Comparing short forms of the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale and the Social Phobia Scale.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Social Interaction Anxiety Scale (SIAS) and the Social Phobia Scale (SPS; Mattick & Clarke, 1998) are companion scales developed to measure anxiety in social interaction and performance situations, respectively. The measures have strong discriminant and convergent validity; however, their factor structures remain debated, and furthermore, the combined administration length (i.e., 39 items) can be prohibitive for some settings. There have been 4 attempts to assess the factor structures of the scales and reduce the item content: the 14-item Social Interaction Phobia Scale (SIPS; Carleton et al., 2009), the 12-item SIAS-6/SPS-6 (Peters, Sunderland, Andrews, Rapee, & Mattick, 2012), the 21-item abbreviated SIAS/SPS (ASIAS/ASPS; Kupper & Denollet, 2012), and the 12-item Readability SIAS and SPS (RSIAS/RSPS; Fergus, Valentiner, McGrath, Gier-Lonsway, & Kim, 2012). The current study compared the short forms on (a) factor structure, (b) ability to distinguish between clinical and non-clinical populations, (c) sensitivity to change following therapy, and (d) convergent validity with related measures. Participants included 3,607 undergraduate students (55% women) and 283 patients with social anxiety disorder (43% women). Results of confirmatory factor analyses, sensitivity analyses, and correlation analyses support the robust utility of items in the SIPS and the SPS-6 and SIAS-6 relative to the other short forms; furthermore, the SIPS and the SPS-6 and SIAS-6 were also supported by convergent validity analyses within the undergraduate sample. The RSIAS/RSPS and the ASIAS/ASPS were least supported, based on the current results and the principle of parsimony. Accordingly, researchers and clinicians should consider carefully which of the short forms will best suit their needs.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it