ArticleBMC psychology2026
Validating the Online Circle Test (OL-CT): cross-format equivalence, one-week reliability, and contextual stability in Japanese undergraduates.
Article in BMC 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Circle Test is a drawing-based task for assessing time perspective, but conventional paper-and-pencil administration requires substantial human resources for scoring and quantification, limiting its scalability for large or remote surveys to be conducted. We developed an online web-based circle test with automated scoring and evaluated its validity and reliability.
methodsThirty-six Japanese undergraduates completed both the Online Circle Test (OL-CT) and paper-and-pencil Circle Test (PP-CT) in a counterbalanced crossover design (Visit 1) and repeated the OL-CT after 7-9days either in the laboratory or at home (Visit 2). Continuous indices included log-transformed absolute and proportional areas, and categorical indices included temporal dominance and temporal relatedness. Analyses evaluated (a) cross-format equivalence between PP-CT and OL-CT, (b) one-week test-retest reliability of the OL-CT, and (c) contextual stability across laboratory versus home administration.
resultsCross-format equivalence was moderate for log-transformed absolute areas (ICC = 0.73-0.77) but excellent for proportional areas (ICC = 0.89-0.90). The categorical agreement was high (88.9%), with no systematic category shift. One-week test-retest reliability was moderate-to-excellent for absolute areas (ICC = 0.69-0.89) and excellent for proportional areas (ICC = 0.93-0.95). Categorical stability was also high (temporal dominance: 91.7%, κ = 0.88; temporal relatedness: 86.0%, κ = 0.76). The OL-CT indices did not differ between the laboratory and home retesting contexts.
conclusionIn this Japanese undergraduate sample, the OL-CT showed promising preliminary psychometric properties as a digital adaptation of the Circle Test, particularly when proportional indices are treated as the primary continuous outcomes. The findings support its potential use as a scalable tool for assessing time perspective across formats, over a one-week interval, and across testing contexts.
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.