front. Psychol. 2017.
Blanco, M., Engelmann, D., and Normann, H. T. (2011). A within-subject analysis of other-regarding preferences. Games Econ. Behav. 72, 321–338.
Weinstock J, Whelan JP, Meyers AW. Behavioral assessment of gambling: An application of the timeline followback method. Psychological Assessment. 2004;16:72–80.
Denis O’Hora, Rachel Carey, Aoife Kervick, David Crowley, Maciej Dabrowski. Decisions in Motion: Decision Dynamics during Intertemporal Choice reflect Subjective Evaluation of Delayed Rewards. Nature (Scientific Reports). 2016; Article number: 20740.
Frederick, S., Loewenstein, G. & O’Donoghue, T. Time discounting and time preference : A critical review. J. Econ. Lit. XL 2002; 351–401.
Odum, A. L. Delay discounting: I’m a k, you’re a k. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 96, 427–39 (2011).
Lejuez CW, Read JP, Kahler CW, Richards JB, Ramsey SE, Stuart GL, et al. Evaluation of a behavioral measure of risk taking: the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART) Journal of Experimental Psychology. 2002;8:75–84.
Tara L. White, Carl W. Lejuez, Harriet de Wit. Test-Retest Characteristics of the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART). Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology. 2008; vol. 1, No. 6, 565-570.
Meertens RM, Lion R. Measuring an individual’s tendency to take risks: The risk propensity scale. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 2008;38:1506–1520.
Anaïs Gibert, Wade C. Tozer, Mark Westoby. Teamwork, Soft Skills, and Research Training. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 2016.
Wuchty S.et al. The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science. 2007; 316: 1036-1039
Kaller, C. P., Rahm, B., Spreer, J., Mader, I., & Unterrainer, J. M. Thinking around the corner: The development of planning abilities. Brain and Cognition 2008; 67(3):360-70.
Daniel B. Wright, Elin M. Skagerberg. Measuring Empathizing and Systemizing with a Large US Sample. 2012; PLoS ONE 7(2): e31661.
Baron-Cohen S, Wheelwright S. The Empathy Quotient: An investigation of adults with Asperger syndrome or high functioning autism, and normal sex differences. J Autism Dec Disord. 2004; 34: 163–175.
Allison C, Baron-Cohen S, Wheelwright SJ, Stone MH, Muncer SJ. Psychometric analysis of the Empathy Quotient (EQ). Pers Indiv Differ 2011; 51: 829–835.
Reynolds B, Ortengren A, Richards J, de Wit H. Dimensions of impulsive behavior: Personality and behavioral measures. Personality and Individual Differences. 2006b;40(2):305–15.
Sakong J, Kang PS, Kim CY, Hwang TY, Jeon MJ, Park SY, et al. Evaluation of reliability of traditional and computerized neurobehavioral tests. Neurotoxicology. 2007;28:235–9.
Robinson, John P; Shaver, Phillip R and Wrightsman, Lawrence S. Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes. Eds. 1991.
Rinn, William E. (1984). The Neuropsychology of Facial Expression: A Review of the Neurological and Psychological Mechanisms for Producing Facial Expressions. Psychological Bulletin. American Psychological Association, Inc. 95 (1): 52–77.
Validare è bene.
Cross-validare è meglio.
Ogni singolo tratto che misuriamo viene testato più volte ed in modi differenti durante l’intera interazione con l’app HEROBOTICS. Ciò significa che le misurazioni finali si ottengono sottoponendo ogni singolo tratto a ripetute validazioni incrociate al fine di ottenere la massima affidabilità dei risultati.
Non c’è risposta
giusta o sbagliata.
Tutte le interazioni all’interno dell’app HEROBOTICS sono lecite e distintive di caratteristiche più o meno marcate per ogni singolo tratto. Tuttavia, i nostri tratti sono non-direzionali, il che significa che non misuriamo quanto si è buoni o meno buoni, ma piuttosto osserviamo come le sfide vengono risolte, e quindi, come i diversi tratti si distribuiscono all’interno di un profilo rendendolo unico.