Hello Saskia,

The first reference (Motta et al.) leads to an active link (https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2002-01874-002), so the citation should be straightforward. For instances like the second one (Stamm, 2000), you could try the wayback machine (https://archive.org/web/).

As to your questions:

1. If you've encountered a measure/source via a secondary only, then cite that secondary source. Cite the primary (original) source only if you've accessed it and read it.

2. Here's a useful link that addresses how to cite instruments: https://morningside.libguides.com/APA7/tests_scales_inventories

Good luck with your work.

Dear David Morse ,

if you click again on the psychnet record DOI you will see that it leads to an empty ressource link at taylor and francis. I cannot access this paper online, hence I cannot read it. The specific year of the paper is not available online.

Thank you very much for the wayback machine idea!

BUT

What I get from you is that, when I create a list of instruments used in the primary studies of my meta analysis, I do NOT credit the instrument author because I have not read the original publication?

How can I credit the information I have about the instrument from the primary study? Do I credit the primary study only?

Let's say the author of the primary study makes claims about the instrument (e.g. about it's reported reliability) and credits the instrument author. Should I then use the 'cite as' option of quoting a secondary source?

I feel like my question is very specific and hard to understand or I bring it accross the wrong way.

Hello again Saskia,

For the "dead doi link," have you tried asking your library to procure a copy of the article from the journal (say, via inter-library loan service)? I agree, it looks as if the publisher (T&F) erred in constructing the link on their web site.

Yes, you credit the instrument author, and say "as cited in" as recommended by Michael Uebel .

As I think you are suggesting, it is quite possible that somebody (a secondary source to the devlopment of the measure) might well make statements about the measure that are not supported by the primary source data (or author/s). This, I suspect, is one reason why folks might be leery of relying solely on secondary sources as unerring indicators of justified (vs. unjustified, or speculative) statements about a measure (or a theory, or study findings).

Good luck with your work.