ArticleFrontiers in psychology2023
A multilevel factor analysis of the short form of the Centrality of Event Scale.
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.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The Centrality of Event Scale (CES) has frequently been used to measure the degree to which positive and negative life events are perceived central to a person's identity and life story; and previous research suggests that individuals rate their most positive memory as more central compared to their most negative one. When comparing the centrality of two (or more) memories within individuals, one needs to ensure that the CES (or its short form) is equally valid for different types of events (i.e., positive and negative) as well as on different levels of analyses (i.e., on the between-person and the within-person level), pointing to the issue of measurement invariance. Methods: Three-hundred sixty-five adults (18-89 years of age) reported up to ten positive and up to ten negative autobiographical memories. For each memory reported, participants completed the seven-item short form of the CES, which measures three different components of centrality: Events can form a central component of identity (two items), a turning point in the life story (three items), and a reference point for everyday inferences (two items). Results: Based on exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, we found a two-factor structure (Self-Perception and Life-Course) to fit the data best at both levels of analyses and for both positive and negative events. Strict measurement invariance could be applied for positive and negative events at between-person level and at within-person level. The two factors, which measure the impact of an event on either a person's self-perception or their (future) life course, were rated higher for positive compared to negative memories. This difference, however, was stronger for the self-perception factor. Discussion: The present study provides a first examination of the factorial structure of the CES short form on two levels (within and between persons) as well as for two types of life events (positive and negative). Whereas, a unidimensional scale might be sufficient to measure the centrality of stressful or traumatic life events, a more fine-graded measure seems better suited to understand the different roles of positive and negative life events for a person's identity and life story.
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.