Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analyses of the Structured Interview for Disorders of Extreme Stress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two studies were conducted to provide the first empirical examination of the factor structure of a revised version of the clinically derived Structured Interview for Disorders of Extreme Stress, a structured interview designed to assess associated features of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) thought to be related to early onset, interpersonal, and prolonged traumatic exposure. Five factors representing demoralization, somatic dysregulation, anger dysregulation, risk/self-harm, and altered sexuality were derived from an exploratory factor analysis conducted with adult trauma survivors in substance abuse treatment. They provided a good fit in a confirmatory factor analysis conducted in a second study with a nonclinical sample of ethnoculturally diverse, socioeconomically disadvantaged, incarcerated adults. Evidence of the derived factors' internal consistency and convergent and discriminant validity is reported. Evidence supported the association of these factors with interpersonal trauma (physical and/or sexual), its repetition, and its earlier onset. Implications for clinical assessment of complex posttraumatic stress disorder are discussed.
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 | 0.048 | 0.118 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".