The responses to stress questionnaire: construct validity and prediction of depressive and social anxiety symptoms in a sample of Chinese adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The objective of the current study was to develop a Chinese version of the Responses to Stress Questionnaire (RSQ‐C) and to evaluate its reliability and validity. The original version of the RSQ was back‐translated into Chinese and administered to a sample of students recruited from two middle schools in Hunan, China. The final sample consisted of 1068 adolescents (49.9% males and 50.1% females). Participants' ages ranged from 14 to 20 (M = 16.47 years, standard deviation = 1.02). The RSQ‐C exhibited moderate internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha was 0.87), and test–retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficients was 0.82 over a 1‐month interval). Results of confirmatory factor analyses indicated that the fit of a three‐factor model of voluntary coping and a separate two‐factor model of involuntary coping. With regard to predictive validity, the results of multiple regression analyses suggest that the high levels of Disengagement Coping and low levels of Primary Control Engagement Coping were significant predictors of depressive symptomology. Additionally, high levels of Involuntary Engagement and low levels of Primary Control Engagement Coping predicted higher levels of social anxiety symptoms. Copyright ? 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".