ArticleEuropean journal of investigation in health, psychology and education2026
Commitment to Self-Tracking Among Wearable-Device Users: Validation of the C2ST Scale and Known-Groups Evidence.
Article in European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education, 2026. 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesCommitment to self-tracking refers to the extent to which individuals are dedicated to the practice of wearable- and app-based self-monitoring. This commitment is behaviorally grounded and captures users' sustained investment in wearable and app-based self-monitoring. The objective of this study was to validate the Commitment to Self-Tracking (C2ST) scale in Czechia by examining its dimensionality, confirmatory model fit, reliability, and known-groups evidence among self-tracking device users.
methodsThe results were obtained from a face-to-face survey of a sample of 502 self-tracking device users who were recruited from the Czech general population using address-based sampling. The sample was randomly split into two subsamples for exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Item- and scale-level descriptive statistics and internal consistency (Cronbach's α, McDonald's ω) were calculated. The EFA was utilized to evaluate the factorability and latent structure of the model, and the CFA was employed to assess the model's fit. The known-groups validity was examined using nonparametric group comparisons (Kruskal-Wallis H and Mann-Whitney U tests) with theoretically relevant external indicators, such as social comparison orientation, willingness to share data, perceived usefulness of tracking, and self-rated health.
resultsThe C2ST score demonstrated a full range of theoretical variation, exhibiting minimal floor (7.2%) and ceiling (2.0%) effects and a nearly symmetrical distribution. The internal consistency of the scale was found to be high (α = 0.968; ω = 0.968), and the corrected item-total correlations were uniformly high. The EFA supported a single-factor solution that explained 74.4% of the variance. The CFA model demonstrated a unidimensional structure, indicating that the observed variables were best explained by a single factor. An improved model attained an adequate-to-excellent fit (RMSEA = 0.051; SRMR = 0.018; CFI = 0.991; TLI = 0.986) and accounted for substantial item variance (R
conclusionsThe Czech C2ST has been demonstrated to exhibit high reliability and a clear, unidimensional structure. Additionally, it exhibited robust CFA support and theory-consistent known-groups validity among self-tracking device users. The scale is appropriate for research on self-tracking commitment and persistence.
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.