Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40406658›Full record

ArticleAfrican journal of psychological assessment2024

Systematic comparison of resilience scales using retrospective reports: A practical case study using South African data.

Charles H van Wijk

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in African journal of psychological assessment, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

1 author.

Charles H van WijkDepartment of Industrial Psychology (Mil), Faculty of Military Science, Stellenbosch University, Saldanha, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4793-417X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The availability of different scales measuring similar constructs challenges scientists and practitioners when it comes to choosing the most appropriate instrument to use. As a result, systematic comparison frameworks have been developed to guide such decisions. The Consensus-based Standard for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) is one example of such a framework to examine the quality of psychometric studies. This article aimed, firstly, to explore the psychometric characteristics of resilience measures used in the South African Navy (SAN), in that context. Secondly, it aimed to illustrate the application of the COSMIN guide for comparing psychometric scales and employing data from the aforementioned resilience measures, as a practical case study. The study drew on both published and unpublished data from seven SAN samples, using eight psychometric scales associated with resilience. It assessed structural validity, construct validity, internal reliability and predictive ability. The outcomes were tabulated, and the COSMIN criteria were applied to each data point. All eight scales provided some degree of evidence of validity. However, it was at times difficult to differentiate between the scales when using the COSMIN guidelines. In such cases, more nuanced criteria were necessary to demonstrate more clearly the differences between the psychometric characteristics of the scales and ease in subsequent decision-making. Contribution: This article illustrated the application of COSMIN guidelines to systematically compare the quality of psychometric study outcomes on local South African data. It further offered evidence of validity for a range of resilience-related measures in a South African context.

Indexed as

COSMIN guidelinesdispositional resiliencehardinessmental toughnesssystematic comparisonvalidity

Identifiers

PMID40406658
PMCPMC12082209

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.