MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402332385 · doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2024.101787

Measurement invariance and differential item functioning of the functionality appreciation scale (FAS) in Colombia and Spain

2024· article· en· W4402332385 on OpenAlexaff
Moisés Mebarak, Christophe Maïano, Juan Carlos Molano Mendoza, Ángel Zamora, Rosa Baños, Lorena Desdentado, Marta Miragall, Rocío Herrero, Viren Swami

Bibliographic record

VenueBody Image · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityUniversité du Québec en OutaouaisUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDifferential item functioningPsychologyMeasurement invarianceScale (ratio)Item response theoryDifferential (mechanical device)PsychometricsDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyStatisticsConfirmatory factor analysisGeographyPhysicsCartographyMathematicsStructural equation modeling

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Functionality Appreciation Scale (FAS) is increasingly used in diverse national and linguistic contexts. However, limited work has assessed the extent to which the instrument demonstrates measurement invariance and differential item functioning (DIF) across nations and respondent characteristics. Here, we examined measurement invariance and DIF of the FAS using archival data from adults in Colombia (Mebarak et al., 2023) and Spain (Zamora et al., 2024). Participants included 1420 (women n = 804, men n = 616) respondents from Colombia and 838 (women n = 415, men n = 423) respondents from Spain who completed translations of the FAS. Confirmatory factor analysis supported a unidimensional structure of the FAS in both national groups. Additionally, the FAS achieved full measurement invariance (up to latent mean invariance) across both groups. We also found that the FAS lacked DIF as a function of age, body mass index (BMI), and gender identity across both national groups. Older participants (relative to younger participants), men (relative to women), and participants with lower BMIs (relative to those with higher BMIs) had higher FAS scores. These results support the notion that the FAS is measuring a common underlying construct across these national groups and respondent characteristics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.092

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBody ImageSame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207