Functionality Appreciation Scale (FAS): Item Response Theory Examination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: The present study considers a measure of positive body image, the Functionality Appreciation Scale (FAS), which assesses one’s perception of appreciating, respecting, and honouring the body for what it can do [3]. Differential functioning of the scale across groups (i.e., gender) is yet to be investigated. The present study contributes to this area of knowledge via the employment of Item Response Theory (IRT) analyses. Methods: A sample of 386 adults from Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, the United Kingdom (UK), and United States of America (USA) were assessed online (N = 394, 54.8% men, 43.1% women, M age = 27.48, SD = 5.57). Results: The two-parameter logistic model employed to observe IRT properties indicated that all items demonstrated, although variable, strong discrimination capacity. Considering the DIF across men and women, all items demonstrated psychometric invariance across groups indicating that FAS measures FA equally in men and women. Conclusions: The items showed increased reliability for latent levels of ± 2 SD from the mean level of Functionality Appreciation. The implications and interpretations of the findings for clinical practice are discussed.
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 | 0.023 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".