Brief Form of the Interpersonal Competence Questionnaire (ICQ-15)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. The Interpersonal Competence Questionnaire (ICQ) developed by Buhrmester and colleagues ( 1988 ) in the US assesses the multidimensional construct of social competence via five distinct, but related subscales. Two versions comprising 40 and 30 items, respectively, are available in German. The purpose of the current study is to develop and validate a brief version of the ICQ among a large adult sample that is representative of the German general population. Data were collected from 2,009 participants. Three confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were conducted in order to develop and validate the ICQ-15. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were computed for the ICQ-15. An initial CFA with the ICQ-30 formed the basis for the selection of the items to be included in the ICQ-15. Two subsequent CFA’s with the ICQ-15 revealed an excellent fit of the hypothesized five-factor model to the observed data. Internal consistency coefficients were in the adequate range. This preliminary evaluation shows that the ICQ-15 is a structurally valid measure of interpersonal competence recommended for research contexts with limited assessment time and for psychotherapy progress tracking in clinical settings.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".