Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42253572›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026

Extended factorial validity of the Capacity to Love Inventory.

Aija de Starceva-Apele, Malgožata Raščevska, Nestor D Kapusta

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Aija de Starceva-ApeleDepartment of Psychology, Faculty of Educational Sciences and Psychology, University of Latvia, Riga, Latvia.
Malgožata RaščevskaDepartment of Psychology, Faculty of Educational Sciences and Psychology, University of Latvia, Riga, Latvia.
Nestor D KapustaDepartment for Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study extends the factorial validity of the Capacity to Love Inventory (CTL-I) by using a version adapted to the Latvian context, inviting clinicians to use this construct to deepen their understanding of clinical problems. It aims to examine the reliability and several valid factor models of the CTL-I after its adaptation to a Latvian sample. The total number of participants was 649 (79% female, 20% male, 1% other), aged from 20 to 60 years. Results for the subscales and total scale reliability of the Latvian version of the CTL-I showed adequate to excellent levels, comparable to the original version (after removing three psychometrically problematic items). A six-factor confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and a second-order two-factor exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and CFA model achieved acceptable goodness-of-fit indices in the Latvian sample. The new latent second-level factors could be called (1) emotional investment and intimacy and (2) regulation of sexual desire and loss. The results support the CTL-I as a scientifically grounded tool for assessing one's capacity to engage in and sustain romantic relationships, with promising future applications for personality trait assessment, clinical assessment, treatment prognosis, and planning. Supporting one's capacity to build emotional and intimate relationships and regulate sexual desires is an important social focus in which it is beneficial to invest more at a preventive level.

Indexed as

Capacity to Love Inventoryemotional intimacyemotional regulationfactorial validitylossreliabilitysexual desire

Identifiers

PMID42253572
PMCPMC13234862

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.