Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41383877›Full record

ArticlePublic opinion quarterly2025

How Can We Size Your Core Issue? Assessing Salience Validity Using Psychophysiology.

Camille Tremblay-Antoine, Yannick Dufresne, François Vachon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Public opinion quarterly, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Camille Tremblay-AntoinePhD Candidate, Political Science Department, Université Laval, Québec (QC), Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6964-1373
Yannick DufresneAssociate Professor, Department of Political Science, Université Laval, Québec, QC, Canada.
François VachonProfessor, Department of Psychology, Université Laval, Québec, QC, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Much research in public opinion attempts to operationalize and measure individual issue salience. Measuring this concept presents its own set of challenges, due in part to the fact that studies rely mostly on so-called "subjective" methods to measure the strength of attitudes. This paper aims to transcend the classical methods used in surveys to measure salience by comparing the results of these common approaches with results obtained with physiological measures. Using the Confirmatory Factor Analysis Model with the Correlated Uniquenesses method, correlations between three survey question methods and two physiological measurements are compared to measure individual issue salience. Results show a strong correlation between all the measures tested and therefore add validation to survey approaches used in social sciences to measure issue salience. The results therefore demonstrate that individuals know which issues trigger the most reactions in them.

Identifiers

PMID41383877
PMCPMC12695045

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.