Development and validation of the Closure and Resolution Scale (CRS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research comprises three studies centered on the development and validation of a self-report measure of psychological closure and resolution, the Closure and Resolution Scale (CRS). Study 1 used exploratory factor analysis (EFA) in two samples to probe the factor structure for closure using original (Study 1a N = 284) and revised (Study 1b N = 158) item pools. Study 2 (N = 159) examined model fit using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and revealed a good-fitting simple structural solution. The CRS consists of 34 items assessing six facets of event resolution: (1) finality, (2) understanding, (3) felt distance, (4) emotional relief, (5) mental release, and (6) behavioural deactivation. Study 3 (N = 182) examined convergent and discriminant validity for the CRS and provided evidence of construct validity. Participants resided in North America and primarily identified as White (68.7%−77.5%), male (44.3%−59.3%) or female (40.1%−55.7%), with post-secondary education (69.3%−71.7%). We offer a novel measure of psychological closure and resolution with preliminary evidence of good psychometric properties.
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 | 0.012 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".