ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
An open participatory protocol for the ecological development and validation of the interactional disruption profile.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article presents an open participatory protocol for the ecological development and validation of the Interactional Disruption Profile, a clinical assessment instrument intended to assess observable nonverbal behaviors that may contribute to interactional disruption during real-time interactions. Grounded in current standards for psychological testing, the protocol integrates psychometric, ecological, and implementation-related considerations throughout instrument development. The procedure is structured into three phases: (1) test development (project governance, intended use, construct definition, administration specifications, and candidate item generation); (2) test validation (content validation, pretesting, psychometric evaluation); and (3) test production (manual drafting & writing of the test manual). A Steering Committee involving researchers, clinicians, patients, and relatives will supervise the iterative co-construction of the instrument and contribute to methodological decision-making throughout development. Particular emphasis is placed on ecological validity and on explicitly documenting the methodological trade-offs involved in balancing psychometric robustness, contextual sensitivity, usability, and implementation constraints. Rather than prescribing the future characteristics of the instrument, the article proposes an open participatory protocol that structures the iterative development and validation process by ensuring that decisions are progressively informed by evidence, deliberated, documented, and refined. Beyond providing an open protocol suited to capturing context-dependent constructs such as complex interactional phenomena, the article illustrates how psychological testing standards may be applied within an ecologically grounded development and validation process.
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.