ArticlePloS one2026
The development of the Internal Resource Perception Scale: Validity and reliability.
Article in PloS one, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe perception of internal resources influences mental well-being and unlocks the potential for personal growth. However, there is currently no tool that directly addresses perceptions of internal resources. This cross-sectional psychometric study aimed to develop a tool for assessing personal perceptions of internal resources in a Thai context.
methodsThe Internal Resource Perception Scale (IRPS) was developed through a comprehensive literature review, a focus group interview, and the research team's expertise. Content validity was assessed by experts in inner growth and psychotherapy. A convenience sample of 514 Thai adults participated in an empirical examination of the scale. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used to determine the factor structure, and construct validity was examined using Spearman's correlations between IRPS scores and other validated psychological measures.
resultsThe scale content validity index (S-CVI) of the 42-item IRPS was .94, with item content validity index (I-CVI) values ranging from .80 to 1.00. The EFA and item reduction identified 25 items loaded onto four factors: Compassionate and Ethical Nature, Adaptable Mindset, Responsible Spirit, and Logical Perspective, explaining 62.4% of the observed variance. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) supported the four-factor structure, while a bifactor model indicated a strong general factor underlying the scale. The scale showed excellent internal consistency (McDonald's omega = .96). The IRPS scores demonstrated positive correlations with measures of well-being (Resilience Inventory, ρ = .58; Revised Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, ρ = .37; World Health Organization-Five Well-Being Index, ρ = .38) and negative correlations with measures of distress (Patient Health Questionnaire, ρ = -.41; Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7, ρ = -.34).
conclusionsThe IRPS demonstrates strong psychometric properties and can serve as a useful tool for understanding how individuals perceive their own internal resources. It can help individuals improve their self-awareness, learning, and personal growth. Its applicability in clinical settings should be explored in future research.
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.