Factorial structure and measurement invariance of the Italian version of the Cooper – Norcross Inventory of Preferences (C-NIP)
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 There is increasing evidence that psychotherapy efficacy can be enhanced by accommodating clients’ preferences regarding their role, the treatment, and the therapist. Several instruments are available to measure these concepts, although only the Cooper-Norcross Inventory of Preferences (C-NIP) appears particularly suitable for psychotherapy. This study aimed to validate the Italian version of the C-NIP and to provide norms for both clinical and research use for Italian-speaking individuals. We adopted a multi-step procedure to translate the C-NIP into Italian. Then, 1084 (70.3% females; M age = 27.22 ± 11 years) Italian adults completed an online survey. Psychometric properties of both the original C-NIP and a revised, 15-item, five-scale version of this questionnaire were analysed through a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), McDonald’s omega coefficients, mean inter-item correlations, measurement invariance, and Pearson correlations. The Italian translation of the original version of the C-NIP scales did not show good psychometric properties. However, the CFA on a revised factorial structure of the C-NIP evidenced adequate fit to the data. We found good support for the unidimensionality of all scales, but only one of the scales demonstrated an acceptable internal consistency. Measurement invariance was confirmed across both patient sex and across individuals who were and were not in psychotherapy. Results showed that the revised version of the C-NIP has satisfactory factorial structure for use with Italian adults. More research is needed to investigate how preferences vary over time and in relation to psychopathologies and client 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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it