A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

A systematic review of self-report measures of generalized shame. | LitMetric

A systematic review of self-report measures of generalized shame.

J Clin Psychol

Portland Psychotherapy Clinic, Research, and Training Center, Portland, Oregon, USA.

Published: July 2022


Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Objective: Shame is a transdiagnostic emotion of strong clinical and research interest. Yet, there is a lack of consensus on the definition and varying methods employed across self-report measures, potentially affecting our ability to accurately study shame and examine whether clinical interventions to alter shame are effective. This paper offers a systematic review of self-report measures of generalized shame.

Methods: PubMed, PsycInfo, and Web of Science were searched. Studies were included when they were available in English and the primary aim was to evaluate measurement properties of scales or subscales designed to measure generalized shame in adults.

Results: Thirty-six papers examining 19 scales were identified, with measures of trait shame more common than state shame. Construct validity, internal consistency, and structural validity were relative strengths. Development and content validity studies were lacking and suffered from low methodological quality.

Conclusions: All measures evaluated needed additional research to meet criteria for recommended use.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jclp.23311DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

self-report measures
12
systematic review
8
review self-report
8
measures generalized
8
generalized shame
8
shame
7
measures
5
shame objective
4
objective shame
4
shame transdiagnostic
4

Similar Publications