Polish version of the Cognitive Distortions Scale (CDS): Preliminary validation and personality correlates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<b>Background</b><br /> The aim of the two research studies presented in this article was to test the reliability and validity of the Polish version of the Cognitive Distortions Scale (CDS). The relation of the CDS to psychological measures of well-being and other theoretically relevant variables was also explored.<br /> <br /> <b>Participants and procedure</b><br /> Two correlational studies were conducted with psychology undergraduate students and their family members (n = 196 and n = 90, respectively). Participants completed a paper-pencil set of questionnaires that contained measures of cognitive errors (study 1) and scales related to perceived quality of life and psychological well-being (study 2). <br /> <br /> <b>Results</b><br /> Preliminary results supported the reliability of the Polish version of CDS (with Cronbach’s α .91 and .90) and convergent validity as indicated by correlations with maladaptive self-views and perceived relationship quality. <br /> <br /> <b>Conclusions</b><br /> The Polish version of CDS appears to be a reliable and valid measure of cognitive distortions.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".