ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025
Validation of the death reflection scale among older people.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Human beings possess the capacity to cognize their own mortality, which compels them to process death awareness. The present study seeks to validate the Death Reflection Scale (DRS) among older individuals, which measures growth-oriented cognitions and prosocial behavior following confrontation with death awareness. Materials and methods: DRS was validated using a cross-sectional online survey of older adults (50+). To assess configural, metric, and scalar measurement equivalence across age groups of older adults, a multi-group confirmatory factor analysis was conducted in conjunction with dynamic fit index cutoffs. Construct validity was evaluated using Pearson's correlation and analysis of variance (ANOVA). The data were obtained from an online survey. The survey was conducted in May 2023 and people aged 50 and over were recruited from an online panel using quota sampling (by age, gender and federal state). A total of 1,806 individuals completed the survey. Results: Confirmatory factor analysis showed a good fit of the originally proposed 5-factor (CFI 0.949, SRMR 0.058, RMSEA 0.070) and bi-factor model (CFI 0.956, SRMR 0.067, RMSEA 0.067) with a general factor and five subscales. In light of several considerations, it is recommended that the DRS should be considered as a five-factor model, as originally proposed. Alpha ranges from 0.807 to 0.875 and Omega from 0.811 to 0.875, indicating good reliability. Partial scalar invariance was obtained, therefore mean comparisons can be made between groups of older people. Testing the construct validity showed only a partial confirmation. The exploratory analysis of the DRS with the Big Five personality traits revealed a correlation structure that can be plausibly explained by considering the facets of personality traits. Conclusion: The value of the DRS lies in its perspective that death awareness should not only be viewed as a threat, but rather as a potential for a positive and growth-oriented perspective on death awareness and has been validated for older adults. The present study demonstrated that mean comparisons could be conducted between groups of older adults. Tests of construct validity yielded inconclusive results, indicating the necessity for further analysis.
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.