Development and validation of the brief‐satisfaction with appearance scale for systemic sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Body image concerns are understudied in systemic sclerosis (SSc; scleroderma). The objective was to develop and cross-validate a brief version of the Satisfaction with Appearance Scale (SWAP) in order to reduce item redundancy, increase SSc relevancy, and improve the feasibility of body image assessment in SSc. METHODS: Female patients with SSc in a development sample (Johns Hopkins Scleroderma Center) and a validation sample (Canadian Scleroderma Research Group Registry) completed the 14-item SWAP. Items for the 6-item Brief-SWAP were selected based on theoretical considerations and psychometric data from the development sample. In both samples, internal consistency reliability, convergent validity, and the hypothesized 2-factor structure (perceived social impact and subjective dissatisfaction) were compared between the Brief-SWAP and SWAP. RESULTS: Two hundred seventeen women from the development sample and 654 women from the validation sample completed the SWAP. Cronbach's alpha for the Brief-SWAP was 0.82 in both samples, compared with 0.90 and 0.91 for the full SWAP. Correlations between the Brief-SWAP and SWAP were 0.94 and 0.95 in the development and validation samples, respectively. All correlations of the Brief-SWAP and SWAP with measures of convergent validity were substantively equal with no statistically significant differences in either sample. Based on confirmatory factor analysis, model fit for the Brief-SWAP was good in the development (χ2 [4]=9.0, comparative fit index [CFI]=0.99, Tucker-Lewis Index [TLI]=0.99, root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA]=0.07) and validation samples (χ2 [4]=19.5, CFI=0.99, TLI=0.99, RMSEA=0.08) and better than for the SWAP. CONCLUSION: The Brief-SWAP is a reliable and valid measure of body image dissatisfaction and social discomfort in SSc that is shorter and more feasibly implemented than the SWAP.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".