239 14 1689 6 4542 document 1689 ScenariosSet_IBT.docx application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document b05a226081e14b0801982a7bd53cd782 MD5 26942 2025-07-11 11:00:52 https://opendata.ljmu.ac.uk/id/eprint/239/1/ScenariosSet_IBT.docx 239 1 1 application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document en public cc_by_4

ScenariosSet_IBT.docx

data Text 1690 1 4544 document 1690 indexcodes.txt text/plain 739b3695a8314f9284f32ddd94d40872 MD5 2542 2025-07-11 11:01:22 https://opendata.ljmu.ac.uk/id/eprint/239/2/indexcodes.txt 239 2 2 text/plain Generate index codes conversion from application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document to indexcodes en public

indexcodes.txt

http://eprints.org/relation/isVersionOf https://opendata.ljmu.ac.uk/id/document/1689 http://eprints.org/relation/isVolatileVersionOf https://opendata.ljmu.ac.uk/id/document/1689 http://eprints.org/relation/isIndexCodesVersionOf https://opendata.ljmu.ac.uk/id/document/1689 1691 6 4546 document 1691 Readme_Assessing Empathy-related Interpretations.txt text/plain cdd4dbefed7cdd367af85578ac1409a1 MD5 6465 2025-07-11 12:57:17 https://opendata.ljmu.ac.uk/id/eprint/239/3/Readme_Assessing%20Empathy-related%20Interpretations.txt 239 3 3 text/plain text en public cc_by_4

Readme_Assessing Empathy-related Interpretations.txt

readme Text 1692 1 4553 document 1692 indexcodes.txt text/plain a5945dc2f92e8df2ab467fb9c3b21de2 MD5 3013 2025-07-11 13:07:45 https://opendata.ljmu.ac.uk/id/eprint/239/4/indexcodes.txt 239 4 4 text/plain Generate index codes conversion from text to indexcodes en public

indexcodes.txt

http://eprints.org/relation/isVersionOf https://opendata.ljmu.ac.uk/id/document/1691 http://eprints.org/relation/isVolatileVersionOf https://opendata.ljmu.ac.uk/id/document/1691 http://eprints.org/relation/isIndexCodesVersionOf https://opendata.ljmu.ac.uk/id/document/1691 archive 7 disk0/00/00/02/39 2025-07-17 12:55:50 2025-12-12 15:15:07 2025-07-17 12:55:50 data_collection show 7 Planes Alias Maria 0009-0002-3263-959X Moore David 0000-0002-5228-3124 Fallon Nicholas 0000-0003-1451-6983 Herron Katie Krahé Charlotte 0000-0002-0620-1263 University of Liverpool The Walton Centre NHS Foundation Trust psychology public Ambiguous scenarios; Chronic Pain; Empathy; Fibromyalgia; Healthcare interactions; Interpretation Bias Task; 520207 Social and affective neuroscience; 5203 Clinical and health psychology; 52 Psychology; 5204 Cognitive and computational psychology; 52 Psychology; 5204 Cognitive and computational psychology Depositing user's licence comment: This interpretation bias task is a novel instrument developed to assess how individuals interpret ambiguous, empathy-related cues from healthcare professionals. The task comprises 15 brief vignettes, each describing a scenario that could plausibly occur during a medical appointment. Each vignette is followed by three possible interpretations—positive, neutral, and negative—which participants rate on a continuous scale ranging from 0 (Not at all likely) to 100 (Extremely likely). This format enables the measurement of spontaneous evaluative tendencies and cognitive-affective appraisals within patient–provider interactions. It is suitable for use in experimental, clinical, and population-based research to explore individual differences in interpretation bias, particularly in relation to perceived empathy from clinicians. 2025-07-11 published 10.24377/LJMU.d.00000239 Liverpool John Moores University Authors (listed above) Liverpool John Moores University 52 520207 5203 5204 This task was adapted from existing vignette-based measures, such as the Adolescent Interpretations of Bodily Threat (Heathcote et al., 2016) but focuses specifically on ambiguous social interactions within healthcare rather than bodily threat or general social contexts. The vignettes were carefully designed to avoid explicit cues, allowing participants to project their own interpretations based on prior experiences, beliefs, and reasoning. To enhance ecological validity and sensitivity, the task was co-developed with four individuals with lived experience of chronic pain, who contributed to scenario development, refinement, and piloting of the online task. These contributors provided feedback on the realism and emotional salience of the vignettes, ensuring the measure reflects authentic patient perspectives. Additionally, the materials were reviewed and refined in consultation with experts in pain research and clinical psychology. English English This deposit contains a set of vignettes developed to assess interpretation bias in healthcare. These were co-created with Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) contributors, and no identifiable information was shared or included. Ethical approval for the wider study was granted by Liverpool John Moores University (UREC reference: 24/PSY/077). The materials are anonymised, original, and openly accessible for academic and educational use with appropriate citation. 2024-11-11 2025-01-30 2025-07-11