ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2026
Assessment of predictive validity of the Cognitive Adaptability and Resiliency Employment Screener (CARES) among content moderators.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Content moderators safeguard the internet from harmful content, and in the process, encounter the risk of traumatic exposure and negative wellbeing outcomes. Protecting their psychological health begins at the recruitment phase. The Cognitive Adaptability and Resiliency Employment Screener (CARES) is one such psychometric instrument that screens for traits and qualities which will aid success in content moderation. Previous research had established the reliability, and convergent and divergent validity of CARES among content moderators in the Philippines. This study investigated the predictive validity of CARES in respect of critical psychological outcomes-secondary traumatic stress, burnout, compassion satisfaction, perceived stress, and resilience. Method: A sample of 336 content moderators in the Philippines who completed CARES during the hiring stage were given wellness surveys (at 6-month intervals) to assess for psychological outcomes across time. Results: Findings based on linear mixed effect models showed that CARES was able to significantly predict different wellness measures with effect sizes ranging between -0.33 and 0.38. Furthermore, the interaction between CARES dimensions and time across most models was not significant, indicating that the predictive capability of CARES did not significantly vary across time. Discussion: The results indicated that CARES has sound predictive validity for psychological health outcomes relevant to content moderators.
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.