CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 133Temporomandibular Joint DisordersSurvey Methodology and NonresponseMental Health Research Topics

Problems of recall and misclassification with checklist methods of measuring stressful life events.

Raphael, Karen G., Cloitre, Marylene, Dohrenwend, Bruce P.·1991·Health Psychology
DOI 10.1037/0278-6133.10.1.62
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The prevalent use of life event category checklists to facilitate event recall may be one reason that previous studies find that life events play only a small and ambiguous role in the development of health problems. In this study, 136 persons with temporomandibular pain disorder syndrome (TMPDS) and 131 healthy controls reported the occurrence of life events in 10 monthly interviews, using an event category checklist. At the end of the study, they reported retrospectively and in detail about life events over the previous monthly periods. Only one quarter of the event categories appeared in both the monthly interviews and retrospective report for the same period. Detailed analyses revealed problems of inaccuracy inherent in checklists that exacerbate problems of recall. The findings indicate that checklist category approaches should not be used when the goal is to understand the role of stress in adverse health outcomes. Suggestions are made about more adequate methods.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0278-6133.10.1.62

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Problems of interpretation remain for questionnaire or interview-based assessments of stressful life events, including accurate timing of events and memory biases and/or forgetting.

    “Furthermore, problems of interpretation remain including accurate timing of events and memory biases and/or forgetting (Brown et al., 1973; Raphael & Cloitre, 1994; Raphael, Cloitre, & Dohrenwend, 1991), which would not impact on SLEs that were assessed from objective sources.”

    From The development of an environmental risk score using Swedish National Registers and its impact on subsequent episodes of major depression (2025) · cites this paper as Raphael, Cloitre, & Dohrenwend, 1991

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Raphael, K. G., Cloitre, M., & Dohrenwend, B. P.
Affiliations
Columbia University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Health Psychology
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
1991
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
62-74
ISSN
  • 0278-6133 (ISSN-L)
  • 1930-7810
DOI
10.1037/0278-6133.10.1.62
OpenAlex
W2043348610
Cited by
133
References
39
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 5
FWCI
23.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Health Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5r01de005989-08)
  • National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (DE 05989)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Complementary and Manual Therapy › Temporomandibular Joint Disorders
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
Keywords
life events, event recall, misclassification, checklist method, retrospective reports, measurement accuracy
MeSH terms
Facial Pain, Humans, Life Change Events, Longitudinal Studies, Personality Tests, Psychometrics, Mental Recall, Risk Factors, Somatoform Disorders

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review