Factor Structure, Internal Consistency and Criterion Validity of the Full‐form and Short‐form Versions of the Centrality of Events Scale in Young People
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary The perceived centrality of a traumatic event has been hypothesized to impact subsequent responses to that event and shown to be positively associated to a number of psychological problems. In order to understand the role of this construct in adjustment to stress and trauma, reliable and valid measures are needed. The objective of this study was to evaluate the factor structure, internal consistency and convergent validity of the full‐form and short‐forms of the Centrality of Event Scale when used with young people. A sample of 262 undergraduate students completed this study. Confirmatory factor analyses, Cronbach alpha coefficients and Pearson correlation coefficients were performed. The findings support a one‐factor structure of the full 20‐item and the short 7‐item versions. We also found that both versions provide reliable and valid scores when used with young people. We recommend the use of the 7‐item version to minimize assessment burden. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".