Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38306328›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Self-report assessment of Positive Appraisal Style (PAS): Development of a process-focused and a content-focused questionnaire for use in mental health and resilience research.

Papoula Petri-Romão, Haakon Engen, Anna Rupanova, Lara Puhlmann, Matthias Zerban, Rebecca J Neumann, Aliaksandr Malyshau, Kira F Ahrens, Anita Schick, Bianca Kollmann and 8 more

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Coping-Related Insight as a Mechanism of Resilience Capacity Development in Emerging Adulthood: A Registered Report.Stress and health : journal of the International Society for the Investigation of Stress · 2026
    Article
  4. Observational
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors.

Papoula Petri-RomãoLeibniz Institute for Resilience Research (LIR), Mainz, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-4675-170X
Haakon EngenNeuroimaging Center (NIC), Focus Program Translational Neuroscience (FTN), Johannes Gutenberg University Medical Center, Mainz, Germany.
Anna RupanovaLeibniz Institute for Resilience Research (LIR), Mainz, Germany.
Lara PuhlmannLeibniz Institute for Resilience Research (LIR), Mainz, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0870-8770
Matthias ZerbanNeuroimaging Center (NIC), Focus Program Translational Neuroscience (FTN), Johannes Gutenberg University Medical Center, Mainz, Germany.
Rebecca J NeumannDepartment of Psychiatry, University Hospital, Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany.
Aliaksandr MalyshauDepartment of Psychiatry, University Hospital, Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany.
Kira F AhrensDepartment of Psychiatry, University Hospital, Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3249-0409
Anita SchickMedical Faculty Mannheim, Department of Public Mental Health, Central Institute of Mental Health (CIMH), Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.
Bianca KollmannLeibniz Institute for Resilience Research (LIR), Mainz, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4894-2756
Michèle WessaLeibniz Institute for Resilience Research (LIR), Mainz, Germany.
Henrik WalkerDepartment of Psychiatry & Psychotherapy, Division of Mind and Brain Research, Campus Charité Mitte, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Michael M PlichtaDepartment of Psychiatry, University Hospital, Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany.
Andreas ReifDepartment of Psychiatry, University Hospital, Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0992-634X
Andrea ChmitorzFaculty of Social Work, Health Care and Nursing, Esslingen University of Applied Sciences, Esslingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-5398-642X
Oliver TuescherLeibniz Institute for Resilience Research (LIR), Mainz, Germany.
Ulrike BastenDepartment of Psychology, University of Kaiserslautern-Landau, Landau, Germany.
Raffael KalischLeibniz Institute for Resilience Research (LIR), Mainz, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-9503-7601

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Positive Appraisal Style Theory of Resilience posits that a person's general style of evaluating stressors plays a central role in mental health and resilience. Specifically, a tendency to appraise stressors positively (positive appraisal style; PAS) is theorized to be protective of mental health and thus a key resilience factor. To this date no measures of PAS exist. Here, we present two scales that measure perceived positive appraisal style, one focusing on cognitive processes that lead to positive appraisals in stressful situations (PASS-process), and the other focusing on the appraisal contents (PASS-content). For PASS-process, the items of the existing questionnaires Brief COPE and CERQ-short were analyzed in exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses (EFA, CFA) in independent samples (N = 1157 and N = 1704). The resulting 10-item questionnaire was internally consistent (α = .78, 95% CI [.86, .87]) and showed good convergent and discriminant validity in comparisons with self-report measures of trait optimism, neuroticism, urgency, and spontaneity. For PASS-content, a newly generated item pool of 29 items across stressor appraisal content dimensions (probability, magnitude, and coping potential) were subjected to EFA and CFA in two independent samples (N = 1174 and N = 1611). The resulting 14-item scale showed good internal consistency (α = .87, 95% CI [.86, .87]), as well as good convergent and discriminant validity within the nomological network. The two scales are a new and reliable way to assess self-perceived positive appraisal style in large-scale studies, which could offer key insights into mechanisms of resilience.

Indexed as

Psychological TestsResilience, PsychologicalFactor Analysis, StatisticalHumansMental HealthPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSelf ReportSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID38306328
PMCPMC10836662

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.