ArticlePloS one2020
Sense of personal control: Can it be assessed culturally unbiased across Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians?
Article in PloS one, 2020. 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- The Weaving Healthy Families program: Promoting parenting practices, family resilience, and communal mastery.Family process · 2024Article
- Assessment of Pain-Related Fear in Indigenous Australian Populations Using the Fear of Pain Questionnaire-9 (FPQ-9).International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Prevalence of Everyday Discrimination and Relation with Wellbeing among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Adults in Australia.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Cohort profile: South Australian Aboriginal Birth Cohort (SAABC)-a prospective longitudinal birth cohort.BMJ open · 2021Article
- Exploratory Graph Analysis of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire for Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander Children.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent decades, several studies have emphasized sense of personal control as a prominent aspect of Aboriginal health. However, one limitation is that instruments available to measure personal control were originally developed in western countries and validation for Aboriginal Australians has not been conducted. The aims of the current study were to evaluate whether the Sense of Personal Control Scale (SPCS) can be used to obtain culturally unbiased measurement of personal control across Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians and to assess the psychometric properties of the SPCS for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australian.
methodsThe current study utilized two Australian subsamples retrieved from the Teeth Talk Study (n = 317) and the National Survey of Adult Oral Health 2004-2006 (n = 3,857) in which the SPCS was included. Graphical Loglinear Rasch Models (GLLRM) were used to fulfill the aims of the study.
resultsThe Perceived Constraints subscale fitted a GLLRM for Aboriginal Australians after the exclusion of three items, while fit to any Rasch model (RM) or GLLRM model could not be found in the non-Aboriginal sample. The Mastery subscale fitted a GLLRM in the non-Aboriginal sample after the exclusion of one item. In the Aboriginal sample, two items of the Mastery subscale fitted the RM, however, two items cannot be considered as a scale.
conclusionIn the present study, we showed that the development of new items is crucial before the revised SPCS might constitute a valid and reliable measure of sense of personal control in both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australian populations, and it is possible to assess whether the SPCS can be measured without bias across these two populations.
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.