A confirmatory factor analysis of a self‐report version of the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the most popular measures of social phobia is the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale (LSAS; Liebowitz, 1987). The LSAS is a 24-item semi-structured interview measure of fear and avoidance experienced in a range of social and performance situations. Recently, the LSAS has been modified to a self-report version (LSAS-SR) by several independent groups (Cox, Ross, Swinson, & Direnfeld, 1998; Fresco et al., 2001; Mancini, Van Ameringen, & Oakman, 1999). A self-report version offers ease of administration, but it may differ from the structured interview version in its psychometric properties. We conducted confirmatory factor analyses of the self-report version of the LSAS using data from a sample of 188 outpatients with anxiety disorders. The structure and psychometric properties of the LSAS-SR are highly similar to that of the LSAS and robust across groups of patients with a variety of primary anxiety disorders. We argue in favor of adopting the 4-factor model for the LSAS proposed by Safren et al. (1999) instead of the models implied by the scoring instructions for the LSAS.
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 | 0.017 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".