ArticleRoyal Society open science2024
Assessing the measurement invariance of Free Will and Determinism Plus scale across four languages: a registered report.
Article in Royal Society open science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Free will in the eyes of Muslims and Christians.PNAS nexus · 2026Article
- Assessing the measurement invariance of Free Will and Determinism Plus scale across four languages: a registered report.Royal Society open science · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Free will is assumed to be the core of an individual's self-concept. Belief in free will has been studied extensively and was found to be correlated with many behavioural and psychological outcomes. Although developed and validated in the West, the Free will and Determinism Plus (FAD-Plus) scale has been translated, used, and interpreted as a measurement of free will beliefs in multiple cultures. However, the cross-cultural measurement invariance of FAD-Plus has not been examined. Given the cultural differences in understanding the concept of 'free will', items of FAD-Plus may have different interpretations in different cultures, which may compromise its cross-cultural measurement invariance. To provide empirical evidence for the lack of cross-cultural measurement invariance, we collected data in China and analyzed these data together with open datasets of FAD-Plus in three other languages: Japanese, French and English. We only found partial measurement invariance between the Chinese and English datasets, as well as the Japanese and English datasets. These results provided the first assessment of cross-cultural measure invariance of FAD-Plus. We discussed the potential implications of the current study for future studies in the field.
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.