MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313453989 · doi:10.1177/10731911221141870

Development, Factor Structure, and Psychometric Validation of the Impostor Phenomenon Assessment: A Novel Assessment of Impostor Phenomenon

2023· review· en· W4313453989 on OpenAlex
Deanna L. Walker, Donald H. Saklofske

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAssessment · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPerfectionism, Procrastination, Anxiety Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhenomenonPsychologyConceptualizationConfirmatory factor analysisExploratory factor analysisConstruct validityConstruct (python library)PsychometricsReliability (semiconductor)Cognitive psychologyDevelopmental psychologyStructural equation modelingArtificial intelligenceEpistemologyStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite growing attention surrounding impostor phenomenon (also known as "imposter syndrome"), recent reviews have suggested that current measures may be inadequate in capturing the complex and multifaceted nature of this construct. The objective of the current studies was to clarify the theoretical conceptualization of impostor phenomenon based on experiences in an achievement-oriented setting. We conducted a review of the literature and developed an item pool for a novel impostor phenomenon assessment (IPA) (Study 1). Exploratory factor analyses (Study 1) and confirmatory factor analyses (Study 2) assessed this initial item pool to determine the factor structure and initial psychometric properties of the preliminary IPA (Studies 2 and 3). Our findings offer preliminary evidence for the reliability and validity of the IPA as a novel measure of impostor phenomenon.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.897
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.114
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.323 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it