PCI Registered Reports

Announcements

We are recruiting recommenders (editors) from all research fields!

Your feedback matters! If you have authored or reviewed a Registered Report at Peer Community in Registered Reports, then please take 5 minutes to leave anonymous feedback about your experience, and view community ratings.

Back

419

Title

Test-Retest Reliability of the STRAQ-1: A Registered Reportuse asterix (*) to get italics

Authors

Olivier Dujols; Richard A. Klein; Siegwart Lindenberg; Hans IJzermanPlease use the format "First name initials family name" as in "Marie S. Curie, Niels H. D. Bohr, Albert Einstein, John R. R. Tolkien, Donna T. Strickland"

Year

2023

Picture

Abstract

<p>This Registered Report provides the first test of measurement invariance across time points and estimates of test-retest reliability for the Social Thermoregulation, Risk Avoidance Questionnaire (STRAQ-1, Vergara et al., 2019). The scale was developed and validated to understand the physiological drives underlying interpersonal bonding, measured by four constructs: the desire to socially regulate one’s temperature, the desire to solitary regulate one’s temperature, the sensitivity to higher temperatures, and the desire to avoid risk. Previous studies with large samples across 12 countries showed that the STRAQ-1 has a stable factorial structure, satisfying internal consistencies for the temperature subscales, and expected correlations in its nomological network. However, to date, this instrument has no estimates of test-retest reliability. Throughout four academic years (from 2018 to 2021), N = 184 French student participants took the STRAQ-1 at least two times. Out of the four STRAQ-1 subscales, X were longitudinally [non-invariant/invariant]  across two-time points. The constructs and latent scores were thus [dissimilar/similar]  and [incomparable/comparable]  across time. We then conducted test-retest reliability using Intra Class Correlation coefficient (ICC) for the Social Thermoregulation, Solitary Thermoregulation, High-Temperature Sensitivity, and Risk Avoidance subscales. ICCs estimates were respectively for agreement and consistency: XX, XX overall [excellent/good/moderate/poor] , XX, XX overall [excellent/good/moderate/poor], XX, XX overall [excellent/good/moderate/poor], and XX, XX overall [excellent/good/moderate/poor], respectively. We discuss our findings in regard to the relatively long time between the repeated measure (minimum one year).</p>

Indicate the full web address (DOI or URL) giving public access to these data (if you have any problems with the deposit of your data, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org).

You should fill this box only if you chose 'All or part of the results presented in this preprint are based on data'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Indicate the full web address (DOI or URL) giving public access to these scripts (if you have any problems with the deposit of your scripts, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org).

You should fill this box only if you chose 'Scripts were used to obtain or analyze the results'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Indicate the full web address (DOI, SWHID or URL) giving public access to these codes (if you have any problems with the deposit of your codes, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org).

You should fill this box only if you chose 'Codes have been used in this study'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Keywords

Test-Retest, Longitudinal Measurement Invariance, Attachment Theory, Social Thermoregulation, Registered Report

Methods that require specific expertise (optional)

NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).

Thematic fields

Social sciences

Suggested reviewers - Suggest up to 10 reviewers (provide names and Email addresses). (Optional)

No need for them to be recommenders of PCI Registered Reports. Please do not suggest reviewers for whom there might be a conflict of interest. Reviewers are not allowed to review preprints written by close colleagues (with whom they have published in the last four years, with whom they have received joint funding in the last four years, or with whom they are currently writing a manuscript, or submitting a grant proposal), or by family members, friends, or anyone for whom bias might affect the nature of the review - see the code of conduct

Opposed reviewers - Suggest up to 5 people not to invite as reviewers. (Optional)

e.g. John Doe [john@doe.com]

Submission date

2023-03-01 16:07:17

Recommender

Moin Syed

Reviewers

or Register
Submit a report

Announcements

MANAGING BOARD

MEMBER OF

INDEXED BY