Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Multiple susceptibility testing: is it helpful?

R M Kurtz1, M J Strube

  • 1Department of Psychology, Washington University, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA.

The American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis
|January 1, 1996
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Spinal Cord Sarcoidosis Occurring at Sites of Spondylotic Stenosis, Mimicking Spondylotic Myelopathy: A Case Series and Review of the Literature.

AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology·2022
Same author

The Updated Neuroradiology Milestones: Synapsing from 1.0 to 2.0.

AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology·2021
Same author

Psychiatric residents and lower class patients: Conflict in training.

Community mental health journal·2013
Same author

Biomechanical model of corneal transplantation.

Journal of refractive surgery (Thorofare, N.J. : 1995)·2006
Same author

A finite element model for ultrafast laser-lamellar keratoplasty.

Annals of biomedical engineering·2006
Same author

Finite element analysis applied to cornea reshaping.

Journal of biomedical optics·2006
Same journal

Age regression in clinical hypnosis: an integrative critical review of therapeutic mechanisms.

The American journal of clinical hypnosis·2026
Same journal

CBT vs. Ericksonian Hypnotherapy for subclinical depression and anxiety: 12-month follow-up.

The American journal of clinical hypnosis·2026
Same journal

Expanding the horizon: Clinical hypnosis at the intersection of mechanism, meaning, and method.

The American journal of clinical hypnosis·2026
Same journal

The relationship between hypnotic ideomotor phenomena and psychopathology: A preliminary study.

The American journal of clinical hypnosis·2026
Same journal

Relational hypnotherapy, lucid dreaming, and sleep paralysis: A case study.

The American journal of clinical hypnosis·2026
Same journal

The Contributions of Women to Hypnosis - MsMers, Menders, Mentors.

The American journal of clinical hypnosis·2026
See all related articles

This study found that the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A (HGSHS:A) and the Stanford Clinical Scales (SHCS:A) are not adequate substitutes for the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form C (SHSS:C). Combined testing offers advantages only for weaker measures like the SHCS:A.

Area of Science:

  • Psychology
  • Hypnosis Research

Background:

  • Hypnotic susceptibility testing is crucial for predicting hypnotic responsiveness.
  • Previous research has established the efficacy of various susceptibility scales.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To determine if combined group and individual hypnotic susceptibility tests enhance predictive power over single tests.
  • To compare the predictive validity of different susceptibility measures and their combinations.

Main Methods:

  • Two hundred and eighty undergraduates were assigned to five groups, receiving different combinations of susceptibility tests (HGSHS:A, SHSS:C, CIS, SHCS:A) or a single test (SHSS:C).
  • Subjects were subsequently hypnotized and assessed on four target hypnotic behaviors.
  • Data were analyzed using stepwise multiple regression and logistic regression.

Related Experiment Videos

Main Results:

  • The Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form C (SHSS:C) remains the most effective single measure.
  • The Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A (HGSHS:A) and the Chinese Inventory of Sleep (CIS) are not adequate substitutes for the SHSS:C.
  • Combined testing provided an advantage only when using a weaker measure, such as the Stanford Clinical Scales:A (SHCS:A).

Conclusions:

  • The SHSS:C is the preferred measure for assessing hypnotic susceptibility.
  • Combined testing strategies do not consistently improve predictive power, particularly when superior measures are already employed.
  • No significant warm-up effects were observed for the SHSS:C when preceded by the HGSHS:A.