Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36262628›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2022

See think act scale: Validation of the Dutch version of a measure of relational security in high secure forensic psychiatric care.

Meike G de Vries, Robbert-Jan Verkes, Berend H Bulten

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Meike G de VriesForensic Psychiatric Center Pompestichting, Division Diagnostics Research and Education, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Robbert-Jan VerkesForensic Psychiatric Center Pompestichting, Division Diagnostics Research and Education, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Berend H BultenForensic Psychiatric Center Pompestichting, Division Diagnostics Research and Education, Nijmegen, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Relational security is considered an essential form of security in forensic psychiatric care. Research on relational security is important, but is hampered by the lack of instruments to assess and monitor this concept in clinical practice. Within this current study the psychometric properties of the Dutch version of the See Think Act (STA) scale, an instrument designed to measure relational security as perceived by forensic staff members within secure settings, was studied. Results show that the internal consistency of the STA total scale was good. However, the internal consistency of the subscales was relatively low compared to other studies using the original English or the Chinese version of the STA scale. The factor structure found in the original English version of the scale was not confirmed within this sample. With regard to the validity of the instrument results were promising, finding relationships with aspects of ward climate and team reflexivity. Further research and development is needed regarding the STA scale, making it more suitable for monitoring and studying this clinically relevant concept in forensic care.

Indexed as

forensic carepsychometricsrelational securityteam reflexivityward climate

Identifiers

PMID36262628
PMCPMC9573952

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.