The Covert and Overt Reassurance Seeking Inventory (CORSI): Development, validation and psychometric analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".