Development and Validation of a Couples Measure of Biased Responding: The Marital Aggrandizement Scale
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
More than 30 years ago, Edmonds (1967) recognized the need for a couples measure of biased responding. Like other categories of self-report instruments, marital measures are believed to be highly susceptible to distortion. In this study, we describe the development of the Marital Aggrandizement Scale (MAS). For this study, item analyses were performed on a subset of responses (n = 200). A priori inclusion criteria were applied from which a set of 18 items was selected. Three phases of validation research establish the reliability and validity of responses to the MAS among an international sample of older married adults (n = 410). The concurrent and discriminant validity of responses to this scale is demonstrated vis-à-vis separate measures of biased responding, marital satisfaction, and psychological well-being. Internal consistency was calculated as alpha = .84. Test-retest reliability was calculated as r(200) = .80 over an average interval of 15 months. The challenge remains to identify factors associated with the etiology and maintenance of this construct. Subsequent research is required to identify correlates and antecedents of marital aggrandizement across populations over time.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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