Personality and Substance Use: Psychometric Evaluation and Validation of the Substance Use Risk Profile Scale (<scp>SURPS</scp>) in English, Irish, French, and German Adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of the present longitudinal study was the psychometric evaluation of the Substance Use Risk Profile Scale (SURPS). METHODS: We analyzed data from N = 2,022 adolescents aged 13 to 15 at baseline assessment and 2 years later (mean interval 2.11 years). Missing data at follow-up were imputed (N = 522). Psychometric properties of the SURPS were analyzed using confirmatory factor analysis. We examined structural as well as convergent validity with other personality measurements and drinking motives, and predictive validity for substance use at follow-up. RESULTS: The hypothesized 4-factorial structure (i.e., anxiety sensitivity, hopelessness, impulsivity [IMP], and sensation seeking [SS]) based on all 23 items resulted in acceptable fit to empirical data, acceptable internal consistencies, low to moderate test-retest reliability coefficients, as well as evidence for factorial and convergent validity. The proposed factor structure was stable for both males and females and, to lesser degree, across languages. However, only the SS and the IMP subscales of the SURPS predicted substance use outcomes at 16 years of age. CONCLUSIONS: The SURPS is unique in its specific assessment of traits related to substance use disorders as well as the resulting shortened administration time. Test-retest reliability was low to moderate and comparable to other personality scales. However, its relation to future substance use was limited to the SS and IMP subscales, which may be due to the relatively low-risk substance use pattern in the present sample.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".