ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Interformat equivalence between paper and electronic administrations of the self-assessment anhedonia scale in a substance use disorder clinical sample.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The increasing integration of digital tools in clinical practice and research has led to the widespread use of electronically administered questionnaires. However, when a paper-and-pencil (paper-based) instrument is digitized, its original psychometric properties may not be preserved; assessing interformat reliability is essential to ensure data validity. Objective: To evaluate the interformat reliability and psychometric equivalence between the original paper-and-pencil Self-Assessment Anhedonia Scale (SAAS-p) and its electronic version (SAAS-e) in individuals with substance use disorders (SUDs). Methods: A fixed-order crossover design was used. Fifty-five adults diagnosed with SUDs were recruited from two Addiction Behavior Units during psychotherapeutic treatment. All participants completed both the SAAS-p and SAAS-e. Internal consistency (Cronbach's Results: Both SAAS formats demonstrated excellent internal consistency across the Global Scale, subscales, and dimensions ( Conclusion: The SAAS-e and SAAS-p show strong psychometric equivalence in patients with SUDs, supporting the reliability of the electronic version and extending evidence of the scale's validity to a heterogeneous clinical population.
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.