Update and validation of the Beliefs about Losing Control Inventory-II (BALCI-II): a psychometric investigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Beliefs about Losing Control Inventory (BALCI) was developed to assess negative beliefs about losing control in obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). Since its creation, research and theoretical work support negative beliefs about losing control as a potential transdiagnostic construct. The present study revised and expanded the original BALCI to be more inclusive of control-related concerns beyond those that would be expected in OCD (e.g. concerns about losing control over how one comes across to others in social anxiety disorder; SAD). Undergraduate students (N = 440) completed a questionnaire battery including the BALCI-II item pool. An exploratory factor analysis of the 32-item BALCI-II supported a four-factor solution. Three of the identified factors capture the feared consequences of losing control: 1) overwhelming emotions, 2) dangerous behaviour, and 3) madness. The fourth factor captures inflated beliefs about probability/severity of those losses. The BALCI-II was found to have good convergent and divergent validity, good to excellent internal, and retest reliability and was shown to have predictive utility in both OCD and SAD, above and beyond existing disorder-specific maladaptive belief domains. Results suggest the BALCI-II is an improvement over the previous version and supports the relevance of these beliefs beyond OCD.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".