The Relationship Assessment Measure for Same-Sex Couples (RAM-SSC): A Standardized Instrument for Evaluating Gay Couple Functioning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The utility of a standardized relationship assessment tool for same-sex couples is evaluated in this preliminary study. The RAM-SSC, adapted from the Waring Intimacy Questionnaire (WIQ, Waring & Reddon, 1983; Waring, 1984), was administered to a clinical sample of 32 gay male couples beginning conjoint therapy and to a nonclinical comparison group of similar size from the gay community. Clinical sample couples reported significantly lower mean scores (less positive perceptions of functioning) in most dimensions of the RAM-SSC, compared to the nonclinical group, whose scores were found to resemble those of WIQ reference values for nongay male partners in heterosexual marriages. The RAM-SSC, therefore, can be considered as a potentially viable relationship measure for use in clinical work with gay male couples, for assessment and treatment outcome evaluation purposes. Further investigation into the psychometric properties of the RAM-SSC in terms of reliability and validity is recommended.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".