ArticlePsychological assessment
Do the Beck Depression Inventory-II and Beck Hopelessness Scale reliably capture systematic change and within-person variation? Evidence from generalizability theory.
Article in Psychological assessment. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Depressive symptoms and hopelessness are central to suicidal states and various psychiatric conditions. The Beck Depression Inventory-II and Beck Hopelessness Scale are widely used measures in clinical and research contexts to evaluate the severity of these conditions. Although both scales demonstrate strong psychometric properties for assessing between-person differences, their sensitivity to within-person variation across repeated measures has not been evaluated in psychiatric populations. Generalizability theory provides a framework to partition variance from multitime-point assessments into meaningful sources (i.e., person, time, item, and their interactions), enabling the estimation of two complementary reliability coefficients that we evaluated in the present study: reliability of individual differences in change (
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.