MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3092098384 · doi:10.1017/s1352465820000703

The Covert and Overt Reassurance Seeking Inventory (CORSI): Development, validation and psychometric analyses

2020· article· en· W3092098384 on OpenAlexaff
Adam S. Radomsky, Rachael L. Neal, Chris L. Parrish, Stefanie L. Lavoie, Sarah Schell

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyExploratory factor analysisCovertConfirmatory factor analysisDiscriminant validityClinical psychologyConvergent validityAnxietyPsychometricsDevelopmental psychologyStructural equation modelingPsychiatryStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Reassurance seeking (RS) is motivated by perceived general and social/relational threats across disorders, yet is often under-recognized because it occurs in covert (i.e. subtle) and overt forms. Covert safety-seeking behaviour may maintain disorders by preventing corrective learning and is therefore important to identify effectively. AIMS: This study presents the validation and psychometric analyses of a novel measure of covert and overt, general and social/relational threat-related interpersonal RS. METHOD: An initial 30-item measure was administered to an undergraduate sample (N = 1626), as well as to samples of individuals diagnosed with obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD; n = 50), anxiety disorders (n = 60) and depression (n = 30). The data were subjected to exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, and validation analyses. RESULTS: An exploratory factor analysis using principal axis factoring with oblique rotation yielded five interpretable factors, after removing four complex items. The resulting 26-item measure, the Covert and Overt Reassurance Seeking Inventory (CORSI), evidenced good convergent and divergent validity and accounted for 54.99% of the total variance after extraction. Factor correlations ranged from r = .268 to .736, suggesting that they may be tapping into unique facets of RS behaviour. In comparison with undergraduate participants, all clinical groups had significantly higher total scores [t (51.80-840) = 3.92-5.84, p < .001]. The CFA confirmed the five-factor model with good fit following the addition of four covariance terms (goodness of fit index = .897, comparative fit index = .918, Tucker-Lewis index = .907, root mean square error approximation = .061). CONCLUSION: The CORSI is a brief, yet comprehensive and psychometrically strong measure of problematic RS. With further validation, the CORSI has potential for use within clinical and research contexts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBehavioural and Cognitive PsychotherapySame topicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum DisordersFrench-language works237,207