Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31803078›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2019

The German Impact of Future Events Scale (IFES-S): Adaption and Validation for Clinical Samples.

Julia Kroener, Caroline Schaitz, Anna Maier, Bernhard Connemann, Zrinka Sosic-Vasic

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Julia KroenerDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy III, University Clinic of Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
Caroline SchaitzDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy III, University Clinic of Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
Anna MaierDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy III, University Clinic of Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
Bernhard ConnemannDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy III, University Clinic of Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
Zrinka Sosic-VasicDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy III, University Clinic of Ulm, Ulm, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Prospective intrusive mental images occur frequently among several psychological disorders. Their assessment is an important tool since the imagination of events can drive future behavior, such as suicidal acts. One valid measure evaluating those prospective images is the impact of future events scale (IFES). However, to date, there is no German equivalent to the English IFES. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to adapt and validate the IFES at hand of a clinical sample and a healthy control sample.After translation, item analyzes were conducted, and as a result, four items were excluded from further analysis resulting in the German short version of the IFES, the IFES-S. Construct validity of the German IFES-S was tested through correlational analysis with convergent and divergent measures. Specificity and sensitivity were assessed through ROC analysis. The German IFES-S showed good internal consistency for the overall measurement with a Cronbach's α of .93. Additionally, it displayed good convergent and divergent validity. An optimal cutoff score of 23 was established to discriminate between clinical populations and healthy controls. In summary, the German IFES-S promises to be a valid self-report instrument for the assessment of prospective intrusive imagery within the context of clinical samples.

Indexed as

assessmentflash-forwardsimageryprospective imageryquestionnaire

Identifiers

PMID31803078
PMCPMC6875826

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.