MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7111968723

Validation and factor structure of the Highly Sensitive Person Scale – Canadian French version and associations with personality and mental health

2025· preprint· W7111968723 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) · 2025
Typepreprint
Language
FieldPsychology
TopicAdventure Sports and Sensation Seeking
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPersonalityBig Five personality traitsMental healthTraitConfirmatory factor analysisConcurrent validityScale (ratio)Psychometrics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Highly Sensitive Person Scale (HSPS) measures Sensory Processing Sensitivity, a trait capturing individual differences in environmental sensitivity. This study of 186 young adults aimed to (1) validate and examine the factor structure of a Canadian French translation of the HSPS, (2) test associations with personality traits and mental health symptoms, and (3) investigate the moderating role of sex. Confirmatory factor analyses supported correlated two- and three-factor models. Path analyses showed that the HSPS subfactors were differentially associated with personality and mental health outcomes. Aesthetic Sensitivity was associated with more positive features of personality and mental health, whereas Ease of Excitation and Low Sensory Threshold were associated with more negative features. Sex moderated associations between HSPS subfactors and lack of perseverance, negative urgency, sensation seeking and prosocial behaviour, with stronger effects in males. The scale demonstrated good psychometric properties, supporting the validity of the Canadian French version.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.205
Threshold uncertainty score0.412

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsyArXiv (OSF Preprints)Same topicAdventure Sports and Sensation SeekingFrench-language works237,207