Measuring self-as-context in Chinese college students: Validity and reliability of the Chinese version of self-as-context scale (C-SACS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To examine the validity and reliability of the Chinese version of the Self-as-Context Scale (SACS) in college students. Method We used convenience sampling to recruit 708 Chinese college students. All participants completed the SACS and 343 of them were asked to complete the validation questionnaires (Satisfaction with Life Scale, Peace of Mind Scale, Acceptance and Action Questionnaire-II, Mindful Attention Awareness Scale, Cognitive Fusion Questionnaire-Fusion, and Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-21) at the same time. We conducted items analysis, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), measurement invariance test, correlation analysis, regression analysis, and internal consistency reliability analysis. After 3 weeks, 217 participants filled out the SACS again to assess the test–retest reliability. Results The exploratory factor analysis showed that the SACS consisted of two factors (Centering and Transcending), with a total of 9 items. The confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated that the two-factor structure fit well ( χ 2 = 55.40, df = 22, CFI = 0.977, TLI = 0.963, RMSEA = 0.065, SRMR = 0.032). According to the results of the measurement invariance tests, configural invariance, metric invariance, scalar invariance, and strict invariance of the 2-factor model, the C-SACS scores were comparable across genders. Additionally, the C-SACS total score and its subscale scores were significantly positively correlated with positive indicators of mental health (life satisfaction, affective well-being), significantly negatively correlated with negative emotions (depression, anxiety, stress), significantly negatively correlated with experiential avoidance and cognitive fusion (except for the Transcending factor), and significantly positively correlated with mindful attention and awareness. Regression analysis results revealed that the C-SACS surpasses the incremental effectiveness of AAQ-II and CFQ-F in predicting different psychological health indicators. The Cronbach’s α coefficients of the C-SACS and two subscales were 0.88 [0.71, 0.90], 0.80 [0.87, 0.90] and 0.85 [0.83, 0.88] and McDonald’s ω = 0.88 [0.87, 0.90], ω = 0.80 [0.78, 0.83], ω = 0.85[0.83, 0.88]. The test–retest reliability (ICC) was 0.73 and 0.72, respectively. Conclusion The results of our study suggest that the Chinese version of SACS has good reliability and validity in Chinese college students.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".