Structured Assessment of Mental Health Status in Psychogeriatrics: Validity of the French HoNOS65+
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the reliability, validity, and feasibility of a French version of the Health of the Nation Outcome Scales for Elderly People (HoNOS65+). METHOD: Twenty mental health professionals completed the scale for 126 elderly patients. We assessed interrater reliability in inpatient and outpatient settings, together with construct and discriminant validity, as well as concurrent validity compared with several widely used clinical instruments. RESULTS: Excellent agreement among raters was observed in the outpatient subgroup (kappa range 0.77 to 1.00), whereas interrater reliability was modest in the inpatient subgroup (kappa values < 0.55). In cases where the patient-caregiver relationship lasted more than 1 month, the reliability of the scale improved. Construct validity analysis revealed no subscale structure. All items except "self-injury" displayed high concurrent validity (significant Spearman correlations with 8 other questionnaires). In terms of discriminant validity, the "cognitive impairment" (area under the curve [AUC] 0.91) and "depressive symptoms" (AUC 0.79) items showed high sensitivity and specificity values. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that the French version of HoNOS65+ is a promising clinical assessment tool to evaluate mental disorders in the elderly in outpatient settings. We support its use in routine clinical practice, with the condition that a relatively long and individualized patient-caregiver relationship has been established.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".