↓ Skip to main content

The Role of Character Strengths in Depression: A Structural Equation Model

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
89 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Role of Character Strengths in Depression: A Structural Equation Model
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, September 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01609
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ata Tehranchi, Hamid T. Neshat Doost, Shole Amiri, Michael J. Power

Abstract

The main aim of present study was to develop a model that specifies the predictive effects of some character strengths in depression. Two hundred individuals with major depression were recruited from clinical psychology centers. Participants completed a battery of questionnaires measuring dysfunctional attitudes, basic emotions, character strengths, and depression. Seven character strengths of critical thinking, emotional intelligence, gratitude, forgiveness, hope, spirituality, and zest were selected to measure the latent variable of character strengths. Structural equation modeling was used to analyze the data. Normed chi-square, comparative fit index, incremental fit index, and other indices demonstrated an adequate fit for the model suggesting that character strengths had an indirect effect on depression through the mediation of dysfunctional attitudes, negative affect, and happiness. Character strengths had negative effects on dysfunctional attitudes and positive effects on happiness. The findings of present study have implications for practitioners and researchers to develop an integrative model for the treatment of depression.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 89 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 20%
Student > Bachelor 11 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 10%
Lecturer 7 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Other 17 19%
Unknown 21 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 44 49%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 6%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 2%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 24 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 September 2018.
All research outputs
#15,016,514
of 23,100,534 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#16,369
of 30,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#200,945
of 336,126 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#495
of 737 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,100,534 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 336,126 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 737 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.