Validation of the Japanese Version of the Modified Balanced Time Perspective Scale: Factor Structure, Reliability, and Validity Results<sup>1</sup>
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A balanced time perspective (BTP) is defined as a frequent and equal tendency to think positively about both one's past and future. A BTP is related to greater psychological well‐being, such as life satisfaction and wisdom, and these BTP associations may vary cross‐culturally, although few studies of BTP in non‐Western countries exist. In order to advance cross‐cultural comparisons of BTP, an important methodological step is to validate BTP measures in different cultures. This study aimed to develop and validate a Japanese version of the modified Balanced Time Perspective Scale (mBTPS). Japanese participants ( N = 1,020, aged 18–79 years) completed the mBTPS‐J, along with Japanese versions of the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (ZTPI‐J) and measures of well‐being (life satisfaction and wisdom scales). Factor analysis of the mBTPS‐J resulted in a 27‐item mBTPS‐J consisting of Past, Present, and Future subscales. Correlations between the relevant mBTPS‐J and ZTPI‐J subscales, and with the well‐being measures, supported both convergent and predictive validity, respectively. The demonstrated psychometric strengths of the mBTPS‐J will allow for specific testing of important cross‐cultural questions.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 it