The Posttraumatic Growth Inventory: an examination of the factor structure and invariance among breast cancer survivors
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
OBJECTIVE: The present study tested the proposed five-factor structure and invariance of the Posttraumatic Growth Inventory (PTGI; Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1996) in a sample of physically active breast cancer survivors. METHODS: A sample of breast cancer survivors (N=470, Mage=57.3, SD=7.8 years) completed the PTGI and a demographic questionnaire. The factor structure, factorial invariance, and latent mean invariance were tested using maximum likelihood structural equation modeling. RESULTS: Preliminary analyses showed acceptable reliability for the PTGI subscales (alpha<0.83). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) supported the five related factors corresponding to: relating to others, new possibilities, personal strength, spiritual change, and appreciation of life (chi(2) (179)=822.53, CFI=0.97, NNFI=0.96, SRMR=0.05, RMSEA=0.09). Multigroup CFA supported the invariance of the PTGI across age groups, treatment type, time since diagnosis, and time since last treatment. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide support for (1) the multidimensional nature and factorial validity of the PTGI, and (2) the use of the PTGI in future research examining posttraumatic growth within samples of physically active breast cancer survivors.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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