Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37637923›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2023

Measuring PERMA+4: validation of the German version of the Positive Functioning at Work Scale.

Timo Lorenz, Janika Ho, Marla Beyer, Leonie Hagitte

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2023. 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

4 authors.

Timo LorenzDepartment of Psychology, MSB Medical School Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Janika HoDepartment of Psychology, MSB Medical School Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Marla BeyerDepartment of Psychology, MSB Medical School Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Leonie HagitteDepartment of Psychology, MSB Medical School Berlin, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study investigates the association between the PERMA+4 model and psychological safety, while also examining the validation of the Positive Functioning at Work (PFW) scale in a German-speaking population. The study discovered strong association between PERMA+4 and psychological safety, which raises important questions and potential concerns regarding the jangle fallacy. Similar to the PERMA model, PERMA+4 should be considered a framework for attaining psychological safety. The German version of the PFW scale demonstrated satisfactory fit with the model, indicating its factorial validity. To gain insights into promoting workplace wellbeing, it is recommended to conduct longitudinal studies to determine whether psychological safety is a cause or result of PERMA+4. This study enhances our understanding of workplace wellbeing and emphasizes the association between PERMA+4 and psychological safety.

Indexed as

PERMAPERMA+4positive organizational psychologypositive psychologyvalidationwellbeingwork-related wellbeing

Identifiers

PMID37637923
PMCPMC10448252

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.