Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39315040›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2024

Slovenian validation of the Capacity to Love Inventory: associations with clinical measures and mindfulness.

Timotej Glavač, Vita Poštuvan, Jim Schmeckenbecher, Nestor D Kapusta

Abstract read
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 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

4 authors.

Timotej GlavačDepartment of Psychology, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Vita PoštuvanAndrej Marušič Institute, Slovene Centre for Suicide Research, University of Primorska, Koper, Slovenia.
Jim SchmeckenbecherDepartment for Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Nestor D KapustaDepartment for Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aim: The main purpose of the present study was to validate the Slovenian version of the 41- item Capacity to Love Inventory (CTL-I). Based on psychoanalytic theory, limitations to capacity to love are expected to be associated with personality dysfunction and disintegration as well as fundamental mental capacities such as self-reflection and self-awareness. Method: To examine these assumptions, a sample of 552 Slovenian non-clinical individuals were recruited through academic networks. The construct validity of the CTL-I was assessed using a confirmatory factor analysis and convergent validity of the CTL-I and its subscales was established against IPO-16, PID-5 BF, MAAS. Results: Our findings show that the Slovenian version of the CTL-I replicated the six-factor structure, exhibiting good model fit as well as satisfactory internal consistency of all subscales. In line with expectations, capacity to love was found to be inversely associated with dysfunctional personality traits and structural personality disturbances. Accordingly, higher dispositional mindfulness was coherently associated with all domains of CTL-I. Conclusion: The results add to the growing evidence for the cross-cultural validity and sound psychometric properties of CTL-I, presented here in the Slovenian version. Our findings also point to the significance of dispositional mindfulness both in relation to capacity to love as well as mental health.

Indexed as

capacity to love inventory (CTL-I)mindfulnesspersonalitypsychodynamic perspectivepsychometrics properties

Identifiers

PMID39315040
PMCPMC11417625

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.