ArticlePloS one2021
Individual differences in avoiding feelings of disgust: Development and construct validity of the disgust avoidance questionnaire.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We developed and examined the construct validity of the Disgust Avoidance Questionnaire (DAQ) as a measure of people's inclination to prevent experiencing disgust (disgust prevention) and to escape from the experience of disgust (disgust escape). In a stepwise item-reduction (Study 1; N = 417) using Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) based on a 4-subscale distinction (behavioral prevention, cognitive prevention, behavioral escape, cognitive escape), we selected 17 items from a pool of potential items. In order to incorporate the conceptual overlap between dimensions of disgust avoidance, focus (prevention vs. escape), and strategy (behavioral avoidance vs. cognitive avoidance), we specified an adapted model. In this model, we allowed each item to load on one type of dimension and one type of strategy, resulting in four overlapping factors (prevention, escape, behavioral avoidance, cognitive avoidance). Evaluation of this overlapping 4-factor model (Study 2; N = 513) using Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling (ESEM) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) showed promising model fit indices, factor loadings, factor correlations, and reliability estimates for three of the four factors (prevention, behavioral avoidance, cognitive avoidance). Those three subscales also showed good convergent validity. In contrast, the results related to the escape factor may call the suitability of self-report to assess disgust escape into question. In light of the exploratory nature of the project, future examinations of the DAQ's validity and applicability to more diverse samples are essential. A critical next step for future research would be to examine the DAQ's criterion validity and the distinctive roles of the DAQ subscales in (clinical) psychological constructs and processes.
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.