Four Decades of Group Hypnosis Scales: What Does Item-Response Theory Tell Us About What We?ve Been Measuring?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To overcome problems with previous psychometric approaches to hypnosis scales, the authors applied full-information factor analysis, based on multidimensional item-response theory (IRT), to a 39-year sample of 11,517 records of the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A (HGSHS:A). They also performed a comparable analysis on the standardization sample of the Waterloo-Stanford Group C Scale (WSGC). The HGSHS:A emerges as two-factored, whereas the WSGC more closely approaches unidimensionality. The HGSHS:A factor structure and means show very little change over 4 decades. However, IRT-based item analysis on the HGSHS:A indicates that problems such as "pseudoguessing" on 2 items limit the quality of the item set. The authors propose alternative substantive interpretations of the traits that may underlie the two-factor structure.
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 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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".