ArticleScientific reports2026
Convergent validation of the Involuntary Autobiographical Memory Inventory across levels of analysis in a Polish sample.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We adapted the Involuntary Autobiographical Memory Inventory (IAMI) into Polish and examined its psychometric properties and convergent validity using a multi-level validation approach. The IAMI assesses individual differences in the frequency of involuntary autobiographical memories and future-oriented thoughts. In Study 1, we conducted confirmatory factor analysis and tested convergent validity using a laboratory vigilance task that objectively captured involuntary past and future thoughts under controlled conditions. In Study 2, we replicated the factorial structure and further examined convergent validity through associations with mind-wandering, emotional distress, and interoceptive sensitivity. Across both studies, confirmatory factor analyses supported a two-factor structure distinguishing involuntary past and future thoughts, with strong internal consistency. Importantly, IAMI scores predicted both laboratory-elicited involuntary thoughts and theoretically related self-report constructs, providing convergent validity across self-report, behavioural, and bodily-level measures. Together, these findings demonstrate that the Polish adaptation of the IAMI is not only a reliable and valid instrument but also offers novel insights into the cognitive and embodied mechanisms underlying involuntary mental time travel. We discuss the implications of these findings for future research on spontaneous thought processes and their links to cognition and emotion.
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.