Development and Validation of the Gastrointestinal Unhelpful Thinking Scale (GUTs)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article describes the development and validation of the Gastrointestinal Unhelpful Thinking scale. The purpose of the research was to develop the Gastrointestinal Unhelpful Thinking scale to assess in tandem the primary cognitive-affective drivers of brain-gut dysregulation, gastrointestinal-specific visceral anxiety, and pain catastrophizing. The research involved 3 phases which included undergraduate and community samples. In the first phase, an exploratory factor analysis revealed a 15-item 2-factor (visceral sensitivity and pain catastrophizing) scale (N= 323), which then was confirmed in the second phase: N = 399, χ2(26) = 2.08, p = .001, Tucker-Lewis Index = 0.94, comparative fit index = 0.96, standardized root mean square residual = 0.05, and root mean square error of approximation = 0.07. Demonstrating convergent validity, Gastrointestinal Unhelpful Thinking scale total and subscales were strongly correlated with the modified Manitoba Index, Irritable Bowel Syndrome Symptom Severity Scale scores, Visceral Sensitivity Index, and the Pain Catastrophizing Scale. A third phase (N = 16) established test-retest reliability for the Gastrointestinal Unhelpful Thinking scale (total and subscales). The test-retest reliability correlation coefficient for the Gastrointestinal Unhelpful Thinking scale total score was .93 (p < .001) and for the subscales was .86 (p < .001) and .94 (p < .001), respectively. The Gastrointestinal Unhelpful Thinking scale is a brief psychometrically valid measure of visceral anxiety and pain catastrophizing that can be useful for both clinicians and researchers who wish to measure these thinking patterns and relate them to changes in gastrointestinal and psychological symptoms.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".