Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35069293›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2021

Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling: Practical Guidelines and Tutorial With a Convenient Online Tool for Mplus.

Llewellyn E van Zyl, Peter M Ten Klooster

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 83 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
83citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

83 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Development and Validation of the Emergency Department Transitions Measure.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

23 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

2 authors.

Llewellyn E van ZylDepartment of Industrial Engineering, University of Eindhoven, Eindhoven, Netherlands.
Peter M Ten KloosterPsychology, Health and Technology, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Critics of positive psychology have questioned the validity of positive psychological assessment measures (PPAMs), which negatively affects the credibility and public perception of the discipline. Psychometric evaluations of PPAMs have shown that various instruments produce inconsistent factor structures between groups/contexts/times frames, that their predictive validity is questionable, and that popular PPAMs are culturally biased. Further, it would seem positive psychological researchers prioritize date-model-fit over measurement quality. To address these analytical challenges, more innovative and robust approaches toward the validation and evaluation of PPAMs are required to enhance the discipline's credibility and to advance positive psychological science. Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling (ESEM) has recently emerged as a promising alternative to overcome

Indexed as

exploratory structural equation modelingfactor analysismental health continuumpsychometricsstatistical tutorials

Identifiers

PMID35069293
PMCPMC8779472

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.