Reliability and validity of the German version of the Forensic Restrictiveness Questionnaire

The data indicate the FRQ-G to have good construct validity (structural, convergent, divergent) but failed to fully demonstrate criterion validity. Possible reasons include an underpowered sample size and possible measurement errors. Implications for future research are discussed.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Frontiers in Psychiatry
Published
2025-05-20
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2025.1566694
Primary Topic
Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Reliability and validity of the German version of the Forensic Restrictiveness Questionnaire

Peggy Walde, Birgit Vӧllm
Frontiers in Psychiatry
Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
article

Reliability and validity of the German version of the Forensic Restrictiveness Questionnaire

Peggy Walde, Birgit Vӧllm
article en

Abstract

The data indicate the FRQ-G to have good construct validity (structural, convergent, divergent) but failed to fully demonstrate criterion validity. Possible reasons include an underpowered sample size and possible measurement errors. Implications for future research are discussed.

Frontiers in PsychiatryVol. 16
LVR-Klinik Köln (DE), University of Rostock (DE)
Openalex Percentile: Top 85%
Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.