Development and Psychometric Evaluation of a Brief Version of the Hyperventilation Questionnaire: The HVQ-B
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The fear of arousal sensations characterizes some anxiety disorders and is a core feature of an established risk factor for anxiety and related disorders (i.e. anxiety sensitivity; Taylor, 1999). Anxiety sensitivity (AS) refers to a fear of anxiety-related bodily sensations stemming from beliefs that these have catastrophic consequences. Interoceptive exposure (IE; repeated exposure to feared arousal sensations) has been shown to decrease AS. The 33-item Hyperventilation Questionnaire (HVQ; Rapee & Medoro, 1994) measures state levels of cognitive, affective, and somatic responses to IE and arousal induction exercises more generally. The aim of the present set of studies was to develop and evaluate a brief version of the HVQ, the HVQ-B, in order to facilitate its use in research and clinical settings. In Study 1, three existing data sets that used the long version of the HVQ were combined to select the items to be retained for the HVQ-B. In Study 2, the 18-item HVQ-B was administered and its psychometric properties were evaluated. In Study 3, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed on the 18 items of the HVQ-B. The HVQ-B demonstrated excellent psychometric properties, and accounted for most of the variance of the questionnaire's longer version. CFA indicated a reasonably good fit of the three-factor measurement model. Finally, the HVQ-B was able to distinguish between responses to arousal induction exercises by high versus low AS participants. The HVQ-B is a useful tool to assess cognitive, affective, and somatic responsivity to arousal sensations in both research and practice.
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 | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".