MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052184233 · doi:10.1080/16506073.2010.486840

Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Childhood Anxiety Sensitivity Index: A Gender Comparison

2010· article· en· W2052184233 on OpenAlexafffund
Kristi D. Wright, Gordon J. G. Asmundson, Donald R. McCreary, Sherry H. Stewart, Elizabeth McLaughlin, M. Nancy Comeau, Trudi M. Walsh

Bibliographic record

VenueCognitive Behaviour Therapy · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreDalhousie UniversityYork UniversityBrock UniversityUniversity of Regina
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsConfirmatory factor analysisPsychologyAnxiety sensitivityAnxietyDevelopmental psychologyEmbarrassmentClinical psychologyConstruct validityPsychometricsStructural equation modelingSocial psychologyStatisticsPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Childhood Anxiety Sensitivity Index (CASI) is an 18-item self-report tool designed to measure the construct of anxiety sensitivity (i.e. the belief that anxiety may have harmful consequences such as sickness, embarrassment, or loss of control) in children and adolescents. Previous factor analytic examinations of the CASI have produced varied results. Gender may play a role in this observed variability. In an effort to confirm the factor structure of the measure across gender, CASI items for 671 children and adolescents were subjected to confirmatory factor analysis. Results indicated that for boys two-, three-, and four-factor structures provided a relatively good fit to the data, with the three-factor structure emerging as having the best fit overall. In contrast, for girls only the three-factor structure fitted the data well. Direct comparison of fit of the three-factor model across gender provided evidence to support the notion that childhood anxiety sensitivity is similar in structure across gender.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.285 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCognitive Behaviour TherapySame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207