Psychometric Properties of Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scale (FACES) III, Beavers-Timberlawn (BT) Assessment of Relational Functioning Scale, the Global Assessment of Relational Functioning Scale (GARF) on Sexually Compulsive Individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scale (FACES), Beavers-Timberlawn (BT), and Global Assessment of Relational Functioning Scale (GARF) were conducted for the first time in 270 sexually compulsive individuals to investigate the internal consistency, discriminant and convergent validity. It was performed factor analysis on BT, Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient for internal consistency and Spearman (Sp) correlations for convergent validity. Discriminant validity was denoted by topics from Childhood Trauma Questionnaire and analyzed through Mann–Whitney test. BT’s internal consistency was high (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.88). FACES’s internal consistency was 0,78. BT Factor 1 (investigates Communication) showed moderate correlation with BT Factor 2 (investigates Relationship) and FACES Cohesion (Sp > 0.5) and strong with GARF (Sp > 0.7). BT Factor 2 and FACES displayed moderate with GARF (Sp > 0.5). BT Factor 1, BT Factor 2, FACES Cohesion and GARF showed properly discriminant validity on Suicide risk, Physic Abuse, Emotional Abuse, Sexual Abuse, Emotional Negligence and Physic Negligence (all p ≤ .05). The women participants presented worse family functioning regarding communication skills, cohesion and adaptability than men participants. These results demonstrate the strength of the scales to investigate family dynamics of the CSBD patients, where better understanding can improve the quality of communication toward other individuals.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".