Assessing the Factor Structure of the Integrative Hope Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While some researchers contend that hope is unidimensional, other researchers regard hope to be multidimensional. Schrank, Woppmann, Sibitz, and Lauber's exploratory factor analysis of their Integrative Hope Scale (IHS) found subscales of Trust, Future Orientation, Social Relations, and Lack of Perspective. However, subsequent articles have utilized only the total IHS score. To resolve this issue, a community sample of 288 participants completed the IHS as well as two measures of hedonic well-being (Positive and Negative Affect Schedule; Temporal Satisfaction With Life Scale), a measure of eudemonic well-being (Measure of Actualization of Potential), and a measure of time orientation (the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory). One-factor, four-factor oblique, higher order, and bifactor models were compared through confirmatory factor analysis and interpreted using Omega reliability coefficients. While the poorest model fit was for the one-factor model, little reliable variance was found in subscale scores after controlling for a general hope factor with the exception of the Lack of Perspective factor. IHS total and subscale scores were associated with measures of well-being and time orientation. We suggest researchers continue to focus on using the IHS total score, but also report subscale scores, especially for the Lack of Perspective subscale.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".