Table 3.

Internal Consistency and Temporal Stability of Startle Potentiation/Modulation by Task and Quantification Method

TASK: NPU	QUANTIFICATION: Raw Scores	QUANTIFICATION: Standardized Scores
Internal Consistency
Predictable Potentiation c	.81 [.72, .87]*	.57 [.37, .70]*
Unpredictable Potentiation	.64 [.48, .76]*	.52 [.31, .67]*
Temporal Stability
Predictable Potentiation	.71 [.60, .79]*	.58 [.44, .69]*
Unpredictable Potentiation c	.71 [.60, .79]*	.49 [.33, .62]*
TASK: Affective Picture Viewing	QUANTIFICATION: Raw Scores	QUANTIFICATION: Standardized Scores
Internal Consistency
Pleasant Modulation c	−.10 [−.38, .23]	.16 [−.17, .41]
Unpleasant Modulation	.14 [−.20, .41]	.07 [−.25, .35]
Temporal Stability
Pleasant Modulation	−.01 [−.19, .18]	.08 [−.10, .26]
Unpleasant Modulation	.50 [.35, .63]*	.40 [.24, .54]*
TASK: Resting State	QUANTIFICATION: Raw Scores
Internal Consistency
General Startle Reactivity	.95 [.93, .97]*
Temporal Stability
General Startle Reactivity	.89 [.85, .92]*

NOTES: Table cells contain estimates of internal consistency (i.e., Spearman brown corrected Pearson correlations between odd and even trials) and temporal stability (Pearson correlations between study visit 1 and 2) for startle potentiation (vs. no shock), modulation (vs. neutral picture) or response (Resting State) for the three tasks and two quantification methods. We also report 95% confidence intervals for these correlations in brackets.

^*Indicates significant (non-zero) correlation (p< .05)

^cIndicates significant difference (p < .05) in psychometric property (i.e., internal consistency or temporal stability) between raw and standardized score quantification methods.