ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
The dual architecture of digital fidelity: empirical evaluation and refinement of a theoretical model, and examination of gender invariance.
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.
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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This study aims to empirically evaluate and refine a theoretical model that conceptualizes digital fidelity based on Individual Ethics and Relational Boundaries (The Dual Architecture). Methods: The model's structural, discriminant, and cross-gender invariance validity were examined using both Classical Test Theory (CFA, WLS-MV) and Modern Test Theory (Rasch). Results: CFA empirically revised the two-factor Dual Architecture structure, and multi-group CFA confirmed strict invariance across genders. Nomological network analysis (relationship satisfaction, attachment styles) provided evidence for the discriminant validity of F1 and F2. Conversely, the Rasch analysis revealed a critical methodological challenge: The F1 (Digital Fidelity Ethics) sub-dimension showed unacceptably low person-separation reliability (PSI = 0.432) and a severe targeting issue (ceiling effect). Discussion: The findings indicate that the Dual Architecture model shows promising theoretical alignment and comparability; however, the Ethics dimension's measurement using current self-report items presents significant methodological difficulties, likely due to social desirability bias.
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.