MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056094241 · doi:10.1080/10615806.2011.598150

Psychometric evaluation of the Social Interaction Phobia Scale

2011· article· en· W2056094241 on OpenAlexaff
Alison R. Reilly, R. Nicholas Carleton, Justin W. Weeks

Bibliographic record

VenueAnxiety Stress & Coping · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyDiscriminant validitySocial anxietyAnxietyClinical psychologyFear of negative evaluationConfirmatory factor analysisConvergent validityPsychometricsInternal consistencyScale (ratio)Set (abstract data type)Developmental psychologyStructural equation modelingPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study evaluated the psychometric properties of a novel measure of social anxiety symptoms, the Social Interaction Phobia Scale (SIPS), as a stand-alone item set, using an undergraduate sample (N=512). The 14-item SIPS has three subscales assessing Social Interaction Anxiety, Fear of Overt Evaluation, and Fear of Attracting Attention. Confirmatory factor analyses replicated the three-factor structure for the SIPS originally reported by Carleton et al. All SIPS scores demonstrated good internal consistency. The convergent validity of the SIPS was supported by strong and positive correlations between all SIPS scores and measures of social anxiety and fear of evaluation; the finding that the relationships between all SIPS scores and a social anxiety measure were stronger than relationships between all SIPS scores and measures of other constructs supported the discriminant validity of the SIPS. Results suggest that the SIPS possesses excellent psychometric properties.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.460
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.132
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations37
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnxiety Stress & CopingSame topicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesFrench-language works237,207