Factor structure and psychometric properties of a French and German shortened version of the Behavioural Inhibition System/Behavioural Activation System scales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Behavioural Inhibition System/Behavioural Activation System scales (BIS/BAS scales) constitute one of the most prominent questionnaires to assess individual differences in sensitivity to punishment and reward. However, some studies questioned its validity, especially that of the French and German translations. The aim of the present study was to re-evaluate the psychometric characteristics of the BIS/BAS scales in a large sample of French- and German-speaking young Swiss men (N = 5872). Results showed that factor structures previously found in the literature did not meet the standards of fit. Nine items had to be removed to achieve adequate fit statistics in confirmatory factor analysis, yielding a shortened version with four factors: one BIS factor comprising five items and three BAS factors, namely Reward Reactivity, Drive and Fun Seeking, each comprising two items. Convergent validity and group invariance analyses suggest that the shortened BIS/BAS scales constitute a valid and reliable instrument. Researchers interested in assessing individual differences in BIS and BAS reactivity in French- and German-speaking individuals should avoid using the BIS/BAS scales as originally specified. The shortened version may be a sound alternative at least in samples of young adults. Its shorter format may be particularly suited for surveys with constraints on questionnaire length.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".