Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38708348›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2024

The Chronic Time Pressure Inventory: further assessment of factorial structure and validity.

Andrew Denovan, Neil Dagnall, Ken Drinkwater

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

3 authors.

Andrew DenovanPeople and Performance, The Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9082-7225
Neil DagnallPsychology, The Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-0657-7604
Ken DrinkwaterPsychology, The Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-4015-0578

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Chronic time pressure represents a prevalent concern within modern society, and effective measurement is crucial for research advancement. The Chronic Time Pressure Inventory (CTPI) has thus far demonstrated adequate psychometric properties. However, only two studies have examined the measure and evidence of its validity is limited. Accordingly, the current investigation, Methods: Study 1 ( Results: Comparison of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and exploratory structural equation modelling (ESEM) factor solutions indicated that an ESEM bifactor model provided the strongest data-model fit. This included a general chronic time pressure component alongside specific subfactors of Feeling Harried and Cognitive Awareness of Time Shortage. All scale items reflected the general factor; however, some items loaded weakly on the intended specific factor. The CTPI is thus a robust indicator of chronic time pressure but needs refinement as a measure of the specific factors. Convergent/discriminant validity analyses inferred that the CTPI captured chronic time pressure as a related, but distinct, construct to perceived stress, and evidenced a relationship with theoretically associated constructs (Big Five personality traits and time perspective). Overall, the CTPI is a sound measure of chronic time pressure and has the potential to further cohesive research efforts on the contribution of this construct to various life domains.

Indexed as

PsychometricsAdolescentAdultAgedFactor Analysis, StatisticalFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPersonalityPersonality InventoryReproducibility of ResultsSelf ReportStress, PsychologicalYoung AdultChronic time pressureChronic Time Pressure InventoryConvergent validityExploratory structural equation modellingPersonalityTime perspective

Identifiers

PMID38708348
PMCPMC11069352

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.