Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35168598›Full record

ArticleBMC psychiatry2022

An extended version of Necessary Condition Analysis (NCA) allows more specific conclusions: an example involving well-being and resilience.

Kimmo Sorjonen, Bo Melin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC psychiatry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

2 authors.

Kimmo SorjonenDivision of Psychology, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, 171 77, Stockholm, Sweden. kimmo.sorjonen@ki.se.
Bo MelinDivision of Psychology, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, 171 77, Stockholm, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAfter conducting necessary condition analysis (NCA), researchers have concluded that a certain, not too low, level of well-being is necessary but not sufficient for a high level of resilience. However, as acknowledged by the developers of the test, NCA only evaluates if the association between two variables is characterized by some unspecified type of non-randomness and not conditions of necessity.

methodEarlier reported data on the association between well-being and resilience among Filipino adults (N = 533) in COVID-19 quarantine were re-analyzed with an extended version of NCA.

resultsAnalyses indicated a significant necessity effect of resilience on overall well-being, which is not logically compatible with well-being being necessary but not sufficient for resilience. Analyses with an extended version of NCA suggested that the association between overall well-being and resilience was characterized by equal degrees of necessity and sufficiency.

conclusionsThe original version of NCA is only capable of evaluating if the association between two variables is characterized by some unspecified type of non-randomness. The extended version of NCA allows researchers to draw more specific conclusions.

Indexed as

COVID-19HumansSARS-CoV-2Extended versionNecessary condition analysis (NCA)NecessityRe-analysis of dataResilienceSufficiencyWell-being

Identifiers

PMID35168598
PMCPMC8848822

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.