Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38988381›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2024

Initial validation of the Turkish version of the defense mechanisms rating scales-self-report-30.

Meltem Yılmaz, Berke Taş, Deniz Çelik, J Christopher Perry, Annalisa Tanzilli, Mariagrazia Di Giuseppe, Vittorio Lingiardi

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

7 authors.

Meltem YılmazDepartment of Dynamic and Clinical Psychology, and Health Studies, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Berke TaşDepartment of Psychology, TED University, Ankara, Türkiye.
Deniz ÇelikDepartment of Psychology, Çankaya University, Ankara, Türkiye.
J Christopher PerryDepartment of Psychiatry, McGill University and Institute of Community and Family Psychiatry at Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Annalisa TanzilliDepartment of Dynamic and Clinical Psychology, and Health Studies, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Mariagrazia Di Giuseppe *Department of History, Humanities and Society, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.
Vittorio Lingiardi *Department of Dynamic and Clinical Psychology, and Health Studies, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Defense Mechanisms Rating Scales-Self Report-30 (DMRS-SR-30) was recently developed to add a self-report alternative to the assessment of defenses, reflecting their generally accepted hierarchical organization. In this study, we aimed to examine psychometric properties and factor structure of the Turkish language version of the DMRS-SR-30. The sample consisted of 1.002 participants who filled out a survey comprising the DMRS-SR-30, the Brief Symptom Inventory, and the Inventory of Personality Organization through Qualtrics. Confirmatory Factor Analysis indicated a three-factor structure (

Indexed as

defense mechanismsdefensive functioningDMRS-SR-30psychometric propertiesvalidation

Identifiers

PMID38988381
PMCPMC11233775

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.