Preliminary reliability study of the affective lability scale adapted for adolescents in a francophone clinical population.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: to study the reliability of a self-questionnaire on adolescent affective instability, within a francophone clinical population. METHOD: After reviewing the literature and consulting experts, the Affective Lability Scale (ALS), developed by Harvey and collaborators (1989), was selected. An anglophone and francophone version, adapted for the adolescent population, was developed. The final version includes 54 questions, divided into six sections, which examine the affective variations between euthymia, on the one hand, and depression, elation, and anxiety, on the other, and also examine the affective variations between anxiety and depression, and between depression and elation. The francophone version was the subject of a reliability study. A total of 43 francophone adolescents (48.8% male, 51.2% female; median age=14.86 years) took part in the comprehension and reliability study. RESULTS: All questions were assigned a comprehension rate per item (CRI)>0.60 as evaluated by inter-rater agreement (median kappa=0.85). The median CRI is very satisfactory (0.88, SD=0.14). The internal consistency, determined by Cronbach coefficients, is elevated for each section and for the entire instrument (0.87 to 0.95). The temporal stability at three weeks is satisfactory, with an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for the entire scale of 0.89 (confidence interval of 95%=0.75 to 0.95) and section's ICCs ranging between 0.72 and 0.89. CONCLUSION: This initial reliability data supports interest in the ALS as a means to evaluate a global level of affective lability, during the euthymic phase, among francophone adolescents in an in-patient psychiatric unit. A future study with a larger sample will make it possible to confirm these initial results and examine the factorial structure of the instrument.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".