ArticleScientific reports2025
Development and validation of the concise midlife crisis measure.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Midlife crisis, characterized by emotional turbulence, identity reevaluation, and existential distress, is a psychological phenomenon often misrepresented or under-measured in both popular discourse and scientific literature. Existing global prevalence estimates are largely derived from general well-being surveys rather than standardized psychological instruments. Furthermore, there was a notable absence of concise, culturally sensitive, and psychometrically validated tools to assess midlife crisis in diverse populations. The current study aimed to develop and validate the Concise Midlife Crisis Measure (CMCM)-a brief, reliable, and conceptually grounded scale for assessing midlife crisis. The current research was conducted in two phases involving 470 participants (Mean Age = 49 years, SD = 5.29; women = 40%). The validation of the CMCM involved exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses along with convergent and divergent validity. The unidimensional CMCM, comprising 11 items (English) demonstrated excellent reliability (α = 0.954; ICC = 0.974). The model fit indices, such as CFI (0.962), TLI (0.952), RMSEA (0.089), and SRMR (0.032), showed strong validity. Convergent and divergent validity was demonstrated by the scale's correlation (p < 0.001) with the Gerascophobia or Excessive Fear of Aging Scale (r = 0.325) and the Psychosocial Life Satisfaction Scale (r = -0.201), respectively. Significant inverse correlations were found between midlife crisis, age, and education. Tertile analysis revealed that approximately 32.6% of participants exhibited high levels of midlife crisis symptoms. The CMCM is a valid and reliable instrument for assessing midlife crisis in research and clinical settings.
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.