MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1759961022 · doi:10.1037/pas0000186

Revising the BIS/BAS Scale to study development: Measurement invariance and normative effects of age and sex from childhood through adulthood.

2015· article· en· W1759961022 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Assessment · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCognitive Abilities and Testing
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNational Institute on Drug AbuseSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Institute of Mental HealthNational Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and Depression
KeywordsPsychologyNormativeMeasurement invarianceDevelopmental psychologyEarly adulthoodPsychometricsChildhood developmentYoung adultAdolescent developmentScale (ratio)Structural equation modelingConfirmatory factor analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Carver and White's (1994) Behavioral Inhibition System/Behavioral Activation System (BIS/BAS) Scales have been useful tools for studying individual differences in reward-punishment sensitivity; however, their factor structure and invariance across development have not been well tested. In the current study, we examined the factor structure of the BIS/BAS Scales across 5 age groups: 6- to 10-year-old children (N = 229), 11- to 13-year-old early adolescents (N = 311), 14- to 16-year-old late adolescents (N = 353), 18- to 22-year-old young adults (N = 844), and 30- to 45-year-old adults (N = 471). Given poor fit of the standard 4-factor model (BIS, Reward Responsivity, Drive, Fun Seeking) in the literature, we conducted exploratory factor analyses in half of the participants and identified problematic items across age groups. The 4-factor model showed poor fit in our sample, whereas removing the BAS Fun Seeking subscale and problematic items from the remaining subscales improved fit in confirmatory factor analyses conducted with the second half of the participants. The revised model showed strict invariance across age groups and by sex, indicating consistent factor structure, item loadings, thresholds, and unique or residual variances. Additionally, in our cross-sectional data, we observed nonlinear relations between age and subscale scores, where scores tended to be higher in young adulthood than in childhood and later adulthood. Furthermore, sex differences emerged across development; adolescent and adult females had higher BIS scores than males in this age range, whereas sex differences were not observed in childhood. These differences may help us to understand the rise in internalizing psychopathology in adolescence, particularly in females. Future developmental studies are warranted to examine the impact of rewording problematic items.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.654
Threshold uncertainty score0.614

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.100
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.276 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it