MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978967135 · doi:10.1037/a0026249

Self-report version of the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale: Psychometric properties of the French version.

2011· article· en· W1978967135 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alexandre Heeren, Pierre Maurage, Mandy Rossignol, Morgane Vanhaelen, Virginie Peschard, Coralie Eeckhout, Pierre Philippot

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySocial anxietyClinical psychologyAnxietyPsychometricsScale (ratio)Validation testAnxiety disorderTest validityPsychotherapistPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the most popular measures of social anxiety is the Liebowitz Social Anxiety scale (LSAS). Recently, the LSAS has been converted into a self-reported format (LSAS-SR). Yao et al. (1999) has adapted the LSAS and LSAS-SR into French. They reported no difference between both versions. However, Yao et al. (1999) did not assess the score reliability and structural validity of the scale. In addition, no study to date has examined the test–retest reliability of the French version LSAS-SR. The present study was designed to overcome these limitations. In a first sample, 428 French speaking volunteers (292 women) were administered the French version of the LSAS-SR. In a second sample, 114 participants were administered the LSAS-SR twice over an 8-week period. Confirmatory factor analyses establish the structural validity of the French version of the LSAS-SR. Good psychometric properties, including test–retest reliability, are also observed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.164 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations60
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportementSame topicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesFrench-language works237,207