Measurement Invariance of the Fear of Happiness Scale in Adults Samples From Six Countries
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Previous cross-cultural research on the measurement invariance of the fear of happiness scale has largely been limited to small student samples, making it difficult to generalize findings to more diverse populations. This study examined the measurement invariance of the fear of happiness scale in adult samples from South Korea, Canada, Turkey, Poland, Portugal, and the United States. Sample sizes ranged from 256 to 1,177 participants per country (total N = 3,930). The single-factor model of fear of happiness fitted the data well, and the reliabilities were acceptable in all countries. After adjustment for age, partial scalar invariance was supported, with Items 3 and 5 being non-invariant. Latent mean analysis revealed significant country differences, with Turkey having the highest fear of happiness score and Portugal having the lowest. These findings suggest that the scale can be used to measure fear of happiness in diverse adult samples. However, Items 3 and 5 may not be interpreted consistently across cultures. Therefore, caution should be used when comparing observed means across countries. For meaningful cross-cultural comparisons, researchers should compare latent means after considering and addressing any potential non-invariance issues.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it