Veterans and clinicians rate the CIMI-M as feasible, acceptable, and clinically useful in a preliminary evaluation¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · designr3·q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · recheck by 2029: tool and model accuracy changes quickly
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? Veterans rated the CIMI-M favorably (M = 7.63 on a 10-point scale) and clinicians rated it very positively (M = 8.41). → de Goede 2026
Evidence¶
de Goede 2026¶
de Goede, M. L., Boelen, P. A., Litz, B. T., & ter Heide, F. J. J. (2026). Mapping moral injury: Development and feasibility of the Clinical Interview for Moral Injury—military version (CIMI-M). PLOS One. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0359553
q2 · i? · design · r3
Descriptive statistics from a feasibility study at two Dutch tertiary trauma centers with eight veterans who completed the Debriefing Instrument for Patients and a 10-point overall rating. The study reports "an average rating of M = 7.63 (SD = 1.16, range 5–9)"; no effect sizes or inferential tests are printed.
"Veterans rated the CIMI-M favorably, with an average rating of M = 7.63 (SD = 1.16, range 5–9)."
de Goede 2026 (2)¶
de Goede, M. L., Boelen, P. A., Litz, B. T., & ter Heide, F. J. J. (2026). Mapping moral injury: Development and feasibility of the Clinical Interview for Moral Injury—military version (CIMI-M). PLOS One. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0359553
q2 · i? · design · r3
Descriptive statistics from the same feasibility study, from the Debriefing Instrument for Clinicians completed by seven clinicians, two of whom conducted the interview twice. The article prints "an average rating of M = 8.41 (SD = 0.38, range 7.50–8.50)" with no inferential statistics.
"Clinicians rated the CIMI-M very positively, with an average rating of M = 8.41 (SD = 0.38, range 7.50–8.50)."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- An exploratory configural caseness rule formalizes when a veteran warrants treatment for moral injury — related
- Qualitative analysis finds the CIMI-M helped veterans share experiences and helped clinicians build trust and plan treatment — related
- STORY MINE is rated feasible and acceptable as a supplement to specialized mental health care, with positive user-friendliness ratings — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
cimi-m-favorable-feasibility-ratings |
title |
Veterans and clinicians rate the CIMI-M as feasible, acceptable, and clinically useful in a preliminary evaluation |
description |
Veterans and clinicians rate the CIMI-M as feasible, acceptable, and clinically useful in a preliminary evaluation |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
newest_evidence |
2026 |
recheck_by |
2029 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-02 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
2 — de-goede-2026, de-goede-2026-2 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.