Exploring Gender Equivalence and Bias in a Measure of Psychological Hardiness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the most pervasive criticisms found in the hardiness literature concern the question whether the construct is equally important for men and women. Using a multi-group confirmatory factor analytic approach, this question was explored from a more fundamental perspective by examining measurement equivalence across gender in a measure of hardiness, the 15-item Dispositional Resilience Scale [DRS-15; Bartone, P. T. (1995). A short hardiness scale. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Society, New York.]. Although results suggested some non-equivalence related to the control subscale, follow-up analyses examining gender bias in the two non-equivalent items showed that the effect of gender was minimal. The gender effects found indicated that women had a greater tendency to endorse these items compared to men. Given the stringent criteria used to test for equivalence and minimal evidence of bias found, it is concluded that the results largely point to equivalence across gender in the DRS-15.
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 | 0.001 | 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 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".