Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29370770›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2018

Defeat and entrapment: more than meets the eye? Applying network analysis to estimate dimensions of highly correlated constructs.

Thomas Forkmann, Tobias Teismann, Jana-Sophie Stenzel, Heide Glaesmer, Derek de Beurs

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Psychometric properties of an Arabic translation of the short entrapment scale in a non-clinical sample of young adults.Psicologia, reflexao e critica : revista semestral do Departamento de Psicologia da UFRGS · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Defeat, Entrapment, and Hopelessness: Clarifying Interrelationships between Suicidogenic Constructs.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Thomas ForkmannInstitute of Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, University Hospital of RWTH Aachen University, Pauwelsstraße 19, 52074, Aachen, Germany. tforkmann@ukaachen.de.ORCID 0000-0001-9942-2016
Tobias TeismannDepartment of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
Jana-Sophie StenzelInstitute of Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, University Hospital of RWTH Aachen University, Pauwelsstraße 19, 52074, Aachen, Germany.
Heide GlaesmerDepartment of Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
Derek de BeursNIVEL, Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research, Utrecht, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDefeat and entrapment have been shown to be of central relevance to the development of different disorders. However, it remains unclear whether they represent two distinct constructs or one overall latent variable. One reason for the unclarity is that traditional factor analytic techniques have trouble estimating the right number of clusters in highly correlated data. In this study, we applied a novel approach based on network analysis that can deal with correlated data to establish whether defeat and entrapment are best thought of as one or multiple constructs.

methodsExplanatory graph analysis was used to estimate the number of dimensions within the 32 items that make up the defeat and entrapment scales in two samples: an online community sample of 480 participants, and a clinical sample of 147 inpatients admitted to a psychiatric hospital after a suicidal attempt or severe suicidal crisis. Confirmatory Factor analysis (CFA) was used to test whether the proposed structure fits the data.

resultsIn both samples, bootstrapped exploratory graph analysis suggested that the defeat and entrapment items belonged to different dimensions. Within the entrapment items, two separate dimensions were detected, labelled internal and external entrapment. Defeat appeared to be multifaceted only in the online sample. When comparing the CFA outcomes of the one, two, three and four factor models, the one factor model was preferred.

conclusionsDefeat and entrapment can be viewed as distinct, yet, highly associated constructs. Thus, although replication is needed, results are in line with theories differentiating between these two constructs.

Indexed as

Suicidal IdeationSuicide, AttemptedSurveys and QuestionnairesAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCorrelation of DataFemaleHumansInpatientsMaleMiddle AgedStatistics as TopicYoung AdultCorrelationDefeatEntrapmentNetwork analysisSuicide

Identifiers

PMID29370770
PMCPMC5785844

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.