Estimating the reliability of emotion measures over very short intervals: The utility of within-session retest correlations.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Short measures are commonly used when conducting research involving emotions. However, obtaining appropriate estimates of reliability for short measures is traditionally problematic and is a reoccurring concern in emotion research. To address this issue, we compare the within-session test-retest and factor analysis methods for estimating the reliability of items in the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule-Expanded Form. Results indicate that within-session test-retest (rXX(d)) estimates outperform the factor analysis method by demonstrating stronger relationships with item properties relevant to reliability and validity-related criteria. In addition, rXX(d) estimates appropriately generalize across samples with various instruction stems and prevent corrections for attenuation greater than 1.00. Therefore, we encourage researchers to use the corresponding average item-level rXX(d) estimates reported here to correct for attenuation when examining single items from the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule-Expanded Form if a test-retest design is not feasible. (PsycINFO Database Record
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".