ArticlePsychological reports2024
Concurrent Validity and Reliability of Representative Inner Speech Questionnaires.
Article in Psychological reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Relationships between Self-Talk, Inner Speech, Mind Wandering, Mindfulness, Self-Concept Clarity, and Self-Regulation in University Students.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Inner speech in the daily lives of people with aphasia.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- The psychometric properties of the Varieties of Inner Speech Questionnaire-Revised in Hebrew.Frontiers in psychology · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Inner speech is frequently assessed using self-report scales, but their validity is understudied. Uttl et al. (2011) found moderate correlations, perhaps because measures tap into different dimensions of inner speech. We expand on these preliminary results by investigating reliability and concurrent validity of seven inner speech questionnaires in a larger sample. Our results indicate that inner speech questionnaires are reliable but hold moderate concurrent validity, in line with Uttl and colleagues' (2011) results. Specifically, our results suggest that some inner speech scales may capture a general conception of inner speech, while others may assess evaluative components of negative self-talk, self-regulation, and self-reflective processes, but not emotional valence. The results hold implications around further validity investigations of inner speech 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.