ReviewHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Measurement of Prosocial Tendencies: Meta-Analysis of the Generalization of the Reliability of the Instrument.
Review in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Assessing three altruism facets by economic games and self-report: a multitrait-multimethod investigation.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- How do poverty types reshape the effect of political identity on prosocial behavior? The chain mediation role of emotion regulation and compensatory effect of cultural heritage education.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Psychometric properties of the Arabic versions of the perceived social competence scale and the prosociality scale.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2025Article
- Article
- The influence of social exclusion on prosocial behavior of college students: the role of relational need threat and regulatory focus.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Prosocial Tendencies Measure (PTM) and its revised version (PTM-R) are used internationally to measure prosocial behaviors in different life situations. To obtain accumulated evidence of the report and the reliability of its scores, a meta-analysis of the reliability of internal consistency was performed. The databases of Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus were reviewed and all the studies that applied it from 2002 to 2021 were selected. Results: Only 47.9% of the studies presented the index of reliability of PTM and PTM-R. The meta-analytic results of the reliability report of the subscales that the PTM and the PTM-R have in common were: Public 0.78 (95% CI: 0.76-0.80), Anonymous 0.80 (95% CI: 0.79-0.82), Dire 0.74 (95% CI: 0.71-0.76), and Compliant 0.71 (95% CI: 0.72-0.78). Each one of them presents high levels of heterogeneity derived from the gender of the participants (percentage of women), the continent of the population, the validation design, the incentive to participate, and the form of application. It is concluded that both versions present acceptable reliabilities to measure prosocial behavior in different groups and situations, as adolescents and young people, but their clinical use is discouraged.
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.