Submit a report


Please note: To accommodate reviewer and recommender holiday schedules, we will be closed to submissions from 1st July — 1st September. During this time, reviewers will be able to submit reviews and recommenders will issue decisions, but no new or revised submissions can be made by authors. The one exception to this rule is that authors using the scheduled track who submit their initial Stage 1 snapshot prior to 1st July can choose a date within the shutdown period to submit their full Stage 1 manuscript.

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.



Test-Retest Reliability of the STRAQ-1: A Registered Reportuse asterix (*) to get italics
Olivier Dujols, Siegwart Lindenberg, Caspar J. van Lissa, 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"
<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 2022), <em>N</em> = 183 French student participants took the STRAQ-1 at least two times. Out of the four STRAQ-1 subscales, four were longitudinally non-invariant across two-time points. The constructs and latent scores were thus dissimilar and incomparable 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: .70, .70 overall moderate to good, .62, .62 overall moderate, .67, .67 overall moderate, and .53, .53 overall poor to moderate, respectively. We discuss our findings in regard to the relatively long time between the repeated measures.</p> <p>Keywords: Test-Retest, Longitudinal Measurement Invariance, Attachment Theory, Social Thermoregulation, Registered Report</p>
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://
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://
You should fill this box only if you chose 'Codes have been used in this study'. URL must start with http:// or https://
Test-Retest, Longitudinal Measurement Invariance, Attachment Theory, Social Thermoregulation, Registered Report
NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).
Social sciences
Kateryna Keefer [] suggested: Geoff Navara, 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
e.g. John Doe []
2024-01-11 16:01:41
Moin Syed