Measurement invariance and latent mean differences of the morbid curiosity scale (MCS) across the United States and China.

Xue Wang, Qin Wang, Yan Cai, Dongbo Tu

Open access · goldAbstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 2023. 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

0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 32% of its field

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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Xue WangSchool of Psychology, Jiangxi Normal University, Nanchang, China.

Qin WangSchool of Psychology, Jiangxi Normal University, Nanchang, China.

Yan CaiSchool of Psychology, Jiangxi Normal University, Nanchang, China.

Dongbo TuSchool of Psychology, Jiangxi Normal University, Nanchang, China.

Jiangxi Normal University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years, there has been a growing body of research focusing on morbid curiosity. However, the development of measurement tools has been slow, with only two scales available. Compared to the unidimensional scale of Curiosity About Morbid Events (CAME) proposed by Zuckerman and Little (1986), the recently developed four-factor Morbid Curiosity Scale (MCS) by Scrivner (2021) demonstrates a stable factor structure and good reliability and validity. As the time since the development of this scale is relatively short, its measurement properties have not been widely evaluated. Therefore, this study used exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses to validate the factor structure of the MCS in the Chinese cultural context, and the results supported the four-factor structure of the MCS. Additionally, we established partial scalar invariance of the MCS between Chinese (

Indexed as

Cross-culturalFactor structureLatent mean differenceMCSMeasurement invariance

Identifiers

PMID37809874

DOI10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e19973

PMCPMC10559548

OpenAlexW4386753016

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

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.