Psychometric Evaluation of Six DASS-21 Short Forms for Male Survivors
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
Purpose This study evaluated six abbreviated versions of the DASS-21 in adult male survivors of sexual abuse to identify valid, reliable, and efficient tools for trauma-informed assessment. Method Secondary data from 534 male survivors were analyzed using confirmatory factor analysis to assess model fit, reliability, and construct validity. Results All forms showed acceptable reliability ( α ≥ .70). After modification, all models fit the data well. The two-factor DASS-10 was statistically superior (CFI = .996, RMSEA = .025, nonsignificant χ ²). The three-factor DASS-12a also demonstrated excellent fit (CFI = .987, RMSEA = .040) and met all convergent validity criteria (all AVEs ≥ .50). Discriminant validity between anxiety and stress was not supported. Discussion The DASS-12a is the most sound three-factor option, while the D-10 offers a more robust, two-factor measure of general distress ideal for rapid screening. Generalizability is limited.
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 | 0.022 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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