ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Translation, content validity, and preliminary psychometric validation of the
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This paper presents the adaptation, content validity assessment, and initial psychometric evaluation of the Existential Distress Scale (EDS) in a Spanish non-clinical sample. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were performed in independent samples to evaluate the scale's internal structure. This scale evaluates the presence of existential distress based on three constructs: loneliness, self-worth and meaning in life. Methods: For the adaptation to Spanish, a translation and retro-translation was carried out with the judgment of seven experts. For the psychometric evaluation of the instrument, a cross-sectional study was conducted using two independent samples, comprising 197 participants for the exploratory factor analysis and 150 for the confirmatory factor analysis. Results: Content validity was examined, and criterion-related validity was preliminary verified, with effect sizes indicating partial convergent validity. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses supported a three-factor structure and provided initial evidence of adequate factorial validity. Conclusion: The results provide initial evidence of promising psychometric properties in a Spanish non-clinical sample. The resulting tool provides a brief and operational measure of a complex construct relevant to understanding human suffering.
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.