SynthesisBritish journal of psychology (London, England : 1953)2026
Measuring the felt sense of dehumanization: A COSMIN systematic review of the psychometric properties of self- and meta-dehumanization measures.
Synthesis in British journal of psychology (London, England : 1953), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Measuring the felt sense of dehumanization: A COSMIN systematic review of the psychometric properties of self- and meta-dehumanization measures.British journal of psychology (London, England : 1953) · 2026Pooled it
- Measuring feelings of dehumanization in people who experience psychosis: development and validation of the self-Dehumanization in Psychosis Scale (DiPS).Schizophrenia bulletin · 2026Article
- Including people with lived experience in the development of the self-Dehumanisation in Psychosis Scale (DiPS): a reflective account.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
There is increasing awareness of the clinical relevance of self- and meta-dehumanization. With various measures available for use, evidence of robust reliability and validity is essential before implementation. This review aimed to evaluate the psychometric strength and methodological quality of self- and meta-dehumanization measures and make recommendations for practice using Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidance. A systematic search of Web of Science, PubMed, PsycINFO and Scopus was conducted to identify studies reporting on the development or validation of a measure of self- or meta-dehumanization. Of 5190 records, 26 studies containing 29 distinct outcome measures were identified (14 self-dehumanization and 15 meta-dehumanization). In general, there was a lack of involvement from people with lived experience in measure development, leading to very low quality of evidence for content validity. Strength and quality of other psychometric properties varied, with only some measures demonstrating sufficient high-quality ratings. Based on COSMIN guidance, only one measure, the Experience of Dehumanization Measure (Golossenko et al., Br. J. Soc. Psychol., 62, 2023, 1285), can be currently recommended for use. It is recommended that future research looks to: (1) improve efforts to validate existing measures and (2) develop gold standard measures in collaboration with people with lived experience.
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.