Lemons Into Lemonade: Development and Validation of an Inventory to Assess Dispositional Thriving
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research indicates that health and disorder are polar opposites of the same continuum of vulnerability. Research has focused almost exclusively upon one end of this continuum, namely disorder. As such, instruments that assess adaptive dispositions (e.g., “thriving”, or post-trauma growth) have rarely been developed. The purpose of this study was to develop and validate an instrument that assesses dispositional thriving. Undergraduate students (N = 289) were asked to complete the dispositional thriving inventory (DTI), in addition to a number of other instruments designed to assess adaptive (e.g., optimism, acceptance, planning, etc.) and maladaptive (depression, dysfunctional attitudes, etc.) constructs. Factor analysis revealed four orthogonal factors comprising the DTI. Results indicated that the 26-item scale is reliable (α = .88) and valid. Scores on the DTI positively correlated with optimism, and adaptive coping, and negatively correlated with depression and dysfunctional attitudes. There is some evidence that the DTI is a reliable and valid instrument. The construct of thriving has wide implications upon the onset and treatment of psychopathology.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".