MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997492379 · doi:10.1177/1073191107306805

Measurement Invariance of the Appearance Schemas Inventory–Revised and the Body Image Quality of Life Inventory Across Age and Gender

2008· article· en· W1997492379 on OpenAlexaff
Shayna A. Rusticus, Anita M. Hubley, Bruno D. Zumbo

Bibliographic record

VenueAssessment · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeasurement invariancePsychologyAge groupsDevelopmental psychologyDemographyStructural equation modelingStatisticsConfirmatory factor analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The majority of body image measures have largely been developed with younger female samples. Before these measures can be applied to men, and to middle-aged and older women, and used to make gender and age comparisons, they must exhibit adequate cross-group measurement invariance. This study examined the age and gender cross-group measurement invariance of the Appearance Schemas Inventory-Revised (ASI-R) and the Body Image Quality of Life Inventory (BIQLI), with a sample of 1,262 adults (422 men and 840 women) aged 18 to 98 years. For the ASI-R, all groups met requirements for configural and metric invariance. Scalar invariance was found only for the three age groups, which indicated that mean comparisons may be conducted across gender for young, middle-aged, and older adults but should not be conducted across age groups within either gender. Results for the BIQLI indicated that observed mean comparisons may be conducted across all age and gender groups.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.123
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations79
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAssessmentSame topicEating Disorders and BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207