ArticleFrontiers in psychology2023
The posttraumatic cognitive appraisal inventory (PTCAI): development and validation.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aims to develop and validate the Posttraumatic Cognitive Appraisal Inventory (PTCAI) for accidental trauma survivors. Method: Based on interviews and expert feedback, the initial item pool was generated for the Negative Cognitive Appraisal Inventory of Loss and Feeling Threatened, and the Positive Cognitive Appraisal Inventory of Positively Face, Self-Sense, and Relationships. Then, we recruited two groups of accidental trauma survivors to examine the reliability and validity of the PTCAI. Item analysis and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) were conducted on Sample 1. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), Pearson correlation analysis, and internal consistency reliability analysis were applied to Sample 2. After 2 weeks, 20 survivors completed the PTCAI again to test temporal stability. Results: Following item analysis, the PTCAI was reduced to 27 items. The results of the EFA demonstrated that the five-factor, 27-item solution of the PTCAI was appropriate, which accounted for 63.931% of the total variation. The CFA indicated that the five-factor second-order model offered an excellent fit to the data. Loss and Feeling threatened were equally important in the study participants' negative cognitive appraisal of accidental traumas. Self-sence was the most important positive cognitive appraisal of accidental traumas by the study participants. Positively Face and Relationships were somewhat behind. Additionally, the PTCAI demonstrated high concurrent validity and reliability (test-retest and internal consistency). Conclusion: The PTCAI appears to be a reliable and valid instrument for assessing cognitive appraisals of accidental trauma survivors.
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.