Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34878995›Full record

ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2021

Reliability and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) of a Paper- Versus App-Administered Resilience Scale in Scottish Youths: Comparative Study.

Julienne Mcgeough, Thomas Gallagher-Mitchell, Dan Philip Andrew Clark, Neil Harrison

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Julienne Mcgeough *Department of Psychology, Liverpool Hope University, Liverpool, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5905-3794
Thomas Gallagher-Mitchell *Department of Psychology, Liverpool Hope University, Liverpool, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3482-6703
Dan Philip Andrew Clark *Department of Psychology, Liverpool Hope University, Liverpool, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5613-8864
Neil Harrison *Department of Psychology, Liverpool Hope University, Liverpool, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2181-2046

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdequately measuring resilience is important to support young people and children who may need to access resources through social work or educational settings. A widely accepted measure of youth resilience has been developed previously and has been shown to be suitable for vulnerable youth. While the measure is completed by the young person on paper, it has been designed to be worked through with a teacher or social worker in case further clarification is required. However, this method is time consuming and, when faced with large groups of pupils who need assessment, can be overwhelming for schools and practitioners. This study assesses app software with a built-in avatar that can guide young persons through the assessment and its interpretation.

objectiveOur primary objective is to compare the reliability and psychometric properties of a mobile software app to a paper version of the Child and Youth Resilience measure (CYRM-28). Second, this study assesses the use of the CYRM-28 in a Scottish youth population (aged 11-18 years).

methodsFollowing focus groups and discussion with teachers, social workers, and young people, an avatar was developed by a software company and integrated into an android smartphone app designed to ask questions via the device's inbuilt text-to-voice engine. In total, 714 students from 2 schools in North East Scotland completed either a paper version or app version of the CYRM-28. A cross-sectional design was used, and students completed their allocated version twice, with a 2-week period in between each testing. All participants could request clarification either from a guidance teacher (paper version) or from the in-built software glossary (app version).

resultsTest and retest correlations showed that the app version performed better than the paper version of the questionnaire (paper version: r

conclusionsALEX, an avatar with an integrated voice guide, had higher reliability when measuring resilience than a paper version with teacher assistance. The CFA reports similar structure using the avatar when compared against the original validation.

Indexed as

Mobile ApplicationsAdolescentChildCross-Sectional StudiesFactor Analysis, StatisticalHumansPsychometricsReproducibility of Resultsapp administrationcyberpsychologypsychometricsresilience

Identifiers

PMID34878995
PMCPMC8693188

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.