Author
Listed:
- Hjördis Lorenz
- Esther Beierl
- Gabriella Tyson
- Jennifer Wild
Abstract
-analytical thinking, which characterizes rumination and worry, has been shown to be a risk and maintenance factor for psychological disorders, yet there are no accessible, reliable measures that can be easily administered to assess this cognitive process. Student paramedics are at elevated risk of developing mental health difficulties associated with rumination and worry due to the nature of their work. The current study describes the development and validation of the Concrete and Abstract Thinking measure (CAT) in a sample of student paramedics. The scenario-based CAT measure was systematically developed. An initial pool of scenarios was generated based on previous research and the Worry Domains Questionnaire. A total of 14 paramedics, inclusive of student paramedics, evaluated the content of the scenarios. Final items were determined based on best-fit using confirmatory factor analysis. Two-hundred student paramedics completed the CAT measure and associated measures and 96.6% completed it again for test-retest reliability. Abstract items of the CAT measure showed good internal consistency (α=.87), test-retest reliability (ICC = .88) and good factorial, construct and criterion validity. The CAT measure was significantly associated with measures of perseverative thinking (r = .52), rumination (r = .42), worry (r = .50), depression (r = .32), anxiety (r = .41), posttraumatic stress disorder (r = .23), self-efficacy (r = -.32) and resilience (r = -.30). Overall, the CAT measure showed robust psychometric properties, evidencing good validity and reliability. The CAT measure offers a user-friendly, valid, reliable and population-specific measure of concrete and abstract thinking whilst also providing a model of how abstract thinking could be assessed in a range of populations at risk of developing mental health disorders.
Suggested Citation
Hjördis Lorenz & Esther Beierl & Gabriella Tyson & Jennifer Wild, 2025.
"Development and validation of a measure of concrete and abstract thinking,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(4), pages 1-15, April.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0320009
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0320009
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0320009. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.