ArticleJAMA network open2024
Three-Item Dimensions of Anger Reactions Scale.
Article in JAMA network open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Problematic anger is prevalent and associated with adjustment difficulties in military populations. To facilitate measurement of problematic anger, a very brief valid measure is needed. Objective: To reduce the Dimensions of Anger Reactions 5-item (DAR-5) scale to a very brief measure. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used survey data collected between 2014 and 2016 in the Australian Transition and Well-Being Research Programme and US Millennium Cohort Study. Participants were service members who were actively serving or had transitioned out of the military (separated). Statistical analyses were performed from September 2021 to June 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: The DAR-5 was reduced to the 3 experiential items: frequency, intensity, and duration (the DAR-3). Psychometrics for the DAR-3 and DAR-5 were compared in terms of standardized Cronbach α, positive screening result, mean, and SD. Analyses were stratified by Australian and US military service status cohorts (active duty and separated). Results: A total of 71 010 participants were included from Australia and the US. Of 10 900 Australian participants (8145 active duty participants [74.7%]; 2755 separated participants [25.3%]), 5893 (55.2%) were aged 40 years or older and 8774 (80.5%) were male; of 60 110 US participants (24 706 active duty participants [41.1%]; 35 404 separated participants [58.9%]), 28 804 (47.9%) were aged 30 to 39 years and 43 475 (72.3%) were male. The DAR-3 demonstrated good internal consistency in the active duty (Australia: mean [SD] score, 4.97 [2.5]; α = 0.90; US: mean [SD] score, 5.04 [2.6]; α = 0.87) and separated (Australia: mean [SD] score, 6.53 [3.4]; α = 0.92; US: mean [SD] score, 6.05 [3.2]; α = 0.91) samples. The cutoff score of 8 or greater on the DAR-3 had optimal sensitivity and specificity across all samples. DAR-3 and DAR-5 were associated with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, aggression, and relationship conflict. While the scales did not significantly differ in their associations with PTSD, depression, and relationship conflict, the magnitude of association for aggression was significantly lower in US samples using the DAR-3 (eg, US active duty sample: DAR-5 OR, 9.96; 95% CI, 9.01-11.00; DAR-3 OR, 8.36; 95% CI, 7.58-9.22). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of a very brief measure of anger, each item contributed to the overall strength of the measure without losing psychometric strength compared with the DAR-5. The consistency of these findings across military and veteran samples in Australian and US populations demonstrated the psychometric robustness of the DAR-3.
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.