Defining distinct negative beliefs about uncertainty: Validating the factor structure of the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the factor structure of the English version of the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale (IUS; French version: M. H. Freeston, J. Rhéaume, H. Letarte, M. J. Dugas, & R. Ladouceur, 1994; English version: K. Buhr & M. J. Dugas, 2002) using a substantially larger sample than has been used in previous studies. Nonclinical undergraduate students and adults from the community (M age = 23.74 years, SD = 6.36; 73.0% female and 27.0% male) who participated in 16 studies in the Anxiety Disorders Laboratory at Concordia University in Montreal, Canada were randomly assigned to 2 datasets. Exploratory factor analysis with the 1st sample (n = 1,230) identified 2 factors: the beliefs that "uncertainty has negative behavioral and self-referent implications" and that "uncertainty is unfair and spoils everything." This 2-factor structure provided a good fit to the data (Bentler-Bonett normed fit index = .96, comparative fit index = .97, standardized root-mean residual = .05, root-mean-square error of approximation = .07) upon confirmatory factor analysis with the 2nd sample (n = 1,221). Both factors showed similarly high correlations with pathological worry, and Factor 1 showed stronger correlations with generalized anxiety disorder analogue status, trait anxiety, somatic anxiety, and depressive symptomatology.
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 | 0.018 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".