Factor structure and proposed scoring revision of the Three-Dimensional Psychological Pain Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of psychometrically sound measures to assess mental pain are important because research has consistently demonstrated a robust relationship to suicide risk. The current research evaluated the Three-Dimensional Psychological Pain Scale (TDPPS) structure, a suicide-relevant measure intended to articulate pain into affective, cognitive, and behavioral facets. As the first Western study to evaluate the TDPPS structure with non-Chinese respondents, six samples comprising 1,627 adults participated. Neither confirmatory factor analyses nor exploratory structural equation modeling supported the hypothesized three-dimensional structure of the TDPPS but, instead, identified two dimensions: pain escape and pain emotions. Scales based on these two dimensions demonstrated replicability in cross-validation and score internal consistency reliability. Furthermore, validity for scores on these two scales was confirmed through moderate associations with another pain measure and scales of suicidal behavior and depression. Findings extend knowledge of TDPPS’s structure of psychological pain and suggest a scale scoring revision.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".