Development and Validation of the Sexual Contingent Self-Worth Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sexual contingent self-worth (CSW) refers to self-worth that is dependent on maintaining a sexual relationship, and has not been studied previously. This novel construct may have implications for sexual, relationship, and psychological well-being, because it could affect the cognitions, affect, and behaviors of individuals in sexual relationships. The purpose of this study was to develop the Sexual Contingent Self-Worth Scale and examine its reliability and validity in community samples. Two separate online studies (N = 329 and N = 282) included men and women who were in committed, sexually active relationships. The Sexual CSW Scale was adapted from a validated measure of relationship CSW. In Study 1, participants completed the Sexual CSW Scale, whereas in Study 2, participants also responded to standardized measures of related constructs. In addition, participants completed the Sexual CSW Scale again two weeks later in Study 2. Factor analysis yielded two subscales: (a) sexual CSW dependent on positive sexual events in the relationship and (b) sexual CSW dependent on negative sexual events. Results indicated good construct validity, incremental validity, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability for the Sexual CSW Scale. This research contributes to the fields of both CSW and sexuality by introducing a novel domain of CSW.
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 | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".