MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086952731 · doi:10.1002/da.20656

The Attentional Resource Allocation Scale (ARAS): psychometric properties of a composite measure for dissociation and absorption

2010· article· en· W2086952731 on OpenAlexafffund
R. Nicholas Carleton, Murray P. Abrams, Gordon J. G. Asmundson

Bibliographic record

VenueDepression and Anxiety · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsDissociation (chemistry)Measure (data warehouse)Absorption (acoustics)PsychologyScale (ratio)Composite numberClinical psychologyMaterials scienceComputer scienceChemistryComposite materialPhysicsData miningPhysical chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Differences in attentional processes have been linked to the development and maintenance of psychopathology. Shifts in such processes have been described by the constructs Dissociation and Absorption. Dissociation occurs when external and/or internal stimuli are excluded from consciousness due to discrepant, rather than unitary, manifestations of cognitive awareness [Erdelyi MH. 1994: Int J Clin Exp Hypnosis 42:379-390]. In contrast, absorption can be conceptualized by a focus on limited stimuli, to the exclusion of other stimuli, because of unifying, rather than discrepant, manifestations of cognitive awareness. The Dissociative Experiences Scale [DES; Bernstein EM, Putnam FW. 1986: J Nerv Ment Dis 174:727-735] and Tellegen Absorption Scale [TAS; Tellegen A, Atkinson G. 1974: J Abnorm Psychol 83:268-277] are common measures of each construct; however, no factor analyses are available for the TAS and despite accepted overlap, no one has assessed the DES and TAS items simultaneously. Previous research suggests the constructs and factor structures need clarification, possibly including more parsimonious item inclusion [Lyons LC, Crawford HJ. 1997: Person Individ Diff 23:1071-1084]. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the factor structure of the DES and TAS and create a psychometrically stable measure of Dissociation and Absorption. METHODS: This study included data from an undergraduate (n=841; 76% women) and a community sample (n=233; 86% women) who each completed the DES and TAS. RESULTS: Exploratory factor analyses [Osborne JW (ed). 2008: Best Practices in Quantitative Methods. Los Angeles: Sage Publications Inc.] with all DES and TAS items suggested a 15-item 3-factor solution (i.e., imaginative involvement, dissociative amnesia, attentional dissociation). Confirmatory factor analyses resulted in excellent fit indices for the same solution. CONCLUSIONS: The items and factors were conceptualized in line with precedent research as the Attentional Resource Allocation Scale (ARAS). Comprehensive results, implications, and future research directions are discussed.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.432
Threshold uncertainty score0.144

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.242 · 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.

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

Citations42
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDepression and AnxietySame topicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207