Psychometric Properties of the Turkish Version of the Belief About Losing Control Inventory: Testing the Measurement Invariance Across Gender
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent studies suggest that beliefs about losing control may have a pivotal role in the formulation of anxiety-related problems. The Beliefs About Losing Control Inventory (BALCI) is a self-report measure to assess control-failure thoughts. The BALCI consists of 21 items and three subscales. This study aimed to investigate the psychometric properties and measurement invariance across gender groups of the Turkish version of the BALCI. The BALCI, Obsessive Belief Questionnaire-44 (OBQ-44), Vancouver Obsessive Compulsive Index (VOCI), Anxiety Sensitivity Index-3 (ASI-3) and State-Trait Anxiety Inventory-Trait Version (STAI-T) were administered to 531 volunteer undergraduates. Confirmatory factor analysis replicated the original 21-items three-factor structure of the BALCI. Internal consistency of the BALCI total and subscales were adequate. Retest reliability for the total scores of the BALCI was .76, for the subscales varied from .72 to. 78. The BALCI scores significantly correlated with OBQ-44, ASI-3, and STAI-T. The BALCI and subscales also explained a significant amount of variance in OCD symptoms above and beyond obsessive beliefs. This study also provided evidence of the measurement invariance of the BALCI across gender groups. It is concluded that the Turkish version of the BALCI is a valid and reliable instrument to assess negative beliefs about losing control.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".