Self-Reported Body Awareness: Validation of the Postural Awareness Scale and the Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness (Version 2) in a Non-clinical Adult French-Speaking Sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Body awareness refers to the individual ability to process signals originating from within the body, which provide a mapping of the body’s internal landscape (interoception) and its relation with space and movement (proprioception). The present study aims to evaluate psychometric properties and validate in French two self-report measures of body awareness: the Postural Awareness Scale (PAS), and the last version of the Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness questionnaire (version 2, MAIA-2). We collected data in a non-clinical, adult sample ( N = 308; 61% women, mean age 35 ± 12 years) using online survey, and a subset of the original sample ( n = 122; 62% women, mean age 44 ± 11 years) also completed the retest control. Factor analyses and reliability analyses were conducted. Construct validity of the PAS and the MAIA-2 were examined by testing their association with each other, and with self-report measures of personality (Big Five Inventory), alexithymia (Toronto Alexithymia Scale) and dispositional trait mindfulness (Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory). Factor analyses of the PAS supported the same two-factor structure as previously published versions (in other languages). For the MAIA-2, factor analyses suggested that a six-factor structure, excluding Not-Worrying and Not-Distracting factors, could successfully account for a common general factor of self-reported interoception. We found satisfactory internal consistency, construct validity, and reliability over time for both the PAS and the MAIA-2. Altogether, our findings suggest that the French version of the PAS and the MAIA-2 are reliable self-report tools to assess both components of body awareness (proprioception and interoception dimension, respectively).
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".