MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1755495547 · doi:10.1080/13607863.2015.1051511

Short STAI-Y anxiety scales: validation and normative data for elderly subjects

2015· article· en· W1755495547 on OpenAlexaff
Valérie Bergua, Céline Meillon, Olivier Potvin, Karen Ritchie, Christophe Tzourio, Jean Bouisson, Jean‐François Dartigues, Hélène Amieva

Bibliographic record

VenueAging & Mental Health · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Canadian institutionsInstitut Universitaire en Santé Mentale de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNormativeAnxietyPsychologyClinical psychologyScale (ratio)PsychiatryPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to develop short forms of the STAI-Y trait and state scales and associated norms suitable for the screening of anxiety in elderly populations. METHOD: This study was based on population-based cohorts of older persons from two epidemiological French studies that each included one subscale of the STAI-Y, i.e. state and trait anxiety scales. For both scales, the most discriminative items were retained and their factorial structure was examined using principal components analysis. Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) was estimated and cut-offs and norms were computed. RESULTS: A 10-item STAI-Y version produced scores similar to those obtained with the full form of the STAI-Y. The factorial structure of the shortened form is comparable to that of the full scales. Results showed good internal consistency (alpha coefficients were 0.92 and 0.85 for short STAI-Y state and trait scales, respectively). Moreover, both short STAI-Y state and trait scales correctly classified 88% of the participants using a cut-off point of 23. Norms for both short trait and state anxiety scales are provided according to age, gender, educational level and depressive symptoms. CONCLUSION: Both shortened scales have similar factorial structure and internal consistency to the longer scales and classify anxious/non-anxious elderly with acceptable accuracy. The shorter form is likely to be more acceptable to elderly persons through reduction of fatigue effects.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.129
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations47
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAging & Mental HealthSame topicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesFrench-language works237,207