Validation of the Calgary Symptoms of Stress Inventory (C-SOSI) for Predicting Adherence to a Stress Reduction Technique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stress is a ubiquitous aspect of modern life that has serious effects on mental and physical health. Many stress reduction techniques are currently available to help combat these effects but non-adherence to them is a significant barrier to their overall effectiveness. The aims of the current study were to: 1) validate the Calgary Symptoms of Stress Inventory (C-SOSI), an instrument that classifies one's stress response profile, using traditional psychometric procedures as well as for predicting responses to a laboratory stress situation, and 2) explore the utility of this instrument for predicting adherence following training in a single stress reduction session using guided breathing. Seventy undergraduates (55 women, 15 men) participated in a laboratory study in which they reported their typical stress responses using the C-SOSI, and their actual cognitive, affective, and cardiovascular responses to two stressful tasks were assessed. Next, all participants were trained in and practiced a diaphragmatic breathing relaxation strategy. Adherence, efficacy, and enjoyment of daily practice of the relaxation strategy were measured during a two-week follow-up phase using a web-based recording system. Although internal consistency reliabilities were generally acceptable for the C-SOSI subscales (Cronbach alphas ranging from .78 to .94), the validity of the C-SOSI subscales for explaining variance in actual stress responses to laboratory stressors was not as expected. The C-SOSI Affect subscale explained a significant amount of variance in the cognitive response to stress in the laboratory (R2 = .21, p < .01), and the C-SOSI Physiology subscale explained a significant amount of variance in both the affective and physiological responses to stress in the laboratory (R2 = .28, p < .01, and R2 = .22, p < .01, respectively). None of the C-SOSI subscales explained adherence to daily practice, efficacy, or enjoyment of the breathing relaxation strategy. Participants with both greater active coping and aggregated physiological responses to laboratory stress rated their practice of the relaxation strategy as being more enjoyable than participants with lower responses in both of these domains. In summary, although the C-SOSI Physiology subscale was shown to be associated with actual physiological and affective responses to laboratory stressors, the other subscales of the C-SOSI fared less well, and no C-SOSI subscale was associated with any measure of adherence to daily practice, efficacy, or enjoyment of the breathing relaxation strategy used in this study. Because this study was the first to attempt to demonstrate the validity of the C-SOSI, the instrument
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".