The Psychological Mindedness Scale: Factor structure, convergent validity and gender in a non‐psychiatric sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the concept of psychological mindedness (PM) originated in the psychoanalytic literature, its use has been expanding beyond the realm of assessing suitability for, or psychic change following, psychotherapy or psychoanalysis. For example, since PM bespeaks a capacity to tolerate psychological conflict and stress intrapsychically rather than by regressive means of conflict management or resolution such as somatization, its role, like that of alexithymia, in the genesis of psychosomatic illness is becoming evident. The Psychological Mindedness Scale (PMS), a 45-item self-report instrument intended to measure PM, was administered to a non-clinical sample of 397 undergraduates to assess the stability of its previously reported item-factor loadings and factor structure. Two main factors emerged, viz. Belief in the benefits of discussing one's problems and Access to feelings. Lower-order factors were Willingness to discuss problems with others, Interest in meaning and motivation of own and others' behaviour and Openness to change. Convergent validity of the PMS was also demonstrated by the negative correlations obtained between its total and factor/subscale scores with those of the Toronto Alexithymia Scale. The PMS needs further development to increase the congruence between its factor structure and the concept of PM. Females were also found to be more psychologically minded than males. The implications of these findings and the potential uses of this scale are discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".