MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157089080 · doi:10.1027/1015-5759/a000243

Selecting the Best Items for a Short-Form of the Experiences in Close Relationships Questionnaire

2015· article· en· W2157089080 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Psychological Assessment · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresUniversité de SherbrookeUniversité LavalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyShort FormsClinical psychologyItem response theoryAnxietyPsychometricsSample (material)Developmental psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Five studies were conducted to develop a short form of the Experiences in Close Relationships (ECR) questionnaire with optimal psychometric properties. Study 1 involved Item Response Theory (IRT) analyses of the responses of 2,066 adults, resulting in a 12-item form of the ECR containing the most discriminating items. The psychometric properties of the ECR-12 were further demonstrated in two longitudinal studies of community samples of couples (Studies 2 and 3), in a sample of individuals in same-sex relationships (Study 4), and with couples seeking therapy (Study 5). The psychometric properties of the ECR-12 are as good as those of the original ECR and superior to those of an existing short form. The ECR-12 can confidently be used by researchers and mental health practitioners when a short measure of attachment anxiety and avoidance is required.

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 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)0.004
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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.314

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.158
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.308 · 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