ReviewFrontiers in psychology2024
Decomposing the variance in early maladaptive schemas: the major role of one general factor, the minor role of domains, and their differential relations to facial emotion recognition.
Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2024. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Despite the growing interest in the early maladaptive schemas, the progress in understanding their impacts is decelerated by a lack of clear understanding of their structure. Different composite scores are calculated without a solid ground or a clarified meaning. Here we explain that the schema variance can be theoretically decomposed into three components: schema-specific, domain-specific due to the unmet core needs, and the common variance we call general susceptibility; each can differentially correlate with other substantive variables. Using this framework, we empirically examine the structure of schemas and their relationships to facial emotion recognition, a crucial ability that can widely affect our social interactions. Methods: A sample of adults completed an emotion recognition task and the Young Schema Questionnaire. Using different factor models, the specific and shared variance across schemas was analyzed. Then, the relation of these variance components to facial emotion recognition was explored. Results: A general factor explained 27%, 40%, and 64% of the total variance in items, schemas, and domains, respectively. Partialling out the common variance, there was little domain-specific variance remained. Regarding facial emotion recognition, they were not correlated with specific schemas; however, the general susceptibility factor was correlated with anger recognition. Discussion: The variance decomposition approach to schemas, which uses the bifactor model, may offer a clearer way to explore the impacts of schemas. While domain scores are widely used, their reliability, validity, and meaning are questionable. The generic factor, which is consistently extractable from empirical data, requires further attention.
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.