The Development of the Positive Sexuality in Adolescence Scale (PSAS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the present investigation was to develop a comprehensive tool to measure positive sexuality among adolescents. We first conducted an extensive literature review to develop the Positive Sexuality in Adolescence Scale (PSAS). We also conducted focus group interviews with adolescents (N = 14) to explore their understanding of positive sexuality and to discuss the proposed scale items. In two survey studies (Ntotal = 890), we examined the psychometric properties of the PSAS. In Study 1 (N = 211; Mage = 15.5, 55.5% girls), an exploratory factor analysis yielded five factors (e.g., positive approach to sexual relationships) which comprised 22 items. Convergent validity was also established in Study 1. In Study 2 (N =679; Mage = 15.32, 49% girls), a confirmatory factor analysis confirmed the factor structure. Results of Study 2 also supported the internal consistency and a partial measurement invariance for boys and girls. The PSAS is a useful tool for assessing the multifaceted nature of positive sexuality among adolescents for both boys and girls. We conclude by outlining future research directions on adolescent positivity sexuality using the PSAS.
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 | 0.035 | 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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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".