ArticleBMC psychiatry2024
Structure, network analysis, psychometric properties and clinical utility of the self-absorption scale in China.
Article in BMC psychiatry, 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSelf-absorption refers an excessive, persistent, and rigid preoccupation with information regarding the self. This study aims to introduce the Self-Absorption Scale (SAS) into China with an assessment of its latent variable structure, network structure, psychometric properties, and clinical utility in a nonclinical Chinese sample.
methods209 participants completed the translated SAS as well as the Short General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12), rumination subscale of the Rumination-Reflection Questionnaire (RRQ), the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS), the Private Self-Consciousness Scale (PrSCS), the Obsessive-Compulsive Inventory-Revised (OCI-R) and the Dissociative Experiences Scale (DES-II). In addition, 30 respondents completed the Chinese version of the SAS and retested it 2 weeks later.
resultsThe Chinese version of the SAS (CH-SAS) had a desirable two-correlated-factor structure with the reverse scored item removed, which was invariant across different genders. The core items in the network structure of the CH-SAS were related to excessive self-immersion, uncontrollability and anxiety aspects of self-absorption. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the CH-SAS was 0.903 while the McDonald's omega coefficient was 0.916 and the test-retest reliability was 0.908. The CH-SAS and its two subscales had moderate positive correlations with the rumination subscale of the RRQ (ranging from 0.474 to 0.616; p < .001) and the GHQ-12 (ranging from 0.479 to 0.538; p < .001), and moderate negative correlations with the MAAS (ranging from - 0.413 to - 0.360; p < .001). The PrSCS has almost no correlation with the CH-SAS and PrSAS (p > .05), and its correlation with the PubSAS was significant at the 0.05 level, with a remarkably low correlation coefficient (r = .157). The hierarchical regression analysis suggested that the CH-SAS can significantly predict the severity of OCD beyond factors such as depression, anxiety, rumination, dissociation, and mindful attention awareness.
conclusionsThe CH-SAS demonstrates excellent reliability, including internal consistency and test-retest reliability. Additionally, it exhibits favorable structural validity, as well as strong evidence of convergent and divergent validity. Furthermore, the self-absorption measured using the CH-SAS contributed significantly to the prediction of OCD beyond other relevant psychological factors, suggesting its clinical utility.
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.