Revising the BIS/BAS Scale to study development: Measurement invariance and normative effects of age and sex from childhood through adulthood.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".