Construct validity of the Schwartz outcome scale‐10: comparisons to interpersonal distress, adult attachment, alexithymia, the five‐factor model, romantic relationship length and ratings of childhood memories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Schwartz Outcome Scale‐10 (SOS‐10) is a 10‐item questionnaire that measures the broad domain of psychological well‐being and quality of life. The SOS‐10 is easy to administer and score. Past research has shown its utility, reliability and validity in different clinical settings (i.e., inpatient, outpatient and non‐psychiatry medical settings) and with diverse clinical populations in measuring treatment outcome. The present study looks to extend the construct validity of the SOS‐10 to assessing quality of life and psychological health in non‐clinical samples as well. The results reveal that the SOS‐10 is associated in predicted ways with established measures of attachment, interpersonal distress, alexithymia and the big five model whose construct validity and psychometric soundness has been well documented. The SOS‐10 was also associated in predicted ways with ratings of childhood memories and the length of the participants' longest romantic relationship. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Key Practitioner Message: • The Schwartz Outcome Scale‐10 is a measure of overall psychological health and well‐being which is cost effective, short, easy to administer and score, and evidences strong psychometric properties. It can be utilized with a number of different populations and in diverse settings.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".