Comparing short forms of the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale and the Social Phobia Scale.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".