ArticleScientific reports2025
Psychometric properties and norm values of a short screening version of the profile of mood states POMS from the German general population.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The current study aimed to provide further evidence of the structural validity of the 16-item-short version of the Profile of Mood States (POMS), a widely-used tool for assessing an individual's emotional state. This is significant for various research inquiries in clinical and social psychology. In order to cross-validate previous findings, an additional evaluation of the factorial structure and the psychometric properties is necessary in a newly collected dataset. A representative sample for age and gender of N = 2503 with 1329 (53%) female, 1173 (47%) male, and 1 (< 1%) diverse, with a mean age of M = 46 (SD = 18) was collected. The model fit for the four-factor model was acceptable, with good reliability for all factors. We found evidence for (partial) strict invariance between gender and age groups. There were small to moderate group differences for the Anger and Vigor subscales regarding age. We report normative percentile ranks. Our findings suggest that the POMS-16 is a dependable and structurally valid gauge of mood states. Especially in situations where a brief and cost-effective assessment is preferred, the POMS-16 should be a considered option.
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.