Factor Structure and Reliability Assessment of the Dyadic Trust Scale with Individuals in Same-Sex Romantic Relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the unidimensionality and internal consistency of the Dyadic Trust Scale (DTS; Larzelere & Huston, 1980 Larzelere, R. E. and Huston, T. L. 1980. The Dyadic Trust Scale: Toward understanding interpersonal trust in close relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42: 595–604. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) with individuals in same-sex romantic relationships. A sample of 141 participants, consisting of 30 gay men and 111 lesbians of various ages, cultures, and socioeconomic backgrounds, responded to the questionnaire. Participants were recruited by posters and pamphlets distributed throughout the Canadian capital. Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to determine the factor structure of the scale. The internal consistency of the scale was determined with Cronbach's alpha. Results support a one-factor model structure and also indicate that DTS items demonstrate strong internal consistency, thus replicating the results from the original DTS study.
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 | 0.010 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".