ArticleChildren and youth services review2024
Assessing Childhood Community Experiences.
Article in Children and youth services review, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Aims: Community-level childhood experiences make up important aspects of early life that are associated with long-term health outcomes. However, to date, there have been no validated measures that assess community-level experiences during childhood. Thus, we aimed to develop and validate a measure that would assess community-level experiences associated with both risk and resilience. Methods: Data were collected from 577 undergraduate participants (68.7% female). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analytic strategies were used to examine the factor structure of the Childhood Community Experiences Scale (CCES) comprised of the Community Risk Scale and the Community Protective Scale. Convergent validity and predictive utility of the CCES with existing measures of individual risk and resilience and adult psychosocial functioning were also examined. Results: Results indicated a 5-factor solution for the Community Risk Scale and a 6-factor solution for the Community Protective Scale to fit the data best. Further, results suggest the convergent validity and predictive utility of the CCES with measures of adult psychosocial functioning. Conclusion: This measure allows for a brief, self-report assessment that can be used to assess childhood community-level risk and protective factors.
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.