ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2020
A German Validation of Four Questionnaires Crucial to the Study of Time Perception: BPS, CFC-14, SAQ, and MQT.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Validation of the Japanese version of boredom proneness scale and derivation of its short version among older adults: a cross-sectional study.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2026Article
- Green dreams are made of this: Futures consciousness and proenvironmental engagement.The British journal of social psychology · 2025Article
- How digital leadership impacts community resilience: a moderated mediation model.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- When the Heart Meets the Mind: Exploring the Brain-Heart Interaction during Time Perception.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2024Article
- Time to imagine moving: Simulated motor activity affects time perception.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We aimed to validate four established questionnaires related to time perception in German (Consideration of Future Consequences-14 scale (CFC-14), Boredom Proneness Scale (BPS), Metacognitive Questionnaire on Time (MQT), and Self-Awareness Questionnaire (SAQ)) using a back-translation method. Exploratory factor analyses were conducted on the data of 273 German-speaking participants to evaluate the factorial structures. Internal consistencies indicated good reliability values of the questionnaires and the respective subscales, except for the MQT. Intercorrelations between the questionnaires were examined to test their external validities and gain additional insight into the associations among the constructs. The consideration of future consequences was negatively linked to boredom proneness, whereas interoceptive awareness of one's bodily sensations was positively associated with boredom proneness. Additionally, interoceptive awareness was linked to metacognitive beliefs about which factors influence time perception. The results are discussed in regard to human time perception. Conclusion: The validated German questionnaires can now be used in research projects. Initial observations on how the questionnaires are related to each other fit the current knowledge on how human time perception works, yielding the first evidence for the external validity of the German versions of these established questionnaires. For evidence of criterion validity, future studies should more thoroughly investigate the external validities analyzing the correlations with other validated measures.
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.