Investigating the Validity and Reliability of the Caregiving Questionnaire with Individuals in Same-Sex Couple Relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the factor structure, reliability, and convergent and divergent validity of the Caregiving Questionnaire (CQ; Kunce & Shaver, 1994) with a sample of individuals who identify themselves as gay, lesbian, and bisexual and are currently involved in same-sex couple relationships ( N = 143; 114 females). An exploratory factor analysis extracted the CQ's four dimensions, supporting its construct validity. Additionally, the questionnaire demonstrated acceptable internal consistency. Correlations were found among participants’ self-reported romantic attachment patterns, as evaluated by the Experiences in Close Relationships (ECR; Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998), and caregiving patterns, as measured by the CQ. No significant associations were found between the four factors and participants’ age, relationship duration, or gross annual revenue. Results support the use of the CQ with individuals involved in same-sex relationships.
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 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 | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".