Passion: Does one scale fit all? Construct validity of two-factor passion scale and psychometric invariance over different activities and languages.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The passion scale, based on the dualistic model of passion, measures 2 distinct types of passion: Harmonious and obsessive passions are predictive of adaptive and less adaptive outcomes, respectively. In a substantive-methodological synergy, we evaluate the construct validity (factor structure, reliability, convergent and discriminant validity) of Passion Scale responses (N = 3,571). The exploratory structural equation model fit to the data was substantially better than the confirmatory factor analysis solution, and resulted in better differentiated (less correlated) factors. Results from a 13-model taxonomy of measurement invariance supported complete invariance (factor loadings, factor correlations, item uniquenesses, item intercepts, and latent means) over language (French vs. English; the instrument was originally devised in French, then translated into English) and gender. Strong measurement partial invariance over 5 passion activity groups (leisure, sport, social, work, education) indicates that the same set of items is appropriate for assessing passion across a wide variety of activities--a previously untested, implicit assumption that greatly enhances practical utility. Support was found for the convergent and discriminant validity of the harmonious and obsessive passion scales, based on a set of validity correlates: life satisfaction, rumination, conflict, time investment, activity liking and valuation, and perceiving the activity as a passion.
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 | 0.013 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".