Psychometric properties of the State-Trait Inventory for Cognitive and Somatic Anxiety (STICSA): Comparison to the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI).
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The State-Trait Inventory for Cognitive and Somatic Anxiety (STICSA; M. J. Ree, C. MacLeod, D. French, & V. Locke, 2000) was designed to assess cognitive and somatic symptoms of anxiety as they pertain to one's mood in the moment (state) and in general (trait). This study extended the previous psychometric findings to a clinical sample and validated the STICSA against a well-published measure of anxiety, the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI; C. D. Spielberger, 1983). Patients (N=567) at an anxiety disorders clinic were administered a battery of questionnaires. The results of confirmatory factor analyses (Bentler-Bonnett nonnormed fit index, comparative fit index, and Bollen fit index>.90; root-mean-square error of approximation<.05); convergent and discriminant validity analyses; and group comparisons supported the reliability and validity of the STICSA as a measure of state and trait cognitive and somatic anxiety. In addition, compared with the STAI (anxiety: rs</=.52; depression: rs>/=.64), the STICSA was more strongly correlated with another measure of anxiety (rs>/=.67) and was less strongly correlated with a measure of depression (rs</=.61). These findings suggest that the STICSA may be a purer measure of anxiety symptomatology than is the STAI.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it