Structure and validity of Family Harmony Scale: An instrument for measuring harmony.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Culture plays a role in mental health, partly by defining the characteristics that are indicative of positive adjustment. In Chinese cultures, positive family relationships are considered central to well-being. The culturally emphasized characteristic of family harmony may be an important factor associated with psychopathology. This article presents the development and psychometric examination of the Family Harmony Scale (FHS), an indigenously developed 24-item instrument tapping family harmony in 17,461 Hong Kong residents from 7,791 households. A higher-order model with 1 second-order factor and 5 first-order factors fit the data well and showed factorial invariance across sex and participants in different family roles. A 5-item short form (FHS-5) was also developed, with 1 item from each first-order factor. The short scale showed, as expected, a single-factor structure with good fit. Both scales demonstrated high internal consistency, acceptable test-retest reliability, and good convergent and discriminant validity. The 24-item FHS was negatively associated with depressive symptoms after accounting for individual risk factors and general family function. Family harmony moderated the relationship between life stress and depressive symptoms such that those individuals who reported low family harmony had stronger associations between life stress and depressive symptoms. This study adds to the literature a systematically developed, multidimensional measure of family harmony, which may be an important psychological protective factor, in a large urban Chinese sample. The FHS-5 minimizes operational and respondent burdens, making it an attractive tool for large-scale epidemiological studies with Chinese populations in urban settings, where over half of China's 1.4 billion people reside.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".