Shortening Psychological Scales: Semantic Similarity Matters
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
In this study, we proposed a novel scale abbreviation method based on sentence embeddings and compared it to two established automatic scale abbreviation techniques. Scale abbreviation methods typically rely on administering the full scale to a large representative sample, which is often impractical in certain settings. Our approach leverages the semantic similarity among the items to select abbreviated versions of scales without requiring response data, offering a practical alternative for scale development. We found that the sentence embedding method performs comparably to the data-driven scale abbreviation approaches in terms of model fit, measurement accuracy, and ability estimates. In addition, our results reveal a moderate negative correlation between item discrimination parameters and semantic similarity indices, suggesting that semantically unique items may result in a higher discrimination power. This supports the notion that semantic features can be predictive of psychometric properties. However, this relationship was not observed for reverse-scored items, which may require further investigation. Overall, our findings suggest that the sentence embedding approach offers a promising solution for scale abbreviation, particularly in situations where large sample sizes are unavailable, and may eventually serve as an alternative to traditional data-driven methods.
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 | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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