ArticleJournal of health psychology2016
The reliability of psychological instruments in community samples: A cautionary note.
Article in Journal of health psychology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Health Literacy, Education, and Internal Consistency of Psychological Scales.Health literacy research and practice · 2021Article
- Psychometric Properties of the Nine-Item Problematic Internet Use Questionnaire (PIUQ-9) in a Lithuanian Sample of Students.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2020Article
- Measurement invariance of intuitive cancer risk perceptions across diverse populations: The Cognitive Causation and Negative Affect in Risk scales.Journal of health psychology · 2019Article
- Threat sensitivity is associated with the healthcare source used most often: doctor's office, emergency room, or none at all.Heliyon · 2019Article
- Developing a scale to assess health regulatory focus.Social science & medicine (1982) · 2017Article
- Predicting Scheduling and Attending for an Oral Cancer Examination.Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Although researchers norm and validate measures of psychological constructs largely on educated samples, they often use these instruments more broadly, assuming generalizability. We examined whether the assumption of generalizability is warranted. We administered three commonly used psychological measures-the Behavioral Activation/Behavioral Inhibition Scale, the Regulatory Focus Questionnaire, and the Need for Cognition Scale-to a community sample (N = 332) with limited education. For the three instruments, five of seven scales/subscales had unsatisfactory reliabilities. Internal consistency was lowest among participants with less education. The results suggest that instruments normed on educated samples may not generalize to uneducated samples.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.