MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2921381781 · doi:10.1002/mpr.1777

Protective Behavioral Strategies Scale‐20: Psychometric properties of a French and German version among young males in Switzerland

2019· article· en· W2921381781 on OpenAlexaff
Véronique S. Grazioli, Joseph Studer, Mary E. Larimer, Melissa A. Lewis, Simon Marmet, Mélissa Lemoine, Jean‐Bernard Daeppen, Gerhard Gmel

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
KeywordsGermanMeasurement invarianceConvergent validityConfirmatory factor analysisMetric (unit)Internal consistencyPsychologyScale (ratio)Sample (material)Clinical psychologyCohortPsychometricsStructural equation modelingStatisticsGeographyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The Protective Behavioral Strategies Scale (PBSS-20) is one of the most commonly used measures of engagement in protective behavioral strategies (PBS). This research aimed to examine the psychometric properties of a French and German version of the PBSS-20 in a large sample of young males in Switzerland. METHOD: The sample included 5,017 young males (mean age = 25.44) participating in the Cohort Study on Substance Use Risk Factors in Switzerland. Measures of PBS use, total drinks per week, and alcohol-related consequences were used from a second follow-up assessment. RESULTS: Confirmatory factor analysis testing different models previously documented in the literature provided initial support for a four-factor model. Fit statistics indicated that this model adequately reflects the structure of data. Further findings also provided support for adequate internal consistency and for convergent validity of this four-factor model, whereas metric-but not scalar-measurement invariance across linguistic regions was demonstrated. CONCLUSION: Although further research testing measurement invariance across linguistic regions and gender is warranted, results of the current study suggest that the French and German PBSS-20 is reliable and that it may represent a promising research and clinical tool that can be used in both French- and German-speaking countries.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.345

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.098
GPT teacher head0.488
Teacher spread0.390 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Methods in Psychiatric ResearchSame topicSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207