ReviewPsychonomic bulletin & review2026
Self-report measures of subjective time: An overview of existing measures and their semantic similarities.
Review in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Structured Dynamics in the Algorithmic Agent.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The proliferation of self-report measures in psychology, often developed without systematic differentiation from existing tools, raises concerns about construct redundancy and the interpretability of research findings. This study reviews self-report scales designed to assess subjective time, combining a scoping literature analysis with embeddings-based automated semantic analysis to map relationships among them. Thirty scales met inclusion criteria, drawn from experimental psychology, personality research, and organizational behavior. Hierarchical clustering revealed two broad groupings: Temporal Experience, which covers how individuals perceive, feel, and conceptualize time, and Time Perspective, which covers orientations toward the past, present, and future temporal frames. This two-cluster solution partially maps onto previous frameworks of subjective time but diverges in ways that reflect a recurring gap between theoretically motivated distinctions and how researchers operationalize constructs in items. Within the Time Perspective cluster, several Future Time Perspective instruments showed high semantic overlap without a principled account of their differences, suggesting a possible case of micro-level redundancy. Discrepancies between construct definitions and scale content were also identified across both clusters, with direct implications for measurement validity. A post hoc validation study found that model similarity scores correlated with human semantic judgments, supporting the method as a viable first-pass mapping tool. Embedding-based analysis can flag redundancy, but domain expertise remains necessary to interpret findings and draw theoretical conclusions.
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.