CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 190Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMental Health Research TopicsPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

The Environmental Reward Observation Scale (EROS): Development, validity, and reliability

Armento, Maria E.A., Hopko, Derek R.·2007·Behavior Therapy
DOI 10.1016/j.beth.2006.05.003
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Researchers acknowledge a strong association between the frequency and duration of environmental reward and affective mood states, particularly in relation to the etiology, assessment, and treatment of depression. Given behavioral theories that outline environmental reward as a strong mediator of affect and the unavailability of an efficient, reliable, and valid self-report measure of environmental reward, we developed the Environmental Reward Observation Scale (EROS) and examined its psychometric properties. In Experiment 1, exploratory factor analysis supported a unidimensional 10-item measure with strong internal consistency and test-retest reliability. When administered to a replication sample, confirmatory factor analysis suggested an excellent fit to the 1-factor model and convergent/discriminant validity data supported the construct validity of the EROS. In Experiment 2, further support for the convergent validity of the EROS was obtained via moderate correlations with the Pleasant Events Schedule (PES; MacPhillamy & Lewinsohn, 1976). In Experiment 3, hierarchical regression supported the ecological validity of the EROS toward predicting daily diary reports of time spent in highly rewarding behaviors and activities. Above and beyond variance accounted for by depressive symptoms (BDI), the EROS was associated with significant incremental variance in accounting for time spent in both low and high reward behaviors. The EROS may represent a brief, reliable and valid measure of environmental reward that may improve the psychological assessment of negative mood states such as clinical depression.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.beth.2006.05.003

Cites

89 of 89 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 91 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Armento, M. E. A., & Hopko, D. R.
Affiliations
University of Tennessee at Knoxville (US)
Venue
Behavior Therapy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2007-06
Volume
38
Issue
2
Pages
107-119
ISSN
0005-7894 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.beth.2006.05.003
OpenAlex
W2076496078
Cited by
190
References
91
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 5
FWCI
5.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Behavior Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
environmental reward, reward behavior, depression, mood states, self-report measure development, psychometric validation, daily diary
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Affect, Anxiety, Behavior, Depressive Disorder, Environment, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Humans, Male, Models, Psychological, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Reward, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reproducibility of Results

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review