ArticleJournal of clinical psychology in medical settings2010
Evaluation of potential kidney donors with the personality assessment inventory: normative data for a unique population.
Article in Journal of clinical psychology in medical settings, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many transplant centers require personality assessment and/or psychiatric clearance prior to allowing an individual to donate a kidney. This is a unique cohort for personality assessment, and there is no normative information available for this population on standardized self-report measures such as the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI). We evaluated a prospective sample of 434 kidney donor candidates with development of normative T-scores relevant to this specific comparison group. Compared to the original normative group from the PAI manual, potential kidney donors are 5-7 T-score points above the mean on PIM, RXR, DOM, and WRM and 4-6 points below the mean on the majority of the remaining scales. Raw score/T score conversion tables are provided. The normative data provided here is meant to supplement the original normative information and aid psychologists in evaluation of this unique medical population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20508975What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.