MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115833458 · doi:10.1080/1550428x.2012.677237

Factor Structure and Reliability Assessment of the Dyadic Trust Scale with Individuals in Same-Sex Romantic Relationships

2012· article· en· W2115833458 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nicolas Gabbay, Marie‐France Lafontaine, Leta Bourque

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of GLBT Family Studies · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCronbach's alphaConfirmatory factor analysisPsychologyScale (ratio)Internal consistencySocial psychologyRomanceInterpersonal communicationReliability (semiconductor)Structural equation modelingPsychometricsDevelopmental psychologyGeographyStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.001
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.294

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.348 · 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

Citations13
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of GLBT Family StudiesSame topicAttachment and Relationship DynamicsFrench-language works237,207