Refining and validating the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale and the Social Phobia Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Social Interaction Anxiety Scale and Social Phobia Scale are companion measures for assessing symptoms of social anxiety and social phobia. The scales have good reliability and validity across several samples, however, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses have yielded solutions comprising substantially different item content and factor structures. These discrepancies are likely the result of analyzing items from each scale separately or simultaneously. The current investigation sets out to assess items from those scales, both simultaneously and separately, using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses in an effort to resolve the factor structure. METHODS: Participants consisted of a clinical sample (n 5353; 54% women) and an undergraduate sample (n 5317; 75% women) who completed the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale and Social Phobia Scale, along with additional fear-related measures to assess convergent and discriminant validity. RESULTS: A three-factor solution with a reduced set of items was found to be most stable, irrespective of whether the items from each scale are assessed together or separately. Items from the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale represented one factor, whereas items from the Social Phobia Scale represented two other factors. CONCLUSION: Initial support for scale and factor validity, along with implications and recommendations for future research, is provided.
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 | 0.020 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".